Archaeological excavations were conducted at Alişar Höyük in central Turkey from 1927 to 1932 by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The six years of investigation uncovered evidence that indicated the mound had been occupied intermittently from at least the Early Bronze Age through the modern Turkish period. The premature cessation of excavations at the site, however, left many issues unresolved, a situation that has bedeviled Anatolian specialists up to the present day.
Foremost among the problems left unsettled by the Oriental Institute excavations was the question of whether a Late Bronze II settlement (1400–1200 B.C.) had existed at the site, an issue that was raised by the discovery at Alişar of cuneiform tablets written in the Old Assyrian script that referred to a town called Amkuwa, known also from Hittite texts as Ankuwa. On the basis of these references, scholars were quick to associate Amkuwa/Ankuwa with Alişar. The problem with this equation is that, on the one hand, a Hittite text dating to the reign of Hittite king Ḫattušili III makes it clear that Ankuwa was occupied in the LB II.
1 The results of the Alişar excavations are published by the Oriental Institute in two forms. Preliminary reports appear in the Oriental Institute Communications monographs (OIC) while final reports were published as part of the Oriental Institute Publications (OIP) series. See von der Osten, H. H., Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, OIC 2, Chicago, 1927: Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1927–28, OIC 6, Chicago 1929; Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1929, OIC 8, Chicago, 1930; The Alişar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930–32, OIP 28, Part 1, Chicago, 1937; The Alişar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930–32, Part 2, OIP 29, Chicago, 1937; Explorations in Central Anatolia: Season of 1926, OIP 5 (Researches in Anatolia 1), Chicago, 1939. von der Osten, H. H. and Schmidt, E. F.. The Alishar Höyük: Season 1927 Part 1, OIP 6, Chicago, 1930, The Alişar Hüyük Season of 1927, Part 2, OIP 7, Chicago, 1932; von der Osten, H. H., Martin, R. A., and Morrison, J. A., Discoveries in Anatolia 1930–31, OIC 14, Chicago, 1933; Schmidt, E., Anatolia through the Ages: Discoveries at Alishar Mound 1927–29p, OIC 11, Chicago, 1931; The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929, Part 1, OIP 19, Chicago, 1932. Gelb, I. J., Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity (OIP, 27), Chicago, 1935.
2 See discussion on Alişar-Ankuwa in Gorny, R., Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990, pp. 395–436.
3 KUB 15 I rev. iii 17–21; cf. Ünal, A., “Nochmals zur Geschichte und Lage der hethitischen Stadt Ankuwa,” SMEA 24 (1984): 101.
4 M. Francipane and A. Palmieri, “Clay Sealings from A206 (Building IV)” and “Clay Sealings from A77”, in Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–83 Campaigns, Origini XII (1983): 414–153, Figs. 67–68 and Fig. 78.2; Also cf. Ferioli, P. and Fiandra, E., “Clay Sealings from Arslantepe VIA: Administration and Bureaucracy”, Origini XII (1983): 455–509.
5 See for instance Edith Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals in North American Collections (Wash. D.C.: Bollingen Foundation, 1948), Vol. I, p. 1; Porada, Edith, Ancient Art in Seals (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 1–30; Buchanan, Briggs, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981).
6 The number of Hittite cylinder seals from the southeastern part of present day Turkey indicates that they did enjoy some popularity in that part of the Hittite realm. See Beckman, Gary, “A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Babylonian Collection”, AnSt 36 (1986): 129–35 for a discussion of the known Hittite cylinder seals and cylinder seal impressions.
7 This is clearly shown, not only in the Alişar Höyük glyptic corpus, but also in the finds from other central Anatolian sites. See for instance, Alp, Sedat, Zylinder-und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series 5, no. 23, 1968).
8 See Güterbock, H. G., “Seals and Sealing in Hittite Lands”, in From Athens to Gordion, Fs, Rodney Young, ed. by De Vries, Keith,, 1980, pp. 51–7 for a general overview of Hittite gylptic practices, and Beran, Thomas, Die Hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy, WVDOG 76 (Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1967) for a more detailed look at Hittite seals and impressions from the Hittite capital.
9 See Hogarth, D. G., Hittite Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1920. Here he discusses the following types—handless types: (1) conoids, (2) scaraboids, (3) gables, (4) hemispheroids, (5) tabloids, and (6) Bullae; handled types (1) stalks, (2) loops, (3) knobs, (4) tripods, and (5) hammers.
10 See The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe, Ankara, 1971; “New Light on the Dating of the Levels of the Karum of Kanish and of Acemhöyük near Aksaray”, AJA 72 (1968): 317–19; Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series V, no. 25, 1968; “Samsat Mühürleri”, Belleten 51 (1987): 429–39 and “Seal Impressions from Acemhöyük, in Porada, Edith, Ancient Art in Seals, p. 70 ff.
11 See Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals in North American Collections, Wash. B.C.: Bollingen Foundation, 1948; “On the Problem of Kassite Art”, in Herzfeld Fs, 1952, 184–7; and Ancient Art in Seals, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
12 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša XIV (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987).
13 Mora, C., La Glittica Anatolica del II Millennio A. C: Classificazione Tipologica, Studia Mediterranea 6. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano editore, 1987.
14 Boysan, N., Marazzi, M., and Nowicki, H., Sammlung Hieroglyphischer Siegel, Würzburg: Verlag Dr. Johannes Königshausen und Dr. Thomas Neuman, 1983.
15 Cf. Woolley, L., LAAA 26 (1940): 18, n. 2; Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22; See also Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 1.
16 For a good summary of the use of bullae in ancient Syria and Babylon see the study by Rostovtzeff, M., Sleeked Babylon: Bullae and Seals of Clay with Greek Inscriptions, Reprint from Yale Classical Studies, 1932.
17 For amulets and pendants see Hogarth, , Seals, 87, and Jakovidis, , “An Inscribed Mycenaean Amulet”, Kadmos 3 (1964): 149–55; for Hogarth's description of Ashmolean “Bullae” see Seals, pp. 22–3, 89–90, 87–91, Pl. X no. 308–36, figs. 313–36, 46–8.
18 Güterbock, Hans, Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 1.
19 See Neve, P., AA (1986): 378.
20 Buchanan, B., “Five Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals”, JCS 21 (1969): 18–23.
21 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša XIV (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987), pp. 65–9.
22 Mora's analysis lead her to date the biconvex seals to the end of the 13th and beginning of the 12th centuries, pp. 166 and 337.
23 In some cases the names on both sides of the seal are identical, while at other times the names are different. Some seals have the names of a man and a woman on the respective sides, and as Güterbock has pointed out, it can be assumed that these represent the names of men and their wives. A woman may also possess a seal of her own (cf. Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, pp. 56–7).
24 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22.
25 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27, seals nos. 72, 73?, 74?, and 89.
26 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27, seals nos. 72, 73, 81 and 91.
27 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27, seal no. 76.
28 With regard to this diversity within the Alişar corpus, see below, pp. 12–15.
29 See Schaeffer, C. F. A. on this discovery in “Materiaux pour L'Étude des Relations Entre Ugarit et Hatti”, in Ugaritica III, p. 55 and Fig. 88, p. 63, and Gonnet, H., “Un Sceau Hittite inédit: AO 29395”, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Özgüç, Fs. T., 1989, 153–4, Pl. 37, 1a–1b. There is also one example of a bronze biconvex seal with its “metal loop” still in place. See Bittel, K., “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy im Jahre 1968”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 101 (1969): 8–9, fig. 4. For similarly made hemispheroids with the “metal loop” mountings, see Masson, E., Syria 52 (1975): 215–26, fig. 1 p. 231, and p. 220, fig. 7 p. 232; Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, p. 52 and p. 60 fig. 5; and Poette, M., “Sigilli et iscrizioni in Luvio Geroglifico”, La Collezione Borowski, StudiaMed 3 (1981): 24–25, Pl. XVIA-XVIB.
30 For second examples see Gonnet, H., “Un Sceau Hittite inédit: AO 29395”, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Özgüç, Fs. T., 1989, 153–4, Pl. 37, 1a–1b; cf. above, p. 324, n. 16.
31 Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs. p. 57.
32 Garstang, J. claims that one such seal was made of ivory (“Notes on a Journey through Asia Minor,” LAAA 1 (1908): 1–47 and Pl. XIV fig. 1.). This is not the case, however, as Hogarth identifies the material as a rare white serpentine (Hogarth, , Seals, pp. 89, 90).
33 Personal communication.
34 See Hogarth, , Seals, pp. 94–5 (he does indicate here, however, that they may actually run a little later. This seems to be based on his assumptions about the seals from Carchemish, Deve Höyük, and Tell Basher).
35 Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, p. 56; also see Werner, , Revue hittite et asianique 54 (1952): 15–18; Poetto, , Studia Mediterranean (1981): pp. 24–7, Pl. XV–XX; Dinçol, and Dinçol, , “Zwei Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel im Elaziğ Musuem”, Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschungen 9 (1983): 290–1, Pl. 2, fig. 2a–b; and note 13 below.
36 Ward, W. Hayes, “Some Hittite Seals”, AJA IX (1899): 361–5, Pl. XV fig. 3; Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22, OIP 29, p. 414.
37 This particular seal was found in Neo-Hittite level IX and has two flat sides, each of which is inscribed with a linear design. Side B seems to be a stylized animal (Özgüç, N., “Samsat Mühürleri”, Belleten 51 (1987): 436, Figure 12.). Interestingly, however, the flat edge has two preserved grooves which are uncharacteristic of the seals from this class. Its placement in our schema is problematic and engenders several questions. Does it date to the level in which it was found and therefore indicate a continuity with earlier traditions? Or, could it be a survival from an earlier period which shows a combination of the two traditions in this area at an early point in their syncretism? At present we are not equipped to answer these questions. It is to be hoped that more seals of this type will be found, either at Samsat or in neighbouring areas.
38 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 23; Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs., p. 52; Boehmer and Güterbock, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Pl. XXVIII, no. 228.
39 See for instance, the original publication of a biconvex seal from Tarsus discussed by Goldman, Hetty in “Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1935”, AJA 39 (1935): p. 535 and n. 1.
40 Hogarth set his lower limit for these seals in the seventh century B.C., see Seals, pp. 89–90.
41 OIP 30, pp. 450–1.
42 OIP 29, p. 289.
43 Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 49.
44 See von der Osten, H. H., “Die anatolischen Siegel”, Altorientalische Siegelsteine der Sammlung Hans Sivius von Aulock (Uppsala: Almquist und Wiksells Boktryckeri AB, 1957), p. 46.
45 See Laroche, , Les hiéroglyphes hittites I, Sign 386 (on Alişar Höyük seals 67, 70, 75, and 83), pp. 206–7.
46 See “The Late Hieroglyphic Luwian Corpus: Some New Lexical Recognitions”, in Hethitica 8 (1987): 269.
47 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65.
48 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65.
49 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65. Also see Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 49; For Alişar seals of this category see Gelb, , OIP 27, seals 71, 74, 82, 85, and 87.
50 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 91. Note, however, that Moorey, P. R. S. claims an earlier date for these biconvex seals in Cemeteries of the First Millennium B. C. at Deve Hüyük near Carchemish, salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, London: BAR International Series, no. 87, 111, pp. 463–4.
51 For current list of 19 biconvex and related seals see Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, 1987, pp. 65–9, nos. 183, 184–7, 194–7, 204–13. Three new biconvex seals from the Upper City are discussed by Neve, P. in AA (1985): 338; AA (1986): 378. For earlier discussions see Beran, T., Boğazköy III, pp. 42–56, Plate 31 no. 26. See also Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57 for flat sided geometric-naturalistic style seals; Güterbock, , Boğazköy V, pp. 68–75 nos. 35–40; Güterbock, , StudiaMed 1 (1979): 239–40 and 244–5.
52 Also to be published by Ali and Belkıs Dinçol. See “Neue Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Ankara und Mersin”, Akkadica 45 (1985): p. 33; See also Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, 1987.
53 See Koşay, H. and Akok, M., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940–1948, 1966, Pl. 32:1 52, f 156 and 1 75; Koşay, H., TAD XIII (1965): 68 and 88, Pl. 6 n. 175; Koşay, H., TAD XIV (1965): 169, 213 A1. P. 52; and Dinçol, , “Bir Alacahöyük Mühürünün Okunuşu Hakkinda”, JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61.
54 Özgüç, Tahsin, Maşat Höyük II, pp. 117–18, and Pl. 58: 5a-c.
55 Özgüç, Tahsin, Kültepe and its Vicinity in the Iron Age (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayıınları, Series 5, no. 29, 1971), pp. 84, Pl. XXIX, 2a-b. The fact that settlement seems to have ended at Kültepe with the cessation of the Old Assyrian Colony period would suggest that this seal is out of place at Kültepe and, based on the Alişar examples, could not be dated to the Late Bronze Age. However, the seal was either dated to the 14th century (E. Akurgal, Kunst und Kultur der Hethiter: Eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Kunstrates, no. 164), and Özgüç himself believes that it is earlier than the Alişar examples. The explanation of this problem may have something to do with a collection of Hittite text that mentions a group of individuals known as the “singers of Kaneš”. This group has perplexed scholars because Kaniš is mentioned nowhere else in the Hittite records of this period. Because the site is thought to be uninhabited after the Old Assyrian Colony Age, the group's existence has never been satisfactorily explained, (see Jakob-Rost, L., “Bemerkungen zum “Sänger von Kaneš”, Beitrzäge zur Sozialen Struktur des Alien Vorderasien, ed. Klengel, H., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1971, pp. 111–15; also see Forrer, E., ZDMG 76 (1922): 169 ff.) While they may have lived in Ḫattuša, it may be that “the singers of Kaniš” were part of a small community that continued to live at Kültepe, perhaps a necessity of the cult. In another Hittite text, the presence of 5 singers from Ankuwa are noted, perhaps presenting a parallel to the Kaniš singers and offering an explanation for the presence of the biconvex seal at Kültepe (Cf. KBO XXI 71.4 (HT 2 Rv. V 14).
56 To be published by Ali and Belkıs Dinçol. See Akkadica 45 (1985): p. 33.
57 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, fig. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see seals c 2168 (78), d 821 (79), e 1591 (87), e 1993 (89), e 270 (86), d 1840 (82), b 571 (73), 3100 (71), 3099 (70), a 385 (72), b 2225 (74), 3095 (69), c 700 (75), d 2128 (84), d 1881 (83), d 1361 (80), d 2587 (85), c 857 (76), and 3092 (68).
58 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, fig. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), 3100 (71), b 2225 (74), d 1840 (82), d 2587 (85), and e 1591 (87).
59 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, figs. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see seals 3095 (69), 3099 (70), 3100 (71?), c 700 (75), c 857 (76), c 2168 (78?), d 821 (79), d 1840 (82?), d 1881 (83), d 2128 (84), e 270 (86?), and e 1591 (87?).
60 OIP 29, p. 416, fig. 477 (Gelb number from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see Alişar seal d 1361 (80).
61 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, figs. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see Alişar seals d 72, e 2294, c 625, d 1847, d 1517, e 1783, e 1645, and b 2675 (91).
62 OIP 29, p. 418, for plates see 416, fig. 477 (Gelb number from OIP 27 in parenthesis), d 1200 and p. 422.
63 See Mora, La Glittica Anatolica del II Millennio A. C. for latest attempts to decipher the inscriptions on the Alişar biconvex seals.
64 OIC 6, p. 6; OIP 29, p. 289.
65 See OIP 29, pp. 4–10, Figs. 47–9, 102–3, 107–8.
66 OIP 29, p. 289.
67 See my speculations in “Architecture and Stratigraphy: The Post Kārum Period”, (Chapter V) in Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Gorny, R., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990.
68 The idea that the citadel wall was originally built in pre-Phrygian period and reused by the Phrygians was first mentioned by Kurt Bittel, who excavated the mound for von der Osten, (OIP 29, 306). In OIP 29, 292, n. 13. he writes that:
“All these buildings contrast noticeably from the citadel wall. The latter, with its bastion and gateway, is, in execution and arrangement, witness to a much further advanced building technique than the poor buildings in the interior. The only explanation is that the fortifications of the Early Bronze Age (At this time Bittel used Early Bronze Age to indicate the early Hittite period—editor's note) was found standing by later settlers, who repaired it, added minor alterations in a few places, and re-used it.”
I am inclined to see the 4cM period wall in a similar light, but based on the association of the hieroglyphic biconvex seals with these walls, which gives a LB II date for their construction.
69 OIP 28, 10.
70 Meriggi, P., “Ritrovamenti Epigrafici Nella Campagna di Scavi 1962 a Malatya”, Oriens Antiquus 3 (1964): 45–9, Pl. LXXIV; Meriggi, P., “Sesto Viaggio Anatolico”, Oriens Antiquus 7 (1968): seals 10–12, 269–71, Pl. LXVIII; Meriggi, P., “Settimo Viaggio Anatolio”, Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969): seals 13–15, 131–39, Pl. XXIII-XXIV; Meriggi, P., “I Nuovi Sigilli di Malatya S 17–19”, SMEA 9 (1969): 25–31. The site was probably known in ancient times as Melid, Maldiya, or Mal(i)tiya (See RGTC 6, p. 257).
71 See for example the seals from the 1968 campaign at Malatya in Meriggi, , “Nuovi Sigilli Di Malatya S 17–20”, SMEA 9 (1969): 25–31.
72 For seals from the cremation cemetry at Deve Höyük see Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, pp. 89–90. Also see Moorey, P. R. S., Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük near Carchemish, salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, London: BAR International Series, no. 87, 111, 463–4.
73 For Tell Basher see Hogarth, , Seals, p. 89, nos. 313, 314, 321.
74 For Carchemish seals see Woolley, L., Carchemish II, Pl. 25b, nos. 8–9; Carchemish III, p. 206, n. 2 and probably fig. 83; and Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, 1920, p. 89 where a biconvex seal is referred to as having been found in a 10th c. house.
75 Buchanan, B., JCS 21 (1967): 21, n. 16, and 22, n. 20.
76 Moorey, , Deve Hüyük, p. 111.
77 For pottery see 12, nos. 1–2. For seals see 105, no. 442 (Cappadocian) and no. 443 (Mitannian).
78 One must consider the possibility, however, that Late Bronze traditions continued longer in this area than on the plateau. See discussion below.
79 For possible survivals of the Late Bronze Age biconvex glyptic tradition at Hama see Riis, P., Hama II 3, 1948, p. 131, fig. 165 and p. 159, fig. 201A for biconvex seal from Hama Cemetery Period I (dated 1200–1075); also from Hama is a biconvex seal from Cemetery Period II dated 1075–925 (=Albright 1100–1000), p. 159, fig. 201B; also see Fugmann, E., Hama II 1, 1958, p. 200, fig. 245, 6A63 and 80 (p. 193).
80 Garstang, J., “Notes on a Journey Through Asia Minor”, LAAA 1 (1908): 11, Pl. XIV.
81 For biconvex seals now in museums of cities such as Adana and Malatya. See Dinçol, Ali, “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Adana, Hatay, und Istanbul”, JKF 9 (1983), 213–249, Pls. 1–35; Dinçol, Ali and Dinçol, Belkiş, Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen für Anatolische Zivilisationen, Ankara, 1981; “Zwei Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel im Elaziğ Museum”, JKF 9 (1983), 289–91; Akkadica 45 (1985), 33–40; “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Samsun, Gaziantep und Karamanmaraş”, JKF 10 (1986), 233–44, Pls. 1–8; “Unpublished Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals in the Regional Museum of Adana”, Hethitica VIII (1987), 81–93.
82 Note Beran's earlier descriptions of these seals in Boğazköy III, Pl. 31 no. 25, and in Boğazköy V pp. 68–75.
83 While the biconvex seals can only be said to have been found in the destruction debris in the vicinity of the temple area, there are many bullae which were found in the temple storerooms. Some were even found in the pithoi from those storerooms. See Boğazköy V, pp. 68–75.
84 Bittel, , Ḫattusha, p. 60; Neve, P., “Untersuchungen in der Altstadt”, MDOG 91 (1958): 8.
85 See Güterbock, , “Hieroglyphische Miszellen” StudiaMed 1 (1979): pp. 239–40 and pp. 244–5.
86 Beran, T., Boğazköy III, p. 55 no. 26, and Pl. 31 no. 26 (note that the years of the finds are designated by letters: 1952=k, 1953=l, 1954=m, and 1955=n).
87 Ibid., p. 56 no. 56 and 57, Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57.
88 Ibid., pp. 65–9, Pls. XX-XXVIII.
89 Ibid., p. 65.
90 Ibid., seals 184, 185, 186, 197, 204, 205, 206, 211?, 213.
91 Ibid., seals 194, 207, and 212.
92 Ibid., seals 195 and 208.
93 Ibid., seal 196.
94 Ibid., seal 210.
95 Ibid., seal 209.
96 Ibid., seals 195 and 208, seal impression nos. 192–3 and 200–1.
97 Ibid., seals 221, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, and 234.
98 Ibid., seals 218, 219, and 231.
99 Ibid., especially note seal 226, but also seals 221 and 227.
100 Gelb, , OIP 27, seal 69.
101 Private communication with the excavator. Also see Neve, P. in AA (1985): 338; AA (1986): 378.
102 In a letter dated June 17, 1990, Peter Neve writes that “We have hundreds of typically late biconvex seals or their stamps on bullas found in the Upper City (they will be published by A. and B. Dinçol within the next years). They all belong, so far as found in clear context, (to) the latest Hittite period, i.e. O. St. 4, which will mean, that they can't be Post Hittite. O. St. 4 on the other hand is well dated by written documents from Suppi(luliumma) II.”
103 By this I mean that the body of the seal is usually more finely fashioned, while the engravings are cleaner and more precisely cut. The designs are often more complex and the composition is usually better. In general, I would say that the Boğazköy seals display a finer aesthetic sense than those from Alişar.
104 See Koşay, H. and Akok, M., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940–1948, 1966, Pl. 32:1 52, f 156 and 175; Koşay, H., Türk Arkeoloji Dergesi 13 (1965): 68 and 88, Pl. 6 no. 175; Koşay, H., TAD 14 (1965): 169, 213 Al. P. 52; and Dinçol, , JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61.
105 Koşay, H., TAD 14 (1965): 169 and 213, fig. Al P 175; Dinçol, B., JKF 8 (1980): 61, figs. 1–2.
106 Compare this seal with nos. 184 and 185 from Boğazköy, (Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 75).
107 For Middle Kingdom seals with guilloche style decorations see Beran, T., Die Hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy, 9–61, Pls. 9 and 10 Also cf. Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, nos. 184–5, pp. 18, 31.
108 Koşay, H., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1937–1939, pp. 191–2, Pl. LXXVIII, fig. 3.
109 Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, nos. 184 and 185.
110 Özgüç, Tahsin, Maşat Höyük II, pp. 117–8, and Pl. 58: 5a-c. Note that at this time Özgüç has assigned five levels at Maşat Höyük to the Hittite period. There is a later sequence of three Phrygian levels which lies atop the levels from the Hittite era.
111 Ibid., 117.
112 See OIP 27, Pl. LVIII no. 91.
113 See Beran, T., Boğazköy III, Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57. Note, however, that these seals come from late levels at Boğazköy and would thus seem to be much later than the above mentioned seals from Maşat and the one from Alalakh.
114 Dinçol, A. and Dinçol, B., “Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Eskiyapar”, Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae, Fs Otten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 87–98.
115 Note, however, that the Alişar example seems to have a female indicator rather than the male indicator normally associated with Armaziti.
116 Cf. Dinçol, and Dinçol, , Akkadica 45 (1985): 33.
117 Wafler, Marcus, “Zu den Hieroglyphenluwischen Siegeln und Bullen vom Norşuntepe”, in Keban Project 1971 Activities (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1974), pp. 101 and Pl. 80:3; For the Hittite ceramics from this grave see Hauptmann, , Keban Project 1969 Activities, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1971), p. 83, Pl. 57 no. 4.
118 Esin, Ufuk, Keban Project 1969 Activities, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1971), p. 88, 123, fig. 1 no. T69–1457 and 69–607, 1971.
119 van Loon, , Korucutepe 3, p. 150 and Plate 49, nos. Q-R and S-T.
120 Ibid., pp. 43–64.
121 Güterbock, H., “Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impressions”, in van Loon, , Korucutepe 3, pp. 127–32, Plates 37–41.
122 Ibid., p. 127.
123 Ertem, H., Korucutepe 1: 1973–1975 kazı yıllarında ele geçen Erken Hitit-Impoaratorluk Çağı arası buluntuları, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series 5, no. 42, 1988), pp. 7–9, nos. 6–7.
124 H. Ertem, Korucutepe 1973–1975, nos. 8–9.
125 See Mellink, , AJA 89 (1985): and AJA 91 (1987): 11.
126 See “Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey”, AnSt 35 (1985): 195 and AnSt 36 (1986): 197.
127 Mellink, , AJA 91 (1987): 9. Summers, G. D. et al. , Tille Höyük IV, The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transition (Ankara 1993), Appendix 1, Pl. 28, nos. 5 and 6.
128 Tarsus 38.819, published by Gelb, I. J. in “Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals and Impressions”, in Goldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956), n. 48, p. 251, Pl. 403, 407; Also see photograph in Goldman, H., AJA 44 (1940): 83, fig. 47; Gelb, I. J., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, II, no. 57, p. 253, pl. 404, 408; photograph in Goldman, H., AJA 44 (1940): p. 75, fig. 31; Tarsus 36.1180, in Gelb, I. J., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II, no. 24, p. 249, Pl. 402, 406.
129 The region in which Tarsus is situated seems to have first been known as Adaniya and later as Kizzuwatna. Many Hittite kings campaigned in and through this area as control of the region was essential for Hittite domination of Syria. See Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940, and Beal, R., “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Šunaššura Treaty” Orientalia 55 (1986): 424–45.
130 Gelb, I. J.. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), 242–54; Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Plates), 246 ff., Plates 401–8.
131 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 244. See seals 2, 5, 6, 11, 44, 48, and 55.
132 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 247. Seal 5 which seems to have come from an Iron Age context.
133 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 243, 246.
134 See above, p. 5, n. 18.
135 Astour, M., “New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit”, AJA 69 (1969): 258.
136 Other seals of this type are known to have come from Minet-el-Beida, the port of Ugarit. See Schaeffer, C. F. A., Syria 12, (1931): Pl. IV:3 and Forrer, E., Syria 18 (1937): pp. 156–8.
137 Ugaritica III, p. 57 Fig. 80, 58 Fig. 81, 59 Fig. 83. For dating of the impressions see Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Statgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65.
138 L. Woolley, Alalakh, Pl. LXVII, fig. 153.
139 Barnett, R. D., Ant. Journal 19 (1939): pp. 33–5.
140 See above, pp. 24–5.
141 For Alişar examples see OIP 27, Pl. LVIII and seal 91 which also portrays a primitively developed style that has a well defined circular middle field with a minimum of signs and a well balanced naturalistic border design. Also compare OIP 29, fig. 478, p. 417, and seals d 72, e 2294, e 625, d 1847, d 1517, and e 1783 which also seem to fall into this early category of naturalistic double-sided and axled seals. For Alaca see TAD 13 (1965): 68, 88 Pl. 6 no. 175; TAD 14 (1967): 169, 213, no. Al. P. 175.
142 One might suggest that the sign on Alişar 91 is the same as a similar sign at Alaca Höyük called L434 by B. Dinçol. See JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61. For impressions from Boğazköy that are similar to these seals see Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 184 and 185.
143 Woolley, , Alalakh, 266–67, Pl. LXVII, nos. 155, 156, 157, and 159. There are also several related seals and impressions, especially seals no. 161–162 and seal impressions 154, 162, and 163.
144 Seal no. 159 comes from the topsoil, while 155 dates to levels I-II, no. 156 was found in level III, and no. 157 also came to light in levels I–II. By Woolley's dating level III ranges from 1370–1350, level II from 1350–1273, and level I from 1273–1194 (see page 395–9). For more recent work on the problems of the Alalakh chronology see Henriette-Gates, Marie, Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Reassessment, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4.2, (Malibu: Undena, 1981), and “Alalakh and Chronology Again”, High, Middle, or Low?, Astrom, Paul, ed., Gothenburg: Paul Astroms Förlag, 1987, pp. 60–88.
145 Woolley, , Alalakh, p. 398; note my insertion of the words “biconvex” and “Hittite” in this quotation as a means of clarification.
146 Loud, G., Megiddo II: The Seasons of 1935–39, Oriental Institute Publications 62, Chicago 1948, Plates, Pl. 162, no. 7 (level VII B). Also note Pl. 162, no. 2 which is a good example of our geometric type seal with a cross motif (level IV).
147 Singer, I., “A Hittite Seal Impression from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 4 (1977): 179–91.
148 Singer, I., “Takuḫlina and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek”, Tel Aviv 10 (1983): pp. 3–25.
149 Sürenhagen, D., “Ein Königssiegel aus Kargamis”, MDOG 118 (1986): 183, n. 2.
150 Hawkins, J. D., “Kuzi-Tešub and the ‘Great Kings' of Kargamis’,” AnSt 38 (1988): pp. 99–108.
151 Hawkins has not only established the existence of Kuzi-Tešub as the son of Talmi-Tešub, but established a clear link between Kuzi-Tešub and the previously mentioned Neo-Hittite kingdom of Melid (Arslantepe), Kuzi-Tešub being the grandfather of two Melidian kings. Thus, on the one hand, the seal adds an additional representative to a genealogical line that started with Šuppiluliuma's appointment of Piyaššili (=Šarri-Kušuḫ) as king of Carchemish. As such it would now include the latter's successors, X-Šarruma (possibly Šaḫurunuwa), Šaḫurunuwa, Ini-Tešup, and Talmi-Tešub. See also Güterbock, H. G., “Survival of the Hittite Dynasty”, in Ward, W. W. and Joukowski, M. S. (ed.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C., Dubuque, Iowa (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.), 1992, 53–55.
152 G. D. Summers et al., op. cit. (above, n. 27), with Appendices 1 and 2 by D. Collon and P. Kuniholm.
153 Mellink, , AJA, 91 (1987): 8.
154 On the Medinu Habu Inscription of year 8 in the reign of Ramesses III it states that
“… As for the foreign countries, they made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands (the Sea Peoples) were on the move, scattered in war. No country could stand before their arms. Hatti, Kode (Kizzuwatna), Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya. They were cut off. A camp was set up in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people and its land was like that which has never come into being …” (After Sandars, N. K., The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, p. 119).
The possibility that some Syrian or Levantine cities escaped relatively unscathed from the initial onslaught of the Sea Peoples probably means that Ramses' reference to Carchemish refers only to coastal territories which were under the direct rule of the Carchemish viceroy. If there was a brief incursion by the invaders into the interior it was not sustained by permanent occupation and/or settlement. The indications are that the region probably survived virtually intact, not succumbing until the Assyrian onslaught several hundred years later.
155 See Albright, , AJA 55 (1951): 106 f. for an earlier version of this viewpoint, especially as it relates to the city of Hama.
156 Albright, , AJA 55 (1951): 106 f.
157 Arnaud, , Emar-Meškene, p. 5.
158 See Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions II, pp. 82 and n. 107, and §95. See also Weidner who read the name mi-li in AfO 18, (1957–1958)6: 344 No. 128 ? 350 II 30 and is corrected by Landsberger in Sam'al 33 n. 67. Note Mufaddi, Abu Taleb Mahmud, Investigations in the History of North Syria, 1115–717 B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1973, pp. 4, 11, 18–19, 51, 60 n. 33, 61–2, 73, 76, 81, 127, n. 35 for information on the reign of this later Ini-Tešup, as well as Hawkins, D. “Hatti in the 1st Millennium”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4, 153, “Hittites and Assyrians”, Iraq 36 (1974): 70 ff., and “The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia”, CAH Volume III, Part 1, ed. Boardman, John, Edwards, I. E. S., Hammond, N. G. L., Sollberger, E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 380.
159 For possible survivals of the Late Bronze Age biconvex glyptic tradition at these sites see Riis, P., Hama II 3, 1948, p. 131, fig. 165 and p. 159, fig. 201A for biconvex seal from Hama Cemetery Period I (dated 1200–1075); also from Hama is biconvex seal from Cemetery Period II dated 1075–925 (=Albright 1100–1000), p. 159, fig. 201B; also see Fugmann, E., Hama II 1, 1958, p. 200, fig. 245, 6A63 and 80 (p. 193); and Woolley, L., Carchemish II, Pl. 25b, nos. 8–9; Carchemish III, p. 206, n. 2 and probably fig. 83; and Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, 1920, p. 89 where a biconvex seal is referred to as having been found in a 10th c. house.
160 Buchanan, JCS 21 (1967): p. 22.
161 This also holds true for other areas to the west and southwest of the Hittite core area. Hawkins has also indicated that the monuments of the Kizil Dağ/Kara Dağ group show indications of being earlier than once thought, perhaps as early as the 12th century. The ascription of the title “Great King” to Hartapus in these inscriptions may stem from his desire to lay claim to the title once held only by the king at Boğazköy, but vacant since the demise of that city. In a lecture delivered at the Oriental Institute on Dec. 7, 1989 Hawkins argued the inscription belonged to a group which was paleographically dated to the 12th century. The actual line-drawn figure of the king, on the other hand, was to be seen as a later addition that was fashioned around the already existing inscription (see also Bittel, K., “Hartapus and Kızıldağ”, in Ancient Anatolia (Essays… Mellink), (1986), pp. 103–111; Gonnet, H., “Nouvelles données archéologiques relatives aux inscriptions hiéroglyphiques de Hartapusa à Kizildağ”, in Archéologie et religions de l'Anatolie Ancienne 10 (Mél. Naster) (1984), pp. 119–25 (who advocates a late Empire date).
162 Based on Neve's dating of the levels on Büyükkale, Büyükkale, pp. 75–136.
163 See my dissertation, Alişar in the Second Millennium, B.C., University of Chicago, 1990, pp. 353–94.
164 Note that the Phrygian seals seem to be much different from their Hittite counterparts. See Boehmer, Rainer Michael, “Siegel phrygischer Zeit”, ZA 67 (1977): pp. 78–84, and Boehmer, Rainer Michael, “Weitere Siegel aus phrygischer Zeit”, ZA 68 (1978): pp. 284–92.
165 See Hawkins', J. D. discussion of this in “Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: Some New Evidence for the Connection”, Nachr. der Akad. Göttingen, I. Phil.-hist kl. 6 (1973): 154 (2.2). Here he notes that the early form of i/ya is ∩ whereas the later period witnesses a differentiation by the addition of a double stroke beneath the sibilant. ∩ continues to be used for i whereas is used for ia. A similar development is noted for zi/za (where represents the sign's early form while the later differentiation produces ↑ for zi and for za. The dividing line between early and late scripts is unclear, but the Hittite Empire period would certainly fall within this early group. For examples of the early use of ‘za’ see seals c 700 (Gelb 75), c 2168 (Gelb 78), and e 270 (Gelb 86).
166 See RŠ 17:248 and RŠ 18.70, Ugaritica III, p. 62, fig. 87; Laroche, Noms, Maššana-Ura, No. 774; Mora, Glittica, group XIIa 2.4, 283, Pl. 82.
167 See Laroche, , Noms, Armaziti, pp. 40–1, no. 141. For name Armaziti at Eskiyapar see A., and Dinçol, B., “Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Eskiyapar”, Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae, Fs Heinrich Otten, Wiesbaden: Verlag Otto Harrassowitz, 1988, p. 96 and Pl. 5.
168 See Laroche, , Noms, Armawiya, p. 40, no. 140; Mora, , Glittica, group XIIb 1.7, p. 303, Pl. 95.
169 For similar use of sign on seals see Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik, p. 66, no. 187, Pl. XXI, no. 187b. Also see Laroche, , Noms, Armapiya, p. 39, no. 135.
170 Besides the use of the scribal sign discussed above (L326), both Güterbock, (Siegel aus Boğazköy, II, p. 13) and Beckman, (“A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Collection”, AnSt 36 : 134) suggest that the jug sign (L345, 354) of seal impression 69 (and inscription 66) represents the office of the GAL.GEŠTIN “great one of the wine cellar”, or LÛ ŠSAQI, “cupbearer”. Laroche further suggests that sign L482 on Gelb 78 may also represent a functionary (Les hiéroglyphes hittites I, p. 478).
171 For a similar analysis see Mora, C., Oriens Antiquus 16 (1977): 179. For the Taki-Šarruma seals sees Ugaritica III, pp. 37–9, figs. 58–60.
172 The sign in its particular form is found on seals from several sites. Among the seals where this sign is attested are the following: From Ugarit (Ugaritica III, pp. 37–9, figs. 58–60); From Alişar (Gelb, Oriental Institute Publications 27, seal 72, perhaps seal 75; and from Korucutepe (Ertem, , Korucutepe I, p. 7, seal 6, and 7–8, seal 8).
173 Such an association with scribal personnel may be hypothesized, in part, by the large percentage of biconvex seals and impressions displaying the scribal sign (See, for instance, Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik, pp. 65–9, [seals] no. 184; [impressions] nos. 181, 187, 189, 193, 200, and 203.) This would be in keeping with the belief that the original popularity of the seal can be ascribed to its ability to accommodate two proper names. Such a capability may have been particularly attractive to scribes whose signature would have been needed on numerous cuneiform clay documents. Scribes, however, are probably only one of a number of professional people who might have taken advantage of the seal's unique character.
174 Neve, P., “Die Grabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 1990”, AA (1991): 332, Fig. 38; Mellink, , AA 96 (1992): 128.
175 OIP 19. p. 263, fig. 346.
176 For other examples see OIP 19, pp. 261–3 and fig. 346, b611. See also OIP 29, 418–20 and fig. 479, scarab b611. This assessment was confirmed by Bruce Williams with a strong caution that it could also appear as a copy in the 25th Dynasty.
177 See Grenell, Alice, “The Scarab Collection of Queen's College, Oxford”, JEA 2 (1915), 224, Plate XXXIII, no. 114; The same seal also cited in Hornung, E. and Stoeheli, E., Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen I (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1976), Pl. 109 no. B27.
178 Laroche, E., “Les Hieroglyphes de Meškene-Emar et le style “Syro-Hittite”, Akkadica 22 (1981): 5–14.
179 Laroche, E., “Matériaux pour L'Étude des Relations entre Ugarit et le Hatti”, Ugaritica III, 1956, 55–66, Figs. 40, 42, 43, 51, 53, 79, and 80–91.
180 Laroche, E., Akkadica 22 (1981): 5–14.
181 Goldman, , Tarsus II, p. 245 ff, Pls. 401–8.
182 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65.
183 Ibid. p. 65.
184 These include pieces of a spindle bottle (ASC nos. 395 and 396), 2 libation arm fragments (ASC no. 393), several platter fragments (ASC nos. 336–8, a cylindrical cup (ASC no. 339), the top of a regular sized pilgrim flask (ASC no. 359), the neck of a long-necked White Ware pilgrim flask (357, ASC no. 235), handles from two other White Ware pilgrim flasks (ASC nos. 358 and 360), and several pitchers with pointed bases (366, 367, and 368). For further discussion see R. Gorny, “The Pottery of the Post Kārum Period”, (Chapter IV) in Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990.
185 See discussion on Alişar-Ankuwa in Gorny Diss. Chapter VII, pp. 395–436.
186 Buchanan, , JCS 21 (1969).
187 See Wente, E. and van Siclen, C., “The Chronology of the New Kingdom”, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1977, pp. 217–61. Also see “Hittite Chronology” in Biblical Archaeologist 59 (1989): 88–9.
* This article is the outcome of a reevaluation of the Alişar materials I began as a graduate student at the Oriental Institute in 1982. Earlier versions of the ideas presented here were first offered at the AOS meeting at Chicago in March of 1987 and subsequently appeared as the basis for a chapter in my Ph.D. dissertation.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed