Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia
Claudia Glatz *
AHRC Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 June 2008
Revision received 13 October 2008
Available online 16 December 2008
Keywords:
Empire
Power
Inter-regional interaction
Hittite
Anatolia
Late Bronze Age
Pottery
Settlement patterns
Administrative technology
Landscape monuments
a b s t r a c t
Hegemonic dominance relationships and the limited intentional material expressions of imperial power
they usually encompass pose an interesting and well-known problem for the archaeology of early
empires. One way of approaching domination in the archaeological record is through the synthetic analysis
of different modes of imperial-local interaction at overlapping socio-political levels and spheres of
culture. In this paper, four material culture categories are considered with the aim of characterizing Hittite
imperial relationships in Late Bronze Age Anatolia and northern Syria. They include pottery traditions
and their degree of susceptibility for central influence, diachronic settlement developments, the distribution
of imperial administrative technology, and an ideological discourse carried out through landscape
monuments. From the spatial and chronological signatures of these overlapping networks of interaction,
a more nuanced understanding of the process of empire is beginning to emerge.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The evolution and manifestations of early empires have long
fascinated historians and archaeologists (e.g. Larsen, 1979; Alcock
et al., 2001). Political structure and particularly indirect or hegemonic
rule, however, unlike for instance economic interaction,
are perceived as hard to detect in the archaeological record due
to the difficulty of distinguishing between external and local
causes of culture change (Postgate, 1994, pp. 1–3; Smith and Montiel,
2001 for a general discussion). This, in addition to an abundant
textual-historical record, may partly explain the reluctance of
archaeologists working in Anatolia (Gorny, 1995, 2002) and the
Near East (Adams, 1979; Postgate, 1992, 1994; Matthews, 2003,
pp. 127–128 for an exception see Parker, 2003) to engage with this
subject. The problem, however, is not the nature or inadequacy of
the archaeological record, but the top–down manner in which indirect
political dependency, but also states and empires in general
(Smith, 2003), and their material manifestations are traditionally
conceptualized. One way of approaching empire from an archaeological
perspective is to conceptualize it in terms of what Michael
Mann described as ‘multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial
networks’ (1986: 1). Empire is both a relationship and a
process that underlie recurring episodes of individual and collective
interaction on a multitude of socio-political and cultural levels.
Material culture—from pottery to monumental architecture—is
formed by, expresses and mediates these relationships and articulates
the spectrum of possible modes of engagement. An archaeology
of imperial relationships is, thus, the investigation of
overlapping spatial and temporal patterns of material categories
that are diagnostic of inter-regional interaction. Through the
superimposition of the geographical and chronological patterns
of change and continuity in these aspects of the archaeological record
we can begin to gain an understanding of the different cultural,
political, economic and ideological relationships that
existed between a political and militarily central region and its surrounding
societies. This approach provides a more nuanced and
bottom–up perspective on the continuum of territorial and hegemonic
domination that has come to structure research into early
empires. It also allows us to compare the type and intensity of inter-regional
interaction specified in the textual sources with those
represented, or absent, in the archaeological record. In this paper, I
explore inter-regional relationships in the Hittite empire through
the comparative analysis of regional ceramic traditions, settlement
organization, the spatial and chronological distribution of northcentral
Anatolian administrative technologies, and landscape
monuments.
An archaeology of empire
An explicit archaeology of empire of this kind is still a relatively
recent and underexplored concept in early Anatolia (Steadman and
Gorny, 1995; Gorny, 1995). The Hittite empire in particular, is
known to us primarily through its textual sources (Fig. 1). Hittite
0278-4165/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.10.003
* Fax: +44 0 20 7383 2572.
E-mail address: claudia.glatz@ucl.ac.uk
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
state formation and subsequent episodes of expansion and retraction
from the central Anatolian plateau commencing around 1650
BC were the defining socio-political processes in Anatolia during
the Late Bronze Age (LBA). From this highland region, early kings
mounted military excursions into the south and west of Turkey,
Syria and upper Mesopotamia. Efforts to integrate more effectively
regions at some distance to the central Anatolian heartland are
most evident in the 14th and 13th centuries BC. While expansion
relied on military strength and its persuasive threat, measures of
integration, as far as the textual record is concerned, concentrated
on indirect strategies in the form of vassal treaties and their associated
tribute demands, as well as on directly controlled strategic
nodes.
Two issues are important with regard to the Hittite and other
relevant LBA documentary sources. The first concerns the limitations
of the Hittite records themselves in terms of the range of represented
subject matters and their suitability for the analysis of
imperial-local relationships. The majority of Hittite texts stem
from archival contexts closely related to the state apparatus and
fall within a limited set of categories consisting of political texts
and diplomatic/administrative correspondence, historiographic
works, documents relating to cult activities of various kinds and
a legal code. Exceedingly rare are texts dealing explicitly with economic
matters such as trade, the ownership, distribution and
transfer of property, or with administrative hierarchies and procedures
(e.g. van den Hout, 2006). As a consequence, the economic
structure and processes of administration are understood in outlines
only in the central region itself. The second concerns the geographical
restriction of substantial LBA text-finds to the central
Anatolian plateau (Bog˘azköy-Hattusa, Masßat-Tapikka, OrtaköySapinuwa,
and Kusßaklı-Sarissa). Additional LBA textual evidence
comes from Syrian sites such as Ras Shamra-Ugarit, Atchana-Alalakh,
and Meskene-Emar, and from outside the Hittite sphere of
effective control. Whether through accidents of preservation or
real absences, large parts of potentially Hittite controlled Anatolia
have no textual voice of their own.
In this way, the selective perspective provided by the textual record
of Hittite strategies of control and degrees of integration,
although vital for an understanding of the overall structuring of
domination in specific areas, cannot a priori be taken as representative
of the totality of inter-polity relationships within and beyond
the Hittite empire. Moreover, the high political and, at the
same time, basic military level of interaction suggested in the most
prominent documentary sources, forcibly leaves open a whole array
of key questions concerning the practical intricacies and range
of variation in imperial policies, their local mechanisms of implementation
as well as their implications for the socio-economic
organization and the cultural identities of surrounding societies.
In short, we lack detailed information about the configuration of
imperial relationships and their development over time.
Imperial relationships, by-and-large, are characterized by the
degree and kind of domination the centre polity chose or was able
to exert over surrounding regions. But imperialism, like all powerrelationships,
is a dialectical process. Subordinate societies have
access to various means of resistance (Miller and Tilley, 1984,
p. 7; Kohl, 1987, pp. 21–22; Glatz, 2009); imperial cores are neither
entirely omnipotent, nor does the relationship have to be
exclusively parasitic, as some have suggested (Ekholm and Friedman,
1979); and subordinate groups—or factions within them—
are often willing at least to some degree (Weber, 1978, p. 212;
Galtung, 1980, p. 437). As a collection of bi- and multi-lateral relationships
(Doyle, 1986, p. 46) empire is always in the making, and
therefore subject to continuous modification. Conventional, anachronistic
views of empire—using maximum spatial extent, chronological
apex of political power and the entirety of material
remnants of the central polity in peripheral regions as evidence
for imperial might—mask crucial processes of re-establishment,
re-negotiation and re-definition of dominance relationships
Fig. 1. Map of the Hittite empire at its maximum extent as suggested by the textual sources (14th and 13th century BC).
128 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
(Schreiber, 2005). The temporal component of imperial development
is important in that relationships of control may at times
be more strongly dominated by the central polity and at others
leave open possibilities for resistance or negotiation. A diachronic
perspective that considers pre- and different stages of post-conquest
regional situations is therefore crucial, if we want to understand
the time-depth and processes necessary for the
establishment of different networks of interaction and their subsequent
maintenance and transformation.
In order to define inter-regional modes of engagement in the
Hittite realm we require firstly archaeological evidence indicative
of interaction between the Hittite cultural and political heartland
and surrounding regions. Secondly, transformations in local socio-political,
cultural or economic strategies and organization have
to be identified that can be associated, at one level or another, with
imperial interference or local responses to it. In practice, the choice
of material culture categories for the exploration of early empires
depends to a large degree on the types of data that can be consistently
gathered across large geographical areas (Sinopoli, 1994).
Ideally they should represent networks of interaction and developmental
processes at different socio-political and cultural levels.
Four archaeological data categories fulfill these criteria in the
case of LBA Anatolia. First, at the most basic socio-economic level,
regional pottery traditions can be studied for the degree of northcentral
Anatolian cultural influence. Second, a comparative approach
to regional settlement systems allows us to detect changes
in socio-political organization, which, in association with other
strands of evidence, may be related to strategies of external control
or their absence. Third, a distribution analysis of north-central
Anatolian administrative technology and practice highlights regions
that were in direct administrative contact with the imperial
elite. Fourth, the spatial distribution and political origins of LBA
landscape monuments allow us to draw an outline of projected territorial
hegemony by imperial as well as non-imperial agents.
Through the superposition of the geographical and chronological
patterns of continuity and change along these dimensions, we
can begin to gain some understanding of the different networks
of interaction that developed in those parts of Anatolia and northern
Syria affected by the Hittite imperial venture.
The politics of pottery
The development of locally manufactured, monochrome northcentral
Anatolian-style pottery in different parts of Asia Minor has
received considerable attention in recent years (Jean et al., 2001;
Fischer et al., 2003; Mielke et al., 2006). The appearance of
north-central Anatolian ceramic elements in surrounding regions
is conventionally thought to reflect, at one level or another, the
political circumstances of the time as indicated by the textual
sources (Garstang, 1953, pp. 141–142; Goldman, 1956, p. 350;
Burney, 1980, p. 165; Korbel, 1985; Macqueen, 1986, p. 105;
Gunter, 1991: p. 105, 2006: pp. 360–361; Henrickson, 1993,
1994, 2002, p. 123; Gates, 2001, p. 141; Gates, 2006, p. 308;
Symington, 2001; Müller-Karpe, 2002, p. 257; Müller, 2005; Postgate,
2005, 2007; Jean, 2006, pp. 328–330). Despite a general lack
of thorough comparative analyses (Glatz, 2007; Gunter, 2006 for an
overview of western Anatolia), LBA regional pottery traditions have
come to be referred to as ‘Hittite’. Traditionally, Hittite campaign
reports and vassal treaties are drawn upon for generalized political
explanations of cultural influence (Garstang, 1953, pp. 141–142;
Goldman, 1956, p. 350; Jean, 2006, pp. 322–323). More recently,
economic and administrative interpretations have been put forward
to explain this phenomenon. Economic/administrative approaches
focus on the standardized appearance and inferred
mass-production of LBA pottery, while sparse Hittite legal and economic
texts are taken as evidence for deliberate homogenizing
strategies in the Hittite state and a strongly state-dependent economy.
This hypothetical Einheitsstaat is thought to have been
responsible for the uniformization of regional ceramic traditions
and the standardization of the north-central Anatolian repertoire
(Müller-Karpe, 2002, p. 257; also Gates, 2001, p.141). Gates
(2001), for instance, has argued that pre-firing potmarks and other
practices of marking property, hinted at in the textual sources, are
an expression of this centralized or centrally supervised mode of
production. Alternatively, (Korbel, 1985, pp. 117–120) draws on
textually attested imperial settlement policies and the transfer of
deportee populations for an explanation of increasing stylistic similarities
between the south-east Anatolian Norsßuntepe material
and ceramic types from the north-central Anatolian plateau. Müller
(2005, p. 112) and Postgate (2005, 2007) favor scenarios that involve
Hittite administrative personnel at sites in incorporated
territories as the proponents of regional ceramic standardization
and the alignment of local ceramic traditions with the central Anatolian
cultural sphere.
In order to approach this subject from a more data driven perspective,
several layers of past interpretations have to be peeled
back. At the most basic level, the conventional treatment of pottery
from culturally diverse regions and geographical situations on the
respective fringes of Anatolia as a coherent sample that allows collective
explanation clearly warrants re-examination. At the same
time, a priori assumptions about imperial economies derived, or inferred,
from scant textual sources and comparative analogy have to
be disentangled from technological requirements and social mechanisms
for product standardization. This involves a more rigorous
engagement with the range of possible relationships between craft
specialists and elite social strata, both local and imperial. Why
might the imperial venture benefit from the standardization of
utilitarian pottery, and how could this be effected? Alternatively,
we ought to ask whether instead we might be dealing with a set
of local processes of appropriation of imperial styles and practices,
and how these might manifest themselves in the archaeological
record.
Clarity in terminology is crucial in this respect. In the light of
the linguistic and ethnic connotations more than a century of research
history have imposed on it, ‘Hittite’ is an altogether unsuitable
label for material culture (Mellink, 1956, pp. 51–57). This is
particularly true for cultural traditions and settlements in areas
outside the central Anatolian plateau, where the term acquires,
explicitly or implicitly, the notion of a conquering and, in one
way or another, ‘civilizing’ process. More recent research into phenomena
such as Romanization or Egyptianization, however, has
demonstrated the vital role of local agency, perception and choice
in the process of cultural adoption (Woolf, 1998; Higginbotham,
2000). In this manner, ‘north-central Anatolian’ (NCA) is a more
appropriate label for the material culture tradition of the geographical
and cultural heartland of the Hittite polity. The northern
half of the central Anatolian plateau may be described as the heartland
of the Hittite empire on the basis of cultural continuity from
the preceding MBA and strong cultural cohesion during the LBA
from pottery to architecture and building techniques. The capital
city and a series of major administrative and cult centers are located
in this region and Hittite identity as defined by the written
sources was also strongly focused on this geographical area. The
first Hittite king attested through his own documents, Hattusili I,
originally carried the title ‘man of Kussara’, but after making
Bog˘azköy-Hattusa his new capital adopted the name Hattusili,
which means ‘man of Hattusa’ (Bryce, 1998, p. 73). Anatolian
sources refer to Hittite kings as LUGAL.GAL LUGAL KUR
URU
Hatti—Great King, King of the Land of the City of Hattusa’ (e.g.
Otten, 1981, pp. 4–5; Güterbock, 1956, p. 59), while an ordinary
citizen is referred to as LÚ URU
Hatti—‘Man of the City of
Hattusa’—in the Hittite law code (Hoffner, 1997, p. 30, Section
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 129
19b). Ample external recognition of this terminology comes from
the Amarna and other international correspondence (Moran,
1992: EA 17 and EA 35; Beckman, 1996, pp. 121–123).
Artefacts produced in areas beyond the central Anatolian plateau,
which are either reminiscent of, or identical to, those found
in this central region are referred to as ‘north-central Anatolianstyle’
(NCA-style). This avoids a priori ethnic, linguistic or cultural
labeling of either the producers or the consumers of products described
in this way. Neither is Hittite sovereignty over an area producing
such material culture automatically assumed.
Returning to the pottery analysis, the primary research questions
have to start with: first, just how homogenous LBA regional
ceramic assemblages actually were; second, the timeframe of
NCA stylistic introductions; and, third their proportion in local
assemblages. These questions are here considered with respect to
formal and technical similarities in the published ceramic assemblages
from eight settlement sites that include Porsuk ( Dupré,
1983), Gordion (Gunter, 1991), Beycesultan (Mellaart and Murray,
1995), Aphrodisias (Joukowsky, 1986), Tarsus (Goldman, 1956),
Korucutepe (Griffin, 1980), Norsßuntepe (Korbel, 1985) and Tille
Höyük (Summers, 1993) in comparison to the repertoire of the Hittite
capital city, Bog˘azköy-Hattusa (Fischer, 1963; Müller-Karpe,
1988; Parzinger and Sanz, 1992) (Fig. 1).
In order to establish a general measure of similarity between
the eight regional assemblages and Bog˘azköy-Hattusa, the comparative
analysis includes the entire formal spectrum from each site.
The question of imperial influence, however, requires cultural
traits that both originate on the NCA plateau and are chronologically
restricted to the LBA, preferably its second half. Cultural continuity
from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) to the LBA, and simple
vessel forms with parallels in other contemporary pottery traditions
severely restrict the range of diagnostic shapes.
The most prominent vessel type fulfilling these criteria is the
so-called plate with stepped rim profile (Fig. 2), which is an NCA
invention of the LBA (Fischer, 1963, p. 103; Schoop, 2006, p.
231). Coarse, heat-resistant fabric composition, hand-manufacture
and frequent traces of secondary burning point towards a primary
function in food preparation, while some of the later variants are of
the standard medium fabric (Müller-Karpe, 2002, p. 263; Schoop,
in press).
Multi-purpose shallow bowls with inverted (Schwapprandschalen)
and everted rims are known also from neighboring ceramic
traditions in Anatolia, Northern Syria and Upper Mesopotamia,
and are therefore not ideally suited to identify NCA cultural influence.
These bowl types, however, are restricted to the LBA on the
north-central Anatolian plateau, and provide at least a chronological
framework for comparison. The same applies to coarsely produced
miniature bowls and juglets with string-cut bases, whose
functions have been related to cult activities, and communal
drinking.
It has been remarked upon in the past that sites outside the NCA
culture sphere display a ‘truncated repertoire’ of NCA vessel types
(Goldman, 1956, pp. 203–205; Gates, 2001, p. 138; Henrickson,
2002, p. 129; Gunter, 2006, p. 353, 359). A comprehensive typological
comparison confirms that LBA ceramic assemblages across
Anatolia do not feature the full formal spectrum known from the
Hittite capital. The truncated repertoires at these sites, however,
neither overlap completely, so as to form an imperial service, nor
are all the shapes that have counterparts at Bog˘azköy-Hattusa
introductions of the LBA. In sum, the distribution pattern and chronology
of NCA influence is more complex than what might be expected
of a straightforward imposition of an empire-wide standard
of pottery production, whether intended for resident administrative
personnel or as an ideological strategy directed at the local
population.
Plates with stepped rim profiles, for instance, appear in varying
quantities at six of the eight sites. They seem to be relatively common
in LBA levels at Porsuk (11 examples listed in the pottery report)
and Korucutepe (107), while more moderate numbers are
known from Gordion (5), Norsßuntepe (5), Beycesultan (3) and Tarsus
(2). No plates were found at Aphrodisias and Tille Höyük.
Equally, the timing of their appearance at the six sites is not identical,
nor are their patterns of continuity and discontinuity during
the second part of the LBA. The earliest occurrence of plates with
stepped rim profiles is reported from Korucutepe in the LBA I (ca.
1600–1400 BC), for which they constitute a type fossil. At Gordion
Fig. 2. Typical Late Bronze Age north-central Anatolian pottery types: miniature bowl (1), miniature juglet (2), bowl with inverted rim (3 and 4), bowl with everted rim (5),
plate with stepped rim (6 and 7).
130 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
and Tarsus, plates were found for the first time in the LBA II (ca.
1400–1200 BC). This seems also to be the case at Norsßuntepe,
while Beycesultan I is likely to date to the Early Iron Age (EIA)
(Mellaart and Murray, 1995, p. 96).
Bowls with inverting rims are present at seven of the eight sites.
None are published for LBA Aphrodisias. The shape is known from
contemporary traditions in Syria (Dornemann, 1981, Fig. 13.23, 31;
Monchambert, 1983, Fig. 4.26) and northern Mesopotamia (Pfälzner,
1995, Mitannian: Tafel 2.b–e, 3.a–d,f; Middle Assyrian: Tafel
67.c–d, 100.b,c and 101.d,e), and we find numerous variations on
the NCA theme at each of the seven sites. Small numbers of predecessors
are known from MBA Gordion and Korucutepe, while inverted
rim bowls are most prominent in the second part of the
LBA at Tarsus and at LBA-EIA Beycesultan.
Bowls with everted rims are proportionally dominant in the final
phases of the LBA at Bog˘azköy-Hattusa (Müller-Karpe, 1988;
Parzinger and Sanz, 1992). They are absent at Porsuk, Aphrodisias
and Tille Höyük, while five unprovenanced examples are known
from Tarsus. At Gordion, Beycesultan and Korucutepe, everted
rim bowls have come from all LBA levels, as well as EIA contexts.
They concentrate in the LBA I at Korucutepe and in the LBA II at
Gordion.
Miniature bowls are found at six of the eight sites, with Aphrodisias
and Porsuk forming again the exceptions. Single occurrences
of such bowls are reported from Gordion, Beycesultan and Tille
Höyük. A total of 17 are known from Tarsus. Around 20 examples
are published from Korucutepe and two from Norsßuntepe. Except
for Korucutepe, where they appear in the LBA I, they concentrate
in the LBA II at all other sites. More distinctive are miniature juglets,
of which one example was found at Korucutepe (Phase J)
and Norsßuntepe, respectively, while altogether 13 are published
from Tarsus.
Instead of a singular empire-wide imposition of NCA pottery
standards, there seem to be at least four different processes of cultural
interaction and influence active (Fig. 3). (1) If we take account
of the overall as well as more diagnostic typological similarities
with the Bog˘azköy-Hattusa repertoire, it appears that Porsuk and
Gordion were part of an extended NCA cultural sphere during the
LBA. At both sites we find large numbers of NCA-style vessel types
making up the majority of their assemblages, although Porsuk
lacks a number of key shapes. (2) Another site whose overall
assemblage seemingly matches those of Porsuk and Gordion in
its close connections to the NCA tradition is Korucutepe in Phase
J. The scope of these similarities, however, is restricted to simple
shallow bowls at the latter site. From the point of view of chronology,
Korucutepe appears to present a special case in south-east
Anatolia in that cultural influence from the plateau is already
strong in the first half of the LBA, which predates the historically
attested establishment of Hittite control over this region in the
14th century BC. (3) In contrast, the repertoires of Tarsus and
Norsßuntepe show a number of similarities with the central plateau
while displaying equally strong local characteristics. The range of
NCA shapes and their timeframes of introduction, however, differ
at the two sites. (4) Finally, fewer connections still can be detected
in the repertoires of Beycesultan and Tille Höyük, which lie at the
western and south-eastern geographical fringes of NCA ceramic
influence. Despite an apparent increase in plain wares at the end
of the LBA and the EIA and a handful of plates and bowls with inverted
and everted rims, the pottery from Beycesultan is one of
high labor-investment in the form of colored and metallic slips
and other types of decoration as well as continuity from the previous
period. The diversity of special purpose vessels is also unparalleled
on the NCA plateau and hints at a rather different social
investment in ceramic production and consumption. The case of
Tille Höyük is different in that a clear cultural shift seems to have
taken place during the LBA. Some of the most characteristic features
of the NCA repertoire, however, are lacking from Tille
Höyük, in particular stepped plates and signature bowl types.
The LBA settlement at Aphrodisias lies clearly beyond the limits
of NCA ceramic influence. The pottery from Aphrodisias shares
similarities with the NCA tradition in terms of simple rim shapes,
but has virtually no diagnostic connections with the central
plateau.
Overall, we find that the core region of NCA-style ceramic production
extended to the north-west and south-east fringes of the
central Anatolian plateau, while regions to the south and east began
at different points in time to select formal elements to incorporate
into local traditions. Western Anatolia, in contrast, was largely
untouched by this phenomenon, a picture which we shall find perpetuated
in most of the following data categories.
Settlement trends and political organization
The location, organization and distribution of settlements depend
on physical and environmental conditions, but they are
equally conditioned by historical and socio-political circumstances
(e.g. Roberts, 1996, p. 29). Diachronic developments in settlement
systems can be seen as expressions of regional socio-political and
economic organization and as sensitive indicators of continuity
and change within these domains, including processes related to
political integration (de Montmollin, 1989; Alcock, 1993, pp. 3–
6). Investigations into LBA Anatolian settlement trajectories,
urbanism and the conceptual interplay between town and hinterland
have been relatively few to date (Beckman, 1999; Archi,
1976–77, 1980; Thalmann, 1990; Aktüre, 1994; Bartl, 1997;
Schachner, 2006; Mielke, in press). Macro-level settlement studies
in particular, besides brief mentions of the sizes of some excavated
sites (Archi, 1976–77, p. 101), draw their conclusions principally
on the basis of textual-historical and linguistic evidence and lack
the fundamental connection of their findings with the archaeological
record.
Archaeological field survey has seen a dramatic surge in Turkey
and neighboring regions over the last decades. A growing, but
essentially disarticulate, corpus of regional settlement data is
available in various stages of publication and, as in other parts of
the Near East and the Mediterranean (Alcock and Cherry, 2004),
it calls for inter-regional syntheses. Comparative regional approaches
are particularly fruitful in the investigation of spatially
Fig. 3. Proportion of north-central Anatolian pottery types in published assemblages.
Note that sample sizes differ for each site: Porsuk (203), Gordion (299),
Beycesultan (604), Aphrodisias (206), Tarsus (278), Korucutepe (3564), Norsßuntepe
(1273), Tille Höyük (263).
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 131
extensive phenomena such as urbanization, state-formation and
imperial incorporation (Adams, 1981; Alcock, 1993; Wilkinson,
2000; Cherry and Davies, 2001; Wilkinson et al., 2005). Summary
accounts of survey results from across Anatolia (e.g. Yakar, 2000)
have so far failed to engage with these questions, nor have the
problems inherent in the primary data been taken into sufficient
considerations.
In addition to the standard biases affecting surface survey results
(Schiffer, 1987; Ammerman, 1981; Banning, 2002, pp. 39–
65; Wilkinson, 2003, pp. 32–43), problems specific to comparative
approaches include the divergent quantity and quality of data
among surveys and the compatibility of chronological classifications
(Alcock, 1993, pp. 49–53). As regards regional surveys in Turkey,
characteristic features of many projects are the apparent lack
of specific research designs and of objectives beyond the recording
of previously unknown sites, highly variable data quality and scarcity
of final publications (see also Erciyas, 2006, pp. 53–60). Despite
these limitations, a process of model building, testing and
revision can only fully begin once a first, detailed but synthetic
analytical step has been taken and a clearer picture of the overall
settlement situation prior to and during the LBA is established.
The following interpretations of LBA settlement trajectories are
based on the comparative analysis of around 60 Anatolian and
north Syrian survey projects. They include observations of diachronic
fluctuations in settlement numbers, rates of continuity/
discontinuity in settlement location, and changes in regional hierarchical
organization and site-size distributions. In order to bridge
the gap between survey data and socio-political organization, LBA
textual evidence on Hittite administrative and economic organization
has been combined with archaeological information from
excavated NCA sites such as Masßat-Tapikka and Kusßaklı-Sarissa.
With their identities and functions relatively securely established,
the physical characteristics of these sites serve as ‘blue-prints’ for
the identification of similar administrative centers in the survey record
(Table 1).
Beginning with long-term trends we find in Anatolia a cross-regional
drop in site numbers after the Early Bronze Age (EBA) (1552
sites) to less than half in the MBA (612) and a slight increase in
identified LBA sites (647). In the Iron Age (IA) (1055), site numbers
rise again to almost double that of the LBA (Fig. 4). Although this
pattern has to be viewed in the context of the length of each chronological
period and the lack of differentiation within them by
many surveys, the overall trend is readily comparable to that found
in other parts of the Near Easter: a marked increase in settlement
locations in the Early Bronze Age, a phase of declining site numbers
during the 2nd millennium BC, followed by another peak during
the Iron Age, albeit with a shift from larger mounds to small flat
settlements (Wilkinson, 2003). It would thus appear that a less
densely settled landscape was the demographic background
against which second millennium BC state formations and imperial
expansions occurred.
Survey evidence is available in sufficient detail in some regions
to allow a more fine-grained characterization, even if tentatively
and in a preliminarily manner, of settlement trends indicative of
the nature of local-imperial interrelations. These include a process
of territorial integration in key central regions, an intensive model
of hegemonic control as a possibility in southern and eastern Anatolia,
and processes of active and passive frontier formation to the
north and north-east of the of central region (Fig. 5).
A process of territorial integration
Cross-regional survey evidence indicates that the central Anatolian
plateau witnessed the decline or abandonment of major MBA
centers during the LBA. Powerful MBA settlements such as Karahöyük-Konya
(39 ha) and Acemhöyük (44 ha) on the southern plateau,
and Alisßar Höyük (14 ha) further north, were replaced at the
top of regional settlement hierarchies by old secondary centers or
newly established sites of lower spatial extent. LBA sites that appear
to be taking over regional control tend to range between 10
and 20 ha in size, which compares well with the dimensions of
excavated LBA sites such as the cult centre of Kusßaklı-Sarissa
(18.2 ha—intramural) and the district centre of Masßat-Tapikka
(ca. 8 ha).
The newly established LBA sites of Gubat Sßehri (15.7 ha)
(Omura, 2003) and Höyük-Altılar (18 ha) (Omura, 2005) on the
south-central plateau are potential candidates for regional centers
with a political and administrative scope similar to that of KusßaklıSarissa
(Fig. 6). The sites of Yorg˘unhisar (9 ha) (Omura, 1992),
Büyükkale (7.5 ha) (Omura, 2002), both of which are occupied in
the preceding period, as well as the newly established Büyükkaletepe
(6.2 ha) (Omura, 1993) are candidates for district centers on a
scale comparable to Masßat-Tapikka. In the region around the Salt
Lake, Azak Kalesi (11.3 ha) (Omura, 2001) falls somewhere between
the two categories, while Çopurog˘lanın Çukur (10 ha)
(Omura, 2004), Höyük Tepe (7.7 ha) (Omura, 2001), Yalnız Ag˘ıl (7
ha) (Omura, 2004) and Acemi Höyüg˘ü (6.9 ha) (Omura, 1994)
would also fall well into the range of LBA district centers. With
the exception of Acemi Höyüg˘ü, all of these sites appear to be
new foundations of the LBA.
Settlements above 20 ha seem to represent highest-order regional
centers in the LBA. One of these, Kayalıpınar (Ökse, 2001) in Sivas
province may be Samuha, the capital of the Upper Land
(Müller-Karpe, 2000, p. 364), the largest administrative unit in
the Hittite core region. In addition to Bog˘azköy-Hattusa and a
debatable Troy, only five LBA settlements seemingly transgressed
the 20 ha threshold. By comparison, the habitation areas at Bog˘azköy-Hattusa,
despite recent efforts to unearth further living quarters
(Seeher, 2003), cover only about 30 ha (Mora, 1977, p. 236),
the equivalent of a large LBA regional centre. What remains at Hattusa
are ca. 150 ha of monumentalized space whose purposes was
solely that of imperial administration and representation; although
regional centers too had parts of their intramural areas dedicated
to monumental edifices and open spaces.
Table 1
Administrative and spatial scope of excavated Hittite centers.
Admin. scope Official role Hittite
name
Modern
name
Size
(ha)
State/empire Imperial capital Hattusa Bog˘azköy 180
Region Capital ‘Upper Land’ Samuha Kayalıpınar 20
(Sub-)region (?) Cult centre Sarissa Kusßaklı 18.2
District Seat of provincial officials
(AGRIG and BEL MADGALTI)
Tapikka Masßat Höyük 8
Fig. 4. Long-term settlement trends in Anatolia (site counts per period and site
numbers weighted by the length of each chronological period).
132 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
The practice of replacing larger established power bases with
new and smaller settlements must have served not only the practical
aspects of the exertion of intensive control, but also emits a
strong symbolic message of the shift of power from a local to a spatially
more extensive polity (see Branting, 1996 for the Alisßar region).
From the data currently available, it appears that this
Fig. 6. Map of south-central Anatolia with Middle and Late Bronze Age settlements.
Fig. 5. Overview of regional settlement trends during the Late Bronze Age.
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 133
transformation had a different pace on the eastern and the southern
plateau. A lot more research is needed to confirm, or contradict,
this hypothesis, but perhaps we are looking at two temporally
overlapping but not entirely congruent sequences in what appears
to be the expansion of intensive territorial control. This particular
spatial signature seems to be restricted to the central Anatolian
plateau, with patterns observed in other regions pointing to rather
different settlement dynamics.
‘Intensive hegemony’?
Settlement analysis, in theory, is well suited to the identification
of social and cultural transformations, which may be related
to indirect or hegemonic rule, although more than one thread of
evidence is necessary to construct a convincing argument of this
kind. Hypothetical elements of the spatial signatures of hegemonic
control include the continuation of traditional power-bases. Variations
may be expected in the vulnerability or capabilities for selfdefense
of these central settlements (Gorny, 1995; van De Mieroop,
1997, p. 73; Smith, 2003, p. 210). From a regional perspective, increases
in site numbers in the lower echelons of settlement hierarchies
may be expected as responses to economic pressures as well
as improved security situations.
In the case of LBA Anatolia, we find a rise in LBA sites in the
Altınova (eastern Anatolia) against a background of relative settlement
stability (Whallon, 1979). In this region, almost all MBA sites
continued to be occupied in the LBA. New settlements were established
primarily in the lower levels of the settlement hierarchy, the
number of small sites increasing by ca. 37% and that of medium
sized-sites by ca. 60%. Some of the central settlements such as Korucutepe
appear to have been without the protection of a city wall
(van Loon, 1980; contra Ertem, 1974; Burney, 1980, p. 166). A similar
trend of continuity of central places and a general increase in
site numbers seems to have occurred in parts of Rough Cilicia
and Cilicia, although the evidence is not as reliable (Seton-Williams,
1954; French, 1965). Written correspondence and administrative
links to the Hittite state are known from several sites in
southern Anatolia, which appear to have entertained increasingly
close cultural links with the Hittite core region. In concert with
other types of evidence, it would seem that the settlement trends
in southern and south-eastern Anatolia represent the spatial aspects
of an intermediate form of external control, which may be
called ‘intensive hegemony’.
The limits of empire
Archaeological survey and excavations along the northern
fringe of the central plateau have yielded evidence for drastic
changes in settlement strategies during the second half of the second
millennium BC, which are indicative of the formation of a contested
frontier zone. This observation is not new (Yakar, 1980;
Yakar, 1992, p. 510; Yakar and Dinçol, 1974, p. 91; Dönmez,
2002, pp. 274–276; Matthews, 2000, pp. 1017–1018; Glatz and
Matthews, 2005) but it is conventionally restricted to the data
from individual survey projects and thus lacks the broad geographical
overview of comparative analysis.
Two large-scale settlement processes affected the regions in
question in the course of the second millennium BC. The first trend
is characterized by a dramatic decline and, in some areas, an apparent
cessation of LBA settlement in the central Black Sea area. The
second development appears to have been, at least in part, a reaction
to the first. It includes the strengthening of the fringes of LBA
settlement in the form of fortified lines of defense and increasing
settlement activities in their hinterland. In contrast to relatively
widespread MBA settlement in Sinop, Samsun and Kastamonu
provinces, permanent occupation, at least in their familiar LBA
material culture representation, appears to have ceased in these regions.
One of the southern limits for this settlement retreat was the
Devrez Çay south of the Ilgaz mountains (Matthews, 2000;
Matthews and Glatz, 2009). With the exception of an outpost to
the north-west, four fortified settlements with LBA ceramic evidence
at distances between ca. 15 and 25 km guard the passages
to a more densely populated southern region. Comparable trends,
however, less systematically explored and not entirely agreed
upon (e.g. Dönmez, 2002; contra Yakar and Dinçol, 1974), can be
observed in inner Samsun and the northern part of Amasya. Basic
similarities exist along the northern fringe of LBA settlement in
terms of settlement structure and site-size rages, with the largest
sites matching the dimensions of Masßat-Tapikka. The latter site
was the seat of a BEL MADGALTI, or chief of the border guard,
and functioned as an administrative centre and military stronghold
(Alp, 1991).
The comparative analysis of the Anatolian survey data has
yielded a number of regionally distinct spatial trends within the
geographical sphere of the Hittite empire, which are indicative of
different imperial-local relationships. These include the territorial
integration of key regions on the central Anatolian plateau in what
appears to be an intensive, direct form of domination. Although
chronological resolution is coarse, this development seems to start
on the north-eastern plateau and continues during the later empire
period to the south of the Kızılırmak river. Hegemonic control,
which is hypothesized to leave existing power-bases in place
against a background of increasing numbers of smaller sites as
signs of economic prosperity and/or improved security, were identified
in parts of southern and south-eastern Anatolia and northern
Syria. In addition, the survey evidence has highlighted at least two
processes of active and passive frontier formation at the northern
and south-eastern limits of Hittite power.
The results of the ceramic and settlement analyses and the insights
they provide about the intensity of cultural interaction,
and the spatial transformations in different regions form the background
for the investigation of two further networks of interaction.
NCA administrative implements and practices, and landscape monuments
are elements of an imperial-local dialogue at the highest
socio-political levels of interaction.
North-central Anatolian glyptic in peripheral regions
At the basis of the investigation of NCA administrative implements
and practices in the context of imperial-local relationships
lies the observation that, although the use of seals was not restricted
to the socio-political elite in the Hittite core region, archaeological
find-locations in palatial, temple and other stately
contexts, as well as indications of titles and professions in Luwian
hieroglyphs, suggest a principle association of this type of administrative
technology with the Hittite elite in charge of state
administration.
NCA administrative implements and evidence for their use can
be representative of a number of events and practices, ranging
from the exchange of correspondence or the management of a
peripheral polity by imperial officials to the local adoption of imperial
administrative routines and cultural styles. Seal impressions of
Hittite royalty or officials in local contexts, especially in the case of
isolated finds, do not on their own present convincing evidence of
effective Hittite control. What they are indicative of is interaction
between representatives of the imperial authority and those of a
local, possibly subordinate, polity. The quantities of texts and glyptic
finds as well as the professions represented provide us with
clues about the social level and intensity of this interaction and
about the nature of the political relationship. Seal finds could be taken
to imply the presence of the seal owner at a particular site, and,
thus, in the case of Hittite officials, a physical as opposed to solely
symbolic representation of imperial power. Seal and owner, how-
134 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
ever, are alienable, as are official allegiance and personal/factional
interest, the nuances of which can only be kept in mind as they are
difficult to identify in the available material. More common in
excavation contexts are seal impressions on bullae, sealings and
cuneiform tablets, which may present the use of NCA sealing practices
in local contexts or, alternatively, the receipt of documents or
goods from sources linked to the central administration. Changes
in local administrative and sealing practices to accommodate elements
of the NCA tradition may be suggestive of increasing political
as well as cultural ties.
The distribution of contextually documented NCA and NCAstyle
administrative technology outside the central Anatolian plateau,
which is excluded from this analysis, displays a clear geographical
focus (Fig. 7). Only a very limited number of NCA-style
seals and seal impressions have been found to the west and
south-west of the Hittite core region and to its north. The most
prominent west Anatolian finds are the sealed bulla from
Sßarhöyük-Dorylaion near Eskisßehir (Darga and Starke, 2003) and
the biconvex hieroglyphic seal from Troy VIIb (Hawkins and Easton,
1996). The vast majority of 14th and 13th century BC glyptic
and tablet finds concentrate in areas to the south and south-east
of the Hittite core region. The nature of these discoveries within
Anatolia, in particular the pit contexts at Tarsus (Goldman, 1956,
pit 36.69; Gelb, 1956) and Korucutepe (Güterbock, 1973, p. 135),
poses the question of whether we are dealing with chance finds
that have not yet been made at western sites. If the present distribution
patterns are, as they nevertheless seem, remnants of real
differences in regional interaction, possible reasons for this discrepancy
are the absence of effective, administrative control altogether
from western and northern areas, but also prevailing local
conditions. Areas to the south and south-east, and particularly vassal
states in northern Syria, fulfilled requirements of literacy and
familiarity with complex administrative procedures necessary to
appreciate and, thus, render effective, in practical and ideological
terms, the use of imperial administrative technology and, in some
instances, that of procedural practices.
The observed distribution patterns of imperial glyptic and text
finds at the four major find-spots of Tarsus, Korucutepe, Ras-Shamra-Ugarit
(Nougayrol, 1956; Schaeffer, 1956; Mora, 1987, 1990)
and Meskene-Emar (Beyer, 2001), suggest the operation of at least
three different modes of inter-regional administrative interaction
involving geographically as well as hierarchically distinct segments
of the imperial authority. The first includes the two Anatolian settlements
of Tarsus and Korucutepe. At both sites contact with the
Hittite core region is attested by the local use of NCA-style administrative
technology during the second half of the LBA, but also
stretching back into the pervious period in the case of Tarsus. At
both sites parallels can be found between persons represented on
local seal impressions and at the imperial capital. Some of these
carried central or local royal titles or fulfilled official functions.
The majority of glyptic finds at these two sites are sealed bullae,
administrative devices attached to writing tablets or containers,
Fig. 7. Distribution of north-central Anatolian(-style) seals, seal-impressions and administrative practices.
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 135
which are documented in large quantities at Bog˘azköy-Hattusa and
suggest similarities in administrative practices.
In contrast, the two major Syrian find-locations have yielded
very little evidence for the use of clay bullae in administrative procedures.
In all other respects, however, the administrative connections
and, as a consequence, the political and cultural relationships
between the two Syrian cities and the Hittite realm share very little
in common. Two scribal schools apparently mastered the practicalities
of administration at Meskene-Emar (Beyer, 2001). One adhered
to traditional Syrian tablet formats and glyptic styles,
while the second presents an amalgamation of Anatolian and Syrian
traditions. The Hittite viceroy at Carchemish and his officials
are represented in the Meskene-Emar texts as involved in local legal
decisions and as witnesses to contracts, and a Hittite administrator,
‘the overseer of the land’ was in charge of the entire land of
Astata (Beckman, 1995, p. 28). The main dynastic line of Hattusa,
with the exception of Mursili II, however, is not found in the glyptic
or the written records of Meskene-Emar.
Conversely, Ugarit’s leadership communicated directly with the
imperial court at Bog˘azköy-Hattusa. Large numbers of treaties,
edicts and letters attest to the rather more frequent interference
of the Hittite great-king in local affairs. Yet, while numerous tablets
carry the seals of Hittite royalty and officials, which relate to
political and legal matters, local scribal tradition and administration
did not adopt NCA glyptic styles or hybrid versions of it
(Neu, 1995, pp. 124–125; Genz, 2006). Thus, while Ugarit was under
highest-level political control and was interfered with in
exceptional circumstances, Emar appears to have been more directly
administrated by the Hittite authorities at Carchemish.
Landscape monuments as projections of hegemonic control
Rock reliefs and related monuments in the landscape provide a
complementary perspective on high-level imperial-local relationships
to those represented by, and enforced through, administrative
technology. A survey of their spatial and chronological
distribution allows us to glimpse an ideological struggle in the
appropriation of territory and marking of boundaries by imperial
and local agents, which spatially resonates but does not entirely
overlap with the patterns of cultural influence and changes in spatial
organization already discussed. The category of landscape
monuments includes figurative and inscriptive rock and stone reliefs
as well as dam and pool constructions in extra-urban contexts.
Although morphologically and functionally diverse, LBA Anatolian
landscape monuments share in common iconographic themes, stylistic
conventions and, in many case, Luwian hieroglyphic
inscriptions.
In the past, LBA landscape monuments have tended to be treated
as a diverse, yet coherent, category of mainly art historical and
philological interest. A consensus of strong stylistic homogeneity
has emerged in the literature as well as the explicit or implicit connection
of these monuments with the Hittite imperial venture
(Akurgal, 1964, p. 103; Bittel, 1976, p. 191; Börker-Klähn, 1982;
Kohlmeyer, 1983, p. 103; Emre, 2002, p. 233; Ehringhaus, 2005).
Such an identification is arguably correct in a number of cases
which, by virtue of accompanying Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions,
can be attributed to Hittite great kings (Sirkeli 1, Fıraktın,
Yazılıkaya, Yalburt and Karakuyu) or related officials (Tasßcı A).
The extension of the term Hittite, in both its cultural and political
connotations, to less easily identifiable monuments on the basis of
stylistic similarities, however, masks a crucial diversity of authorship
and, associated with it, of multiple ideological and political
intentions in the power-political playing field of LBA Anatolia.
It has to be pointed out that with the exception of a short overview
by Emre (2002) and Ehringhaus’ (2005) comprehensive summary
Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen
Großreichszeit in der Türkei, all other comparative treatments of
the subject were published prior to several recent discoveries,
which have emphasised the significance of LBA landscape monuments
as alienable political tools. These include the discovery of
the rock relief and inscription of Kurunta, (great-)king of Tarhuntassa,
at Hatip (Dinçol, 1998), the conclusive reading of the Karabel
A inscription as that of Tarkasnawa, Hittite vassal king of Mira
(Hawkins, 1998), the discovery of a second relief at Sirkeli in Cilicia
(Ehringhaus, 1995, 2005, pp. 100–101) as well as hieroglyphic incisions
of several local princes in the Latmos mountains in southwest
Anatolia (Peschlow-Bindokat, 2001; Herbordt, 2001). Taking
these new discoveries into account, the majority of known LBA
landscape monuments can be attributed to either local kings (Karabel,
Hatip), princes (_Imamkulu, Hanyeri, Hamite, Akpınar, Suratkaya
and possibly Malkaya) or persons of official rank (Tasßçı A).
Links to the Hittite imperial administration can be established for
the authors of some of these monuments through textual or glyptic
syncretisms (Herbordt, 2005; Hawkins, 2005). These, sometimes
contingent, connections with the Hittite centre, however, are not
straightforward confirmations of the assertion of imperial power
on peripheral territories, as is seen to be the case in past treatments
of the subject (Kohlmeyer, 1983, p. 103; Peschlow-Bindokat,
2001, p. 366; Ehringhaus, 2005, pp. 119–120).
The rock reliefs of Kurunta and Tudhaliya IV (1250–1220 BC)
most vividly attest the use of landscape monuments in the negotiation
of dynastic and territorial supremacy. The problematic relationship
between Kurunta, king of Tarhuntassa in Rough Cilicia,
and his cousin, the Hittite great king, is detailed in cuneiform
sources as well as the hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions at Yalburt
(Hawkins, 1995). Among all Hittite great kings, Tudhaliya IV in particular
appears to have invested in representational monuments at
Bog˘azköy-Hattusa, the nearby Yazılıkaya and on the fringes of the
central Anatolian plateau. As Ehringhaus (2005, p. 119) pinpointed,
Tudhaliya IV seems to have been under pressure to underwrite the
legitimacy of his rule in this way. By the same token, it can be argued
that all monumental representations in peripheral regions
are born out of similar pressures of, or aspirations to, legitimization.
In other words, LBA rock reliefs and inscriptions can be interpreted
as projections of centralized power and claims over
territories via their boundaries and access routes rather than as
manifestations of achieved centralized control. Similarly, examining
monumentality in Vijayanagara India, Morrison and Lycett
(1994) have convincingly argued that monumental statements of
power served the assertion of centralized authority rather than
the commemoration of its achievement. In view of both the large
number of monuments apparently commissioned by princes and
local kings as well as textual references to incessant upheavals
and subsequent military campaigns across Anatolia, I propose that
despite potentially close familial and/or contractual ties with the
Hittite core, representations or inscriptions of princes and local rulers
should be seen as evidence for power-political discourses
among local factions as well as with central forces.
This argument is underscored by the striking geographical distribution
of LBA landscape monuments (Fig. 8). Works of Hittite
great kings outside the capital and its immediate surroundings
are located on the western and eastern edges of the central plateau
either directly on important communication routes or in locations
generally associated with passages to other parts of Anatolia. With
the exception of the Muwatalli (1306–1282 BC) depiction at Sirkeli
in what was the heartland of Kizzuwatna, Hattusili III (1275–1250
BC) and Puduhepa’s relief at Fıraktın and Tudhaliya IV’s inscription
at Karakuyu seemingly guard the south-eastern fringes of the core
area. Yalburt and possibly also Eflâtun Pınar may have fulfilled a
similar function along the natural, cultural and likely also political
border to the west. A temporal component, indicative of changing
interests and concerns in the projection of imperial power may
136 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
also be tentatively proposed. It seems that earlier generations of
great kings concentrated ideological strategies, at least in the form
of landscape monuments, in the south-east and along routes that
allowed Hittite access to the natural and mercantile resources of
south-east Anatolia and northern Syria. In the reign of Tudhaliya
IV, although the Karakuyu inscription attests his concern also with
this eastern area, identifiable imperial stone carvings, for the first
time, appear on the south-west edges of the plateau.
Clearly, all of the landscape monuments in question conveyed
multiple meanings and served a multitude of functions besides
the more general projection of hegemony. However, from a macro
scale perspective, rock reliefs and constructions in direct association
with Hittite rulership were concerned with the framing or
guarding of an interior rather than the subjugation of an exterior
(also Seeher, 2005, p. 42). The interior perhaps corresponds with
the area seen in the survey record to undergo major re-organization
during the LBA, in what can be interpreted as the spatial implementation
of territorial control, as well as with the core region of the
NCA cearmic tradition. The concentration of imperial monuments
in the last phase of the LBA contributes to the picture of these monuments
as a defensive rather than offensive measure in the light of
the textual sources and the pattern of reliefs commissioned by
ambitious princes and the kings of powerful vassal and appendage
kingdoms. Future discoveries of additional rock monuments are
probable in the light of recent findings and they may require the
revision of these hypotheses. A less centrally driven interpretation
of inter-polity relations as conducted through the media of landscape
monuments, however, appears more at ease with the immediate
data and with other aspects of LBA material culture patterns.
Discussion: overlapping networks of interaction in Late Bronze
Age Anatolia
The evidence for the selective adoption of north-central Anatolian
ceramic traditions in neighboring regions, changes and continuity
in local settlement systems, the direction and intensity of
Hittite administrative efforts and the dialogue of territorial hegemony
carried out via landscape monuments show that empire,
rather than a monolithic entity, is best conceptualized as a complex
web of interactions. The above investigation has also shown,
that imperial-local relationships were less clear-cut and in favor
of all encompassing central control than inferences made from Hittite
documents generally give the impression of. Instead, we gain
the impression of an ongoing process or negotiation of empire that
is carried out on a range of different cultural, political and social
levels.
The focal point of all four elements of interaction is the central
Anatolian plateau (Fig. 9). This may not be surprising, but a closer
inspection of the developments in the extended core region of the
Hittite empire emphasizes that we are dealing with a process of
imperialism that is neither complete nor uncontested in its closest
periphery and throughout its existence. Although textual sources
indirectly concede the instability of Hittite control through their
concern with rebellions and military campaigns, we are told comFig.
8. Distribution of Late Bronze Age landscape monuments.
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 137
paratively little about the substance of strategies of control and
integration and the length of time it took to implement them.
The survey data from the central Anatolian plateau, despite its very
obvious limitations, when analyzed through a comparative and
diachronic perspective, indicates a process of spatial transformation
that affected first the eastern and then the southern plateau
and that is suggestive of strategies of integration and the imposition
of a truly territorial mode of government. This spatial signature
of territorial control, however, was not found outside the
central plateau. To the north, linear arrangements of fortified settlements
and the scarcity of LBA materials beyond these mark
out the limits of Hittite effective control. The western and eastern
fringes of the central plateau and its access routes were guarded by
imperial landscape monuments and challenged by local agents
using the same symbolic canon to project their own territorial
hegemony over the physically, politically and ideologically liminal.
The sphere of NCA cultural influence, here examined through
the distribution of ceramic traits, stretches beyond the area affected
by the spatial transformation of directly controlled regions
inside the brackets of imperial landscape monuments. The near
exclusive use of NCA-style pottery extended to Gordion in westcentral
Anatolia and southwards to the Cilician Gates. The sphere
of less intensive NCA ceramic influence displays a clear south
and eastward focus. Yet, ceramic similarities in these regions differ
in terms of their chronology of introduction and intensity, suggesting
a series of local processes of adoption rather than the deliberate
imposition of imperial cultural elements on surrounding territories.
The distribution of NCA administrative technology seemingly
matches that of ceramic influences, but reaches beyond it into
northern Syria, where, with the exception of written documents,
it constitutes the only tangible evidence for high-level inter-regional
interaction and imperial control. The evidence from Anatolian
find-spots, particularly from Tarsus and Korucutepe, hints at relatively
close and intensive relationships with the Hittite core region.
Western Anatolia, by contrast, was not involved in administrative
interaction just as it was not touched by the NCA ceramic phenomenon.
Local elites, however, developed a taste for large-scale landscape
monuments.
In terms of the overall character of regional dominance relationships,
the cumulative archaeological pattern can be tentatively
interpreted as follows (Fig. 10). First, we observe a sphere of
increasingly materially manifested direct imperial control on the
central Anatolian plateau. Second, close relationships, on multiple
cultural and political levels, with southern and south-eastern Anatolia
and along the Syrian Euphrates point towards a level of control
somewhere between territorial and hegemonic rule, which
may be called ‘intensive hegemony’. Third, a more hands off ‘ideal’
type of hegemonic control may be postulated for the case of Ugarit,
whose cultural taste as well as administrative practices retain a
fiercely independent character. Fourth, a veneer of political control
can be inferred from the textual sources for western Anatolia. As
regards the archaeological record, however, western Anatolia displays
little or no tangible material signs of Hittite government
and, with the exception of monumental display, of cultural interaction.
Finally, we can constitute the apparent absence of effective
Hittite control in the archaeological record of northern and
north-eastern Anatolia.
Conclusions
In this paper, I have outlined an archaeology of empire that is
based on a synthetic approach to inter-regional interaction. The
example of LBA Anatolia has shown that the investigation of overlapping
spatial and temporal patterns of material categories that
are diagnostic of interaction between a political core and its surrounding
regions on a range of cultural, political and ideological
levels, can yield a more nuanced understanding of the relationships
that underlie early empires. This approach provides an avenue to
Fig. 9. Reconstruction of the spatial extent of four overlapping networks of inter-regional interaction in LBA Anatolia and north Syria.
138 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
move beyond traditional, core-centric and top–down classifications
based on the hegemonic-territorial dichotomy. It also shows that
the question of whether culture change is due to external control
or local initiative can be addressed through in-depth diachronic
and comparative analyses of local and supra-regional processes.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to Roger Matthews for his advise and support
throughout my Ph.D. research, and for his comments on earlier versions
of this paper. I would also like to thank Bleda Düring and
Aimée Plourde as well as two anonymous referees for their constructive
criticism and suggestions.
References
Adams, R. 1979. Common concerns but different standpoints: a commentary. In:
Larsen, M.T. (Ed.), Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires.
Mesopotamia 7. Akademisk Forlag. Copenhagen, pp. 393–404.
Adams, R., 1981. Heartlands of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use
on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Aktüre, S., 1994. Anadolu’da Bronz Çag˘ı Kentleri. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, Istanbul.
Akurgal, E., 1964. Die Kunst der Hethiter. In: Walser, G. (Ed.), Neuere
Hethiterforschung. Historia, Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Einzelschriften,
vol. 7. Steiner, Wiesbaden.
Alcock, S.E., 1993. Graecia Capta. The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F. (Eds.), 2004. Side-by-Side Survey. Comparative Regional
Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxbow, Oxford.
Alcock, S.E., D’Altroy, T.N., Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli, C.M. (Eds.), 2001. Empires.
Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Alp, S., 1991. Hethitische Briefe aus Masßat Höyük. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,
Ankara.
Ammerman, A.J., 1981. Surveys and archaeological research. Annual Review of
Anthropology 10, 63–88.
Archi, A., 1976–77. Città et territorio in Siria e in Anatolia—Mari-Ugarit-Hattusa.
Dialoghi di Archeologia 9–10, 75–107.
Archi, A., 1980. Continuità degli insediamenti Anatolici durante l’età Ittita. Studi
Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 22, 7–17.
Banning, E.B., 2002. Archaeological Survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
London.
Bartl, K., 1997. Zentralanatolische Stadtanlagen von der Spätbronzezeit bis zur
mittleren Eisenzeit. Kontinuität – Wandel – Bruch? In: Wilhelm G. (Ed.), Die
orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch. 1. Internationales Colloquium
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9–10. Mai 1996 in Halle/Saale. Colloquien
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 1. Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag,
Saarbrücken, pp. 267–288.
Beckman, G., 1995. Hittite provincial administration in Anatolia and Syria: The view
from Masßat and Emar. In: Carruba, O., Giorgieri, M., Mora, C. (Eds.), Atti del Il
Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Studia Mediterranea, vol. 9. Iuculano,
Pavia, pp. 19–37.
Beckman, G., 1996. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Scholars Press, Atlanta.
Beckman, G., 1999. The city and country in Hatti. In: Klengel, H., Renger, J. (Eds.),
Landwirtschaft im alten Orient: ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Berlin, 4.–8.7.1994. Berliner Beiträge zum
Vorderen Orient 18. Dietrich Reimer, Berlin, pp. 161–169.
Beyer, D., 2001. Emar IV: les sceaux: mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar,
recherches au pays d’Aštata. Editions Universitaires Fribourg, Fribourg.
Bittel, K., 1976. Die Hethiter. Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang
des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. Beck, München.
Börker-Klähn, J., 1982. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs.
Band III. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Philip von Zabern, Mainz.
Branting, S.A., 1996. The Alisßar regional survey 1993–1994: a preliminary report.
Anatolica 12, 146–155.
Bryce, T., 1998. Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford, Claredon.
Burney, C., 1980. Aspects of the excavations in the Altınova. Elâzıg˘ Anatolian Studies
30, 157–167.
Cherry, J.F., Davies, J.L., 2001. ‘Under the sceptre of Agamemnon’: the view from the
hinterlands of Mycenae. In: Branigan, K. (Ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze
Age. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 4. Centre for Aegean Archaeology
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, pp. 141–159.
Darga, M., Starke, F., 2003. Eine Tonbulle mit hieroglyphen-luwischem
Siegelabdruck aus Sßarhöyük-Dorylaion. Studia Troica 13, 161–164.
De Montmollin, O., 1989. The Archaeology of Political Structure. Settlement
Analysis in a Classical Maya Polity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dinçol, A.M., 1998. Die Entdeckung des Felsmonuments in Hatip und ihre
Auswirkungen über [sic.] die historischen und geographischen Fragen des
Hethiterreichs. TÜBA-AR 1, 27–35.
Dönmez, Sß., 2002. The 2nd millennium B.C. settlements in Samsun and Amasya
Provinces, central Black Sea region, Turkey. Ancient East and West 1 (2), 243–
293.
Dornemann, R.H., 1981. The Late Bronze Age pottery tradition at Tell Hadidi, Syria.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241 (29-47). 59.
Doyle, M.D., 1986. Empires. Cornell University Press, Ithaka.
Fig. 10. Reconstruction of dominance relationships in the Hittite empire.
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 139
Dupré, S., 1983. Porsuk I: La céramique de l’Age du Bronze et du l’Age de Fer.
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris.
Ehringhaus, H., 1995. Hethitische Felsreliefs der Großreichszeit entdeckt. Antike
Welt 1, 66.
Ehringhaus, H., 2005. Götter Herrscher Inschriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen
Grossreichszeit in der Türkei. Von Zabern, Mainz.
Ekholm, K., Friedman, J., 1979. ‘Capital’ imperialism and exploitation in ancient
world systems. In: Larsen, M.T. (Ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on
Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 41–
58.
Emre, K., 2002. Felsreliefs, Stelen, Orthostraden. Großplastiken als monumentale
Form staatlicher und religiöser Repräsentation. In: Kunst- und
Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH (Ed.), Die Hethiter
und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter. Theiss, Stuttgart, pp. 218–233.
Erciyas, D.B., 2006. Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic
Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey.
Colloquia Pontica 12. Brill, Leiden.
Ertem, H., 1974. Korucutepe, 1973. Anatolian Studies 24, 38–40.
Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, É. and Körog˘lu, K. (Eds.), 2003. Identifying changes: the
transition from the Bronze to the Iron Ages in Anatolia and its neighbouring
regions. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, November 8–
9, 2002. Türk Eskiçag˘ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul.
Fischer, F., 1963. Die hethitische Keramik von Bog˘azköy. Gebr. Mann, Berlin.
French, D.H., 1965. Prehistoric sites in the Göksu valley. Anatolian Studies 15, 177–
201.
Galtung, J., 1980. A structural theory of imperialism. In: Galtung, J. (Ed.), Peace and
World Structure Essays in Peace Research, vol. IV. Ejlers, Copenhagen, pp. 436–
481.
Garstang, J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin, Yümük Tepe in southern Turkey. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Gates, M.-H., 2001. Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite ceramic industry. In:
Jean, É., Dinçol, A.M., Durugönül, S. (Eds.), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux
(2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde internationale
d’Istanbul, 2–5 Novembre 1999, De Boccard, Paris, pp. 137–157.
Gates, M.-H., 2006. Dating the Hittite levels at Kinet Höyük: a revised chronology.
In: Mielke, D.P., Schoop U.-D., Seeher J. (Eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung der
hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen – Probleme – Neue Ansätze.
Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004, BYZAS 4, Ege
Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 293–309.
Gelb, I.J., 1956. Hittite hieroglyphic seals and seal impressions. In: Goldman, H.
(Ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule Tarsus II From the Neolithic through the Bronze
Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 242–254.
Genz, H., 2006. Hethitische Präsenz im spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien: die
archäologische Evidenz. Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 499–509.
Glatz, C., 2007. Contact, Interaction, Control—The Archaeology of Inter-Regional
Relations in Late Bronze Age Anatolia, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
College London, London.
Glatz, C., 2009. Negotiating empire—A comparative investigation into the responses
to Hittite imperialism by the vassal state of Ugarit and the Kaska peoples of the
Pontic region. In: Areshian, G. (Ed.), Empires and Complexity: On the Crossroads
of Archaeology, History and Anthropology. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los
Angeles, in press.
Glatz, C., Matthews, R., 2005. Anthropology of a frontier zone: Hittite–Kaska
relations in Late Bronze Age north-central Anatolia. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 339, 47–65.
Goldman, H., 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II. From the Neolithic through
the Bronze Age. University Press Princeton, Princeton.
Gorny, R.L., 1995. Hittite imperialism and anti-imperial resistance as viewed from
Alisßar Höyük. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (299/300),
65–89.
Gorny, R.L., 2002. Anatolian archaeology: An overview. In: Hopkins, D.C. (Ed.),
Across the Anatolian Plateau: Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey.
The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vol. 57. American
Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, pp. 1–4.
Griffin, E., 1980. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery. In: Van Loon, M.N. (Ed.),
Korucutepe 3. Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago,
California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern
Anatolia 1968–1970. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 3–109 (Chapter 1).
Gunter, A., 1991. The Bronze Age. Gordion Excavations Final Reports III. University
Museum, Philadelphia.
Gunter, A., 2006. Issues in Hittite ceramic production: a view from the western
frontier. In: Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D., Seeher, J. (Eds.), Strukturierung und
Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue
Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004, BYZAS 4.
Ege Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 349–363.
Güterbock, H.G., 1956. The deeds of Suppiluliuma as told by his son, Mursili II.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 41–68. 75–98, 101–130.
Güterbock, H.G., 1973. Hittite hieroglyphic seal impressions from Korucutepe.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 135–147.
Hawkins, J.D., 1995. The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at
Hattusa (SÜDBURG). Studien zu den Bog˘azköy-Texten Beiheft 3. Harrassowitz,
Wiesbaden.
Hawkins, J.D., 1998. Tarkasnawa King of Mira, Tarkondemos, Bog˘azköy Sealings and
Karabel. Anatolian Studies 48, 1–31.
Hawkins, J.D., 2005. Commentaries on the Readings. In: Herbordt S., Die Prinzenund
Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem
Nisßantepe Archiv von Hattusa. Bog˘azköy-Hattuša XIX. Von Zabern, Mainz, pp.
248–313.
Hawkins, J.D., Easton, D.F., 1996. A hieroglyphic seal from Troia. Studia Troica 6,
111–118.
Henrickson, R.C., 1993. Politics, economics and ceramic continuity at Gordion in the
late second and first millennia B.C. In: Social and Cultural Contexts of New
Ceramic Technologies. American Ceramic Society, Wetsville, pp. 89–176.
Henrickson, R.C., 1994. Continuity and discontinuity in the ceramic tradition at
Gordion during the Iron Age. In: French D.H., Çilingirog˘lu A. (Eds.), Iron Ages 3,
Proceedings of the Third International Anatolian Iron Age Symposium in Van,
Turkey, 6–11 August 1990. Monograph 16. British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara, London, pp. 95–129.
Henrickson, R.C., 2002. Hittite pottery and potters: the view from Late Bronze Age
Gordion. In: Hopkins, D. (Ed.), Across the Anatolian Plateau. Readings in the
archaeology of Ancient Turkey. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 57 (2000), Boston, pp. 123–131.
Herbordt, S., 2001. Lesung der Inschrift eines hethitischen Großprinzen aus dem
Latmos. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2001, 367–378.
Herbordt, S., 2005. Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit
auf Tonbullen aus dem Nisßantepe Archiv von Hattuša. Bog˘azköy-Hattuša XIX.
Von Zabern, Mainz.
Higginbotham, C., 2000. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Canaan.
Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. Culture and
History of the Ancient Near East 2. Brill, Boston.
Hoffner, H., 1997. The Laws of the Hittites. A Critical Edition. Brill, Leiden.
Jean, É., 2006. The Hittites at Mersin-Yumuktepe: old problems and new directions.
In: Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D., Seeher, J. (Eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung
der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue Ansätze.
Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004. BYZAS 4. Ege
Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 311–332.
Jean, É., Dinçol, A.M., Durugönül S. (Eds.), 2001. La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs
locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde
internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 Novembre 1999, De Boccard, Paris, pp. 137–
157.
Joukowsky, M., 1986. Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and
Artifact Studies, vols. I and II. Oleffe, Court-St-Étienne.
Kohl, P., 1987. The use and abuse of world systems theory: the case of the pristine
West Asian state. In: Schiffer, M. (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, vol. 11. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1–36.
Kohlmeyer, K., 1983. Felsbilder der hethitischen Großreichszeit. Acta Praehistorica
et Archaeologica 15, 7–135.
Korbel, G., 1985. Die spätbronzezeitliche Keramik von Norsßuntepe. Institut für
Bauen und Planen in Entwicklungsländern, Hannover.
Larsen, M.T. (Ed.), 1979. Power and propaganda. A Symposium on Ancien Empires.
Mesopotamia Akademisk Vorlag, Copenhagen.
Macqueen, J.G., 1986. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Thames
and Hudson, London.
Mann, M., 1986. The Sources of Social Power. A History of Power from the Beginning
to A.D. 1760, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Matthews, R., 2000. Time with the past in Paphlagonia. In: Matthiae, P., Enea, A.,
Peyronel, L., Pinnock, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress of
the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. La
Sapienza, Roma, pp. 1013–1024.
Matthews, R., 2003. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Approaches.
Routledge, London.
Matthews, R., Glatz, C. (Eds.), 2009. At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia Regional
Survey in North-Central Turkey. British Institute at Ankara, London, in press.
Mellaart, J., Murray, A., 1995. Beycesultan III, Part II: Late Bronze Age and Phrygian
Pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age Small Objects. British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, London.
Mellink, M.J., 1956. A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion. University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mielke, D.P., in press. Hittite Cities—Looking for a concept, In: Genz, H., Mielke, D.P.
(Eds.), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Ancient East and West
Special Edition.
Mielke, D.P., Schoop U.-D., Seeher J. (Eds.), 2006. Strukturierung und Datierung der
hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue Ansätze.
Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27. November 2004. BYZAS 4. Ege
Yayınları, Istanbul.
Miller, D., Tilley, C., 1984. Ideology, power and prehistory: an introduction. In:
Miller, D., Tilley, C. (Eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Monchambert, J.-Y., 1983. La céramique de fabrication locale à Ugarit à la fin du
Bronze Récent: quelques examples. Syria 60, 25–45.
Mora, C., 1977. Saggio per uno studio sulla populazione urbana nell’Anatolica
antica. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 18, 227–241.
Mora, C., 1987. La Glittica Anatolica Del II Millennio A.C.: Classificazione Tipologica.
I. I Sigilli a Inscrizione Geroglifica. Studia Mediterranea, 6. Gianni Iuculano
Editore, Pavia.
Mora, C., 1990. Primo Supplemento: La Glittica Anatolica Del II Millennio A.C.:
Classificazione Tipologica. I. I Sigilli a Inscrizione Geroglifica. Studia
Mediterranea 6, Supplemento. Gianni Iuculano Editore, Pavia.
Moran, W., 1992. Tell el-Amarna Tablets: The Amarna Letters. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Morrison, K.D., Lycett, M., 1994. Central power, centralised authority? Ideological
claims and archaeological patterns. Asian Perspectives 33, 327–350.
140 C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141
Müller, U., 2005. Norsßun Tepe and Lidar Höyük. Two examples for cultural change
during the Early Iron Age. In: Çilingirog˘lu A., Darbyshire G., (Eds.). Anatolian
Iron Ages 5. Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at
Van, 6–10 August 2001. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph
31. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London, pp. 107–114.
Müller-Karpe, A., 1988. Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattuša. Ein Beitrag
zur Kenntnis spätgroßreichszeitlicher Keramik und Töpferbetriebe unter
Zugrundelegung der Grabungsergebnisse von 1978–82 in Bog˘azköy.
Hitzeroth, Marburg.
Müller-Karpe, A., 2000. Kayalıpınar in Ostkappadokien: Ein neuer hethitischer
Tontafelfundplatz. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132, 355–
365.
Müller-Karpe, A. 2002. Die Keramik des mittleren und jüngeren hethitischen
Reiches. Die Entwicklung der anatolischen Keramik - ihre Formen und
Funktionen. In: Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland GmbH (Ed.), Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000
Götter. Theiss, Stuttgart, pp. 256–263.
Neu, E., 1995. Hethiter und Hethitisch in Ugarit. In: Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. (Eds.),
Ugarit: ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und
Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I. Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt.
Ugarit-Verlag, Münster. 115-29.
Nougayrol, J., 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.
Ökse, A.T., 2001. Hethitisches Territorium am oberen Maraššantia. Ein
Rekonstruktionsversuch. In: Wilhelm, G. (Ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen
Kongresses für Hethitologie. Würzburg 4.–8. Oktober 1999. Studien zu den
Bog˘azköy Texten 45. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 499–510.
Omura, S., 1992. 1990 yılı orta Anadolu’da yürütülen yüzey arasßtırmaları. Arasßtırma
Sonuçları Toplantısı 9, 541–560.
Omura, S., 1993. 1991 yılı iç Anadolu’da yürütülen yüzey arasßtırmaları. Arasßtırma
Sonuçları Toplantısı 10, 365–386.
Omura, S., 1994. 1992 yılında iç Anadolu’da yürütülen yüzey arasßtırmaları.
Arasßtırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 11, 311–336.
Omura, S., 2001. Preliminary report of the general survey in central Anatolia (2000).
Anatolian Archaeological Studies 10, 37–49.
Omura, S., 2002. Preliminary report of the general survey in central Anatolia.
Anatolian Archaeological Studies 11, 45–112.
Omura, S., 2003. Preliminary report of the general survey in central Anatolia (2002).
Anatolian Archaeological Studies 12, 37–88.
Omura, S., 2004. Preliminary report of the general survey in central Anatolia (2003).
Anatolian Archaeological Studies 13, 37–86.
Omura, S., 2005. Preliminary report of the 2004 general survey in central Anatolia.
Anatolian Archaeological Studies 14, 55–84.
Otten, H., 1981. Die Apologie Hattusilis III. Studien zu den Bog˘azköy-Texten 24.
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Parker, B., 2003. Archaeological manifestations of empire: assyria’s imprint on
southeastern Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 107, 525–557.
Parzinger, H., Sanz, R., 1992. Die Oberstadt Keramik von Hattuša. Hethitische
Keramik aus dem zentralen Tempelviertel. Gebr. Mann, Berlin.
Peschlow-Bindokat, A., 2001. Eine hethitische Grossprinzeninschrift aus dem
Latmos. Vorläufiger Bericht. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2001, 363–367.
Pfälzner, P., 1995. Mittanische und mittelassyrische Keramik. Eine chronologische,
funktionelle und produktionsökonomische Analyse. BATSH 3. Reimer, Berlin.
Postgate, J.N., 1992. The land of Assur and the yoke of Assur. World Archaeology 23
(3), 247–263.
Postgate, J.N., 1994. In search of the first empires. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 293, 1–13.
Postgate, J.N., 2005. Identifying the end of the Hittite empire. Problems of reuniting
history and archaeology at Kilise Tepe’. Bilkent University, The Department of
Archaeology and History of Art Newsletter 4, pp. 26–30.
Postgate, J.N., 2007. The ceramics of centralisation and dissolution: a case study
from Rough Cilicia. Anatolian Studies 57, 141–150.
Roberts, B.K., 1996. Landscapes of Settlement: Prehistory to the Present. Routledge,
London.
Schachner, A., 2006. Auf welchen Fundamenten? Überlegungen zum Stand der
Erforschung der hethitischen Architektur. In: Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D. and
Seeher, J. (Eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie:
Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop
Istanbul, 26–27. November 2004. BYZAS 4. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 149–
165.
Schaeffer, C., 1956. Ugaritica III. Geuthner, Paris.
Schiffer, M., 1987. Site Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Schoop, U.-D., 2006. Dating the Hittites with statistics. Ten pottery assemblages
from Bog˘azköy-Hattuša. In Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D. and Seeher, J. (Eds.),
Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen –
Probleme – Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26-27. November
2004. BYZAS 4. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul, pp. 215-239.
Schoop, U.-D., in press. Hittite pottery—A summary. In: Genz, H., Mielke, D.P. (Eds.),
Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Ancient East and West Special
Edition.
Schreiber, K., 2005. Imperial agendas and local agency: Wari colonial strategies. In:
Stein, G.J. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative
Perspectives. Currey, Oxford, pp. 237–262.
Seeher, J., 2003. Die Ausgrabungen in Bog˘azköy-Hattuša 2002. Archäologischer
Anzeiger (2003/1), 1–14.
Seeher, J., 2005. Überlegungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem hethitischen Kernreich
und der Westküste Anatoliens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In: Horejs, B., Jung, R.,
Kaiser, E., Terzan, B. (Eds.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit, Bernhard Hänsel
von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Habelt, Bonn, pp. 33–44.
Seton-Williams, M.V., 1954. Cilician Survey. Anatolian Studies 4, 121–174.
Sinopoli, C.M., 1994. The archaeology of empires. Annual Review of Anthropology
23, 159–180.
Smith, A.T., 2003. The Political Landscape. Constellations of Authority in Early
Complex Polities. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Smith, M., Montiel, L., 2001. The archaeological study of empires and imperialism in
Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 245–
284.
Steadman, S., Gorny, R.L., 1995. Introduction: The archaeology of empire in ancient
Anatolia. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1, 299–300.
Summers, G.D., 1993. Tille Höyük 4. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Transition.
Monograph Series Nr. 15. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.
Symington, D. 2001. Hittites at Kilisetepe. In: Jean, É., Dinçol, A.M., and Durugönül,
S. (Eds.), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle
ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999.
De Boccard, Paris, pp. 167–184.
Thalmann, J.-P., 1990. L’urbanisme Hittite. In: Van den Hout, J-L., Thalmann, J.-P.,
Valbelle, D. (Eds.), Naissance des cités. Nathan, Paris, pp. 153–166.
Van de Mieroop, M., 1997. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Van den Hout, T. 2006. Administration in the reign of Tuthaliya IV and the later
years of the Hittite empire. In: van den Hout T. (Ed.), The Life and Times of
Hattusili III and Tuthaliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J.
De Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden. Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije
Oosten, Leiden, pp. 77–106.
Van Loon, M.N., 1980. Conclusion. In: Van Loon, M.N. (Ed.), Korucutepe 3. Final
Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angels)
and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968–1970.
Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 271–277.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Whallon, R., 1979. An Archaeological Survey of the Keban Reservoir Area of EastCentral
Turkey. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology University of
Michigan Number 11. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Wilkinson, T.J., 2000. Regional approaches to Mesopotamian archaeology: the
contribution of archaeological surveys. Journal of Archaeological Research 8,
219–267.
Wilkinson, T.J., 2003. Archaeological Landscapes in the Near East. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wilkinson, T.J., Barbanes Wilkinson, E., Ur, J., Altaweel, M., 2005. Landscape and
settlement in the Neo-Assyrian empire. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 340, 23–56.
Woolf, G., 1998. Becoming Roman, The Origins of Provincial Civilisation in Gaul.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yakar, J., 1980. Recent contributions to the historical geography of the Hittite
empire. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 112, 75–93.
Yakar, J., 1992. Beyond the eastern borders of the Hittite empire: an archaeological
assessment. In: Akurgal, E., Ertem, H., Otten, H., Süel, A. (Eds.), Hittite and other
Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basimevi, Ankara, pp. 507–520.
Yakar, J., 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze
and Iron Ages. Monograph Series 17. Tel Aviv University, Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv.
Yakar, J., Dinçol, A., 1974. Remarks on the historical geography of north-central
Anatolia during the pre-Hititte and Hittite periods. Tel Aviv 1, pp. 85–99.
C. Glatz / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 127–141 141