FROM IKKUWANIYA to URA a Reassessment of the Geography of the Hūlaya River Land According to the Hittite Archaeological and Philological Evidence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Anatolica XLIV, 2018, 75-122. doi: 10.2143/ANA.44.0.3285051 FROM IKKUWANIYA TO URA A reassessment of the geography of the Hūlaya River Land according to the Hittite archaeological and philological evidence Yiğit Erbil* and Alice Mouton** Abstract Through the combined study of the Hittite cuneiform texts and the archaeological data, we try to draw a map of the Hūlaya river land, a Luwian-speaking area of the Hittite kingdom. The philological inquiry focuses on two diplomatic treaties that were established by the Great King of Hatti and the king of Tarhuntašša, whose territory was closely connected to the Hūlaya river land. The archaeological inquiry summarizes several survey campaigns performed in the region, including the surveys that we performed in the vicinity of Fasıllar (province of Beyşehir) between 2012 and 2015. Our methodology is based on reconstructing the ancient roads of the region, in order to restitute the urban network of the Hittite period. Introduction The Hūlaya river land is part of the Hittite Lower Land,1 a Luwian-speaking area included in the land of Hatti since the Ancient Kingdom according to the Telepinu Edict (Hoffmann 1984: 12-15, § 3-4). The Hūlaya river land remained within the land of Hatti until Hattušili III’s reign. This is illustrated, for example, by the presence of the Hūlaya river on the list of divine recipients of Muwatalli II’s prayer (Singer 1996: 176-7). During Hattušili III’s reign, the land of the Hūlaya river becomes part of a new kingdom, the kingdom of Tarhuntašša which Hattušili gives to his nephew Ulmi-Tešub/Kuruntiya (see for example Jasink 2001: 52). Tarhuntašša had been the ephemeral capital city of Kuruntiya’s father Muwatalli II before Kuruntiya’s own brother, Urhi-Tešub/Muršili III, relocated the capital at Hattuša. The extent of the Hūlaya river land is still debated today. Some authors (Garstang and Gurney 1959: 69-70; Forlanini 1998a: 225) believe that the southern limit of this land was the Hūlaya river itself (most probably the Çarşamba çayı as already suggested by Garstang 1944: 37). As for the northern extent, the bed of the Sarıöz river from the Aladağ to the Beyşehir lake2 would mark the natural frontier according to Forlanini (1998a: 225). Toward the east, * Hacettepe University, Ankara. ** UMR 8167 CNRS Ivry sur Seine and Catholic University of Paris. 1 We would like to thank M. Forlanini who accepted to proofread this article. The latter was written independently from Forlanini’s then forthcoming article (now published as Forlanini 2017). 2 Barjamovic 2011: 370 with fn. 1535 suggests that the Beyşehir lake might “have been a river valley covered with towns and villages in Hittite times.” He also writes, “Proof that the lake must have formed late in history was provided by a local fisherman, who took me to a place c. 600 m. south-west of Yılanlı Ada where Roman stone 76 Yiit Erbil and Alice Mouton Forlanini (1988: 150) suggested that the land of the Hūlaya river could have reached the Bataklık gölü, about 23 km east of modern Çumra. The present article has two main aims: 1) to consolidate the philological and archae- ological evidence about the region; 2) to use this unified body of data to verify the various hypotheses about the extent of the Hūlaya river land, and to try to place on the map of the region as many Hittite toponyms as possible. This second task depends on identifications that remain hypothetical in character. The reader should therefore keep in mind that the following reconstitution is merely an attempt to visualize the Hūlaya river land as vividly as possible. The Hlaya river land in the two Tarhuntašša treaties The Hūlaya river land is mainly known through the two Tarhuntašša treaties, namely the Ulmi-Tešub3 treaty (CTH 106.I.1: Otten 1988 – henceforth UT) and the Bronze Tablet (CTH 106.II.2: van den Hout 1995 – henceforth BT). According to these two texts, the Hūlaya river land clearly constitutes an important part of the kingdom of Tarhuntašša itself. Each section of the texts contains the following phraseology: “Toward the city/mountain of ... his frontier (is) ...”,4 where “his” most probably means “Ulmi-Tešub/Kuruntiya’s”. Therefore, the whole frontier delineation is described from the point of view of the king of Tarhuntašša.5 The two treaties will be studied together so that any change in the frontiers can be highlighted.6 coffin graves cover the lake floor at a depth of c. 60 cm.” However, the presence of such coffins on the floor does not necessarily suggest that the lake did not exist, only that its water level was lower. Many thanks to Michele Massa, who kindly discussed this issue with us at length and gave us this argument. We quote his email (dated 29/06/2016): “As for the inexistence of Beyşehir Lake in the Hittite period, his [Barjamovic’s] commentary is in itself quite interesting, but not necessarily true for the Hittite period. All the studies that he mentions do not explicitly say that it did not exist in the LBA, only that at times it may have “collapsed” (drained) and then when the sinkholes clogged again it would have formed again. The presence of mounds inside the lake today, and the Roman coffins, are not in themselves proof that the lake did not exist in those times, just that it was lower. How much lower is disputable. Changing lake levels is also known in the Burdur lake, where for instance Roman water levels were 10 m. higher than today (cf. Tudryn et al. 2013: 656-7, fig. 4). The only study done directly on the lake is from van Zeist et al. 1975. They obtained a 9 m. long core that formed in wet conditions (i.e. under water), that covered the last 6500 years, and within which there were no obvious breaks in the lake sediment’s deposition (van Zeist et al. 1975: 114). This means that, at least where the coring was taken, there had been no interruption in the existence of the lake, for the last 6500 years. The coring was taken from the southern side of the lake (van Zeistet al. 1975: 73), farthest from the sinkholes, so it is possible that the lake always existed at least in the last 6500 years, but that its shape considerably changed through time.” 3 Ulmi-Tešub is another name of Kuruntiya; see Beckman 1996: 102 for previous literature. 4 On the use of the ablative case to mean “toward”, see Hoffner, Melchert 2008: 266, no. 16.92. 5 Pace Melchert 2007: 508. Garstang and Gurney 1959: 70 suggested that the place names were seen from the interior of the Hūlaya river land, but the assertion that the Tarhuntašša kingdom as a whole is the reference point seems more likely. 6 See also Imparati and Pecchioli Daddi 1991 and del Monte 1991-92, who compare the two texts with one another. Anatolica XLIV, 77 The frontier with Pedašša Both texts describe first the border between the Hūlaya river and the Pedašša land. Section 1 The text states: “Toward the land of Pedašša, the Mountain Hauwa, the kantanna7 of the city of Zarni- ya (and) the city of Šanantarwa (are) your frontiers. Thekantanna of Zarniya (is) in the Hūlaya river land but Šanantarwa (is) in the land of Pedašša.”8 If we try to represent this section of the treaties on a map, we would place Šanantarwa on the Pedaššan side of the border and the kantanna of Zarniya on the Hūlayan side. As for the Mountain Hauwa, it probably constitutes the border itself. Indeed, moun- tains constitute natural borders that can be easily visualized on the landscape. Section 2 The next section of the Tarhuntašša treaties varies according to the version. In the UT, we read: “Toward the frontier (of) the land of Pedašša, the KASKAL.KUR-s (plural) (of) the city of Arimmatta (are) his frontier but Arimmatta (is) in the land of Pedašša.”9 For the same section, the BT states: “Toward the land of Pedašša, the city of Nahhanta was formerly his frontier. My fa- ther drew the frontier in for him: in the treaty [tab]let of my father, the KASKAL.KUR (no plural marker) (of) the city of Arimmatta (was) made (his) frontier. Now, I, My Sun, have reestablished the previous frontier: toward the land of Pedašša (and) toward the frontier (of) Arimmatta, the cities of Nahhanta and Hautašša (are) his frontiers but Nahhanta and Hautašša (are) in the Hūlaya river land.”10 This section describes three successive phases: 1) the situation before the UT; 2) the change realized by the UT; 3) the restoration of the previous frontier by the BT. 7 About this word, see below, p. 89 sub Zarniya. 8 UT (KBo 4.10++ Obv. 16’-18’; van den Hout 1995: 24-27) // BT (Bo 86/299 i 18-21; Otten 1988: 10-11): IŠTU KUR URUPetašša=(t)ta HUR.SAGhauwāš : kantanna URUZarniyaš URUŠanantarwaš ZAG-aš URUZarniyāš=ma=kan : kantanna ANA (BT: INA) KUR I7Hūlaya āššan URUŠanantarwaš=ma=kan INA KUR URUPetašša āššanza. 9 UT (KBo 4.10++ Obv. 19’-20’; van den Hout 1995: 26-27): IŠTU ZAG KUR URUPetašša=ma=(š)ši DKASKAL. KURMEŠ URUArimmatta ZAG-aš URUArimattaš=ma=kan ANA KUR URUPetašša āššanza. 10 BT (i 22-28; Otten 1988: 10-11): IŠTU KUR URUPetašša=ma=(š)ši annaz URUNahhantaš ZAG-aš ēšta nu=(š) ši ABU=YA ZAG anda huittiat nu=kan ANA [ṬU]PPI RIKILTI ŠA ABU=YA DKASKAL.KUR URUArimmatta ZAG-aš iyanza kinun=a=(š)ši DUTU-ŠI annallin ZAG EGIR-pa tehhun nu=(š)ši IŠTU KUR URUPetašša IŠTU ZAG URUArimmatta URUNahhantaš URUHautaššaš=(š)a ZAG-aš URUNahhantaš=ma=kan URUHautaššaš=(š)a INA KUR I7Hūlaya āššanteš.