doi: 10.2143/ANES.51.0.3038723 ANES 51 (2014) 279-316 Historical Continuity in Rural Architecture. The Traces of the Bit Hilani Building Tradition in Adiyaman-Kahta, Turkey Alev ERARSLAN Abstract Cultural values and traditions are what make societies survive. While these values comprise the histories of societies on the one hand, on the other they provide cultural continuity that can be passed on to future generations. The undeniable relationship between the past and the future, prevailing across history, exists in the field of architecture as well. This paper will try to show that the bit hilani, a type of plan originat- ing from Anatolia/Northern Syria, still survives with its basic architectural characteristics representing “architectural continuity” in the rural architecture of Kahta in Adıyaman. The term “bit-hilani-like structures” is not used here as a flexible term, but intentionally to specifically define the houses in the region. But to be careful, terms such as bit-hilani-like or bit-hilani- type structures and hilani-style struc- tures are used. Kahta’s hilani-like structures occupy an important place within the concept of architectural continuity. Here, the most fundamental factor determining the plan of the houses is the historical element and all the structures have a strong affinity with the architectural tradition of the region. The continuity of the special character of the buildings in the villages, which exhibit a noticeably homogeneous societal structure, constitutes the memory of history in the region. These houses, rooted in history as the symbols of past in the region, make us acknowledge today that bit hilani is still alive with some local adaptations. These structures should be understood as a local heritage of historical hilanis tradition.* Bit hilani, a kind of structure that had its origins in Anatolia/Northern Syria, is a type of plan that was widely used in palace architecture in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, western Iran and Meso- potamia in the Iron Age. The term entered the scholarly literature in reference to Iron Age royal residencies of Neo-Hittite kingdoms in northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia (Fig. 1). Hilani referred to the colonnaded porch characteristic of these buildings. The origin of the term hilani is controversial, but it is generally thought that it derives from the Hittite hilammar.1 The Hittite * First, a word of thanks to the governor of Adıyaman, Mr. Mahmut DEMIRTA≤, for his kindness in accepting my study request, and facilitating my contact with all the departments concerned. I also extend my deep gratitude to the District Governor of Kahta, Mr. Metin ESEN, for his efforts in facilitating our work. I am thankful as well for the kind contributions of Prof. Dr Anabel ZARZECKI-PELEG, Prof. Dr Alice MOUTON and Dr James F. OSBORNE in helping me to access sources that I could not reach at the start. I thank Dr Caner GÖÇER, who accompanied me to the district. I am very grateful to Salih CEYLAN, who took on the task of drawing up the maps, graph and all needed plans. And a special thank you goes to the headman of Damlacık village, Mr. Mehmet DEMIRAL, and all the residents of Kahta’s villages, who showered me with warm, cordial hospitality and assistance. 97075.indb 279 10/09/14 09:49 280 A. ERARSLAN Fig. 1. Neo-Hittite Kingdoms (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kummuh#mediaviewer/plik:Neo-hittites_et_arameens.svg). Fig. 2. Building E in Büyükkale (after Naumann 1991; drawn by Salih Ceylan). 97075.indb 280 10/09/14 09:49 HISTORICAL CONTINUITY IN RURAL ARCHITECTURE 281 Fig. 3. Bit hilani in Tell Atchana (Upper left). Other examples of Bit Hilani buildings in northern Syrio-Anatolia (Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, fig. 1; Lehmann and Kilebrew 2010, fig. 9; Naumann 1991, fig. 542; Luschan et al. 1898, fig. 85–86, Tafel XXVI–XXVII ). term hilammar is usually translated as “portico”, “gatehouse” or “gate structure” and refers to the columned portico in front of the sacred room (cella and adyton) that permitted entry into the room. The word is generally viewed as a cognate of the Hittite hila-“courtyard” and would imply an open structure.2 It has also been postulated that the bit hilani concept derives from the Iron Age hieroglyphic Luwian Ìilana, which itself originates from the second-millennium Hittite term Ìilammar. Singer, however, concluded that it was unclear whether or not the bit hilani notion derived from the Hittite Ìilammar.3 In the Assyrian records, the term bit hilani refers to a com- ponent of royal palaces in Assyria understood to include a portico façade.3 Some of these texts describe the bit hilani as an architectural structure within Assyrian palaces built “like a palace of the Land of Hatti” (tamsil ekal mat Îatti).4 Some scholars, however, claim that the term bit hilani relates to only a (palace) gate complex, and does not denote the parts of the palace that are most often contained in the foundation of the structure. Many scholars have attempted to trace the origin of the bit hilani back to either the Hurrian or the Hittite building tradition. Whether a building such as Building E at Büyükkale in Bogazköy is an early predecessor of the bit hilani has been debated (Fig. 2). Building E consists of a small receiving room that can be dated to the thirteenth century BCE. Two columned porticos stand in front of the structure. Behind the porticos, there is a main room of 12 m × 7 m. This main room is surrounded by smaller rooms. One of these rooms is a stairwell.5 Frankfort designated Niqmepa’s palace in Alalakh IV as the prototype of the bit hilani (Fig. 3).6 An entry with columns of the bit hilani type has been placed here. Recent evidence points to the fact that this type of 1 Gurney 1954, p. 210. 2 Mouton and Rutherford 2010, p. 277. 3 Singer 1975, p. 70. 4 Lehmann and Kilebrew 2010, p. 24; see also Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, p. 145; Osborne 2012, p. 32. 5 Naumann 1991, p. 466; 1982, pp. 60, 92. 6 Frankfort 1952, pp. 129–131. 97075.indb 281 10/09/14 09:49 282 A. ERARSLAN building is most probably a local development from Late Bronze Age Syrian palace architecture.7 Thus, there is no clear evidence of a Hittite/Anatolian Late Bronze Age origin for the buildings.8 Frankfort describes bit hilani as two long broad rooms, both with their main axis parallel to the façade. The first is a portico with from one to three columns, often located at the top of a low flight of steps.9 Behind the portico, entered by a wide doorway, lies the throne room (Fig. 3). Margueron has listed the elements of all bit hilanis: an open porch with columns leading to a vestibule and a large main reception hall (throne room) surrounded by secondary rooms forming a suite of bedrooms and bathrooms of varying number and disposition.10 The buildings were roughly rectangular in shape, typically broad: 30–60 m × 25–35 m in size, and were accessed via a porticoed entrance. They had a series of side rooms arranged around a long, rectangular central room, presumably the main reception hall or a throne room.11 The porticoes had one to three wooden columns and dominated the façade. The portico could be either at the centre of the façade or off-centre; symmetry was not an important element in the building.12 The portico led to a broad main hall/throne room. In some cases, a moveable hearth or other installation, such as a dais or podium, was preserved in the throne room.13 A stairwell was on one side of the por- tico, the long secondary axis of the building being asymmetrical.14 The lower parts of the walls and door frames of the façades of many hilanis were decorated with orthostates containing depic- tions of animals and mixed creatures. Several scholars have suggested that the entrance portico was flanked by two towers. These towers, however, are hypothetical and uncertain and cannot be used for defining the bit hilani building tradition.15 Sometimes the structures exhibit a solid mass of masonry which is usually interpreted as a tower. As a rule, if the building proved to be too small, a second hilani could be erected near it; these, however, were not integrated with the first building to form a larger architectural whole.16 So, this type of building could not be expanded indefinitely by the addition of adjoining rooms. The examples that can be cited differ in detail but are alike in essentials; however, the applications of hilanis are more irregular, and less rigid and restricted. Historical Context Adıyaman is situated in the north of the region of the mid-Euphrates, in the land lying between the Euphrates River and the Southeastern Taurus Mountain Range. This region harbours the most important cultural legacies of Southeastern Anatolia and the oldest area of settlement, dating back to the Lower Palaeolithic Period of 40,000 BCE, is Palanlı Cave. The province has witnessed 7 Akkermans and Schwartz 2004, p. 369. 8 Lehmann and Kilebrew 2010, p. 27. 9 Frankfort 1952, p. 120; 1956, p. 167. 10 Margueron 1979, p. 156. 11 Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, p. 145. 12 Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, p. 145. 13 Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, p. 145. 14 Sharon and Zarzecki-Peleg 2006, p. 145. 15 Lehmann and Kilebrew 2010, p. 27. 16 Frankfort 1952, p. 121. 97075.indb 282 10/09/14 09:49 HISTORICAL CONTINUITY IN RURAL ARCHITECTURE 283 dense settlement throughout the periods of its history.