European Journal of Archaeology 20 (1) 2017, 120–147 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Story of a Forgotten Kingdom? Survey Archaeology and the Historical Geography of Central Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC 1,2,3 1,3 CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT AND CHRISTINA LUKE 1Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Koç University, I˙stanbul, Turkey 2Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Koç University, I˙stanbul, Turkey 3Department of Archaeology, Boston University, USA This article presents previously unknown archaeological evidence of a mid-second-millennium BC kingdom located in central western Anatolia. Discovered during the work of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey in the Marmara Lake basin of the Gediz Valley in western Turkey, the material evidence appears to correlate well with text-based reconstructions of Late Bronze Age historical geog- raphy drawn from Hittite archives. One site in particular—Kaymakçı—stands out as a regional capital and the results of the systematic archaeological survey allow for an understanding of local settlement patterns, moving beyond traditional correlations between historical geography and capital sites alone. Comparison with contemporary sites in central western Anatolia, furthermore, identifies material com- monalities in site forms that may indicate a regional architectural tradition if not just influence from Hittite hegemony. Keywords: survey archaeology, Anatolia, Bronze Age, historical geography, Hittites, Seha River Land INTRODUCTION correlates of historical territories and king- doms have remained elusive. The historical geography of western This is hardly a novel situation. Long Anatolia in the second millennium BC has traditions of Biblical and Classical archae- become much clearer in recent decades. ology in the Mediterranean have roots in New discoveries and re-interpretations of attempts to connect material remains to both rupestral monuments in western textually attested peoples. In Anatolia Anatolia and archives from Hattusa, the itself, Hittite archaeology proper began in Hittite capital in north central Anatolia, the 1870s and 1880s with William have led to general consensus, if not unan- Wright’s(1874, 1884) and Archibald imity, on the broad outlines of many geo- Henry Sayce’s(1880, 1888) inspired con- political units in the area, from their first nections between previously unidentified appearances in Hittite texts to their inclu- hieroglyphic inscriptions, the biblical sion under imperial control. Yet while the ‘Hittites’, and the Egyptian ‘Kheta’, historical map appears more and more unveiling the Story of a Forgotten Empire, clearly delineated, the archaeological as Sayce called it. Similarly, Heinrich © European Association of Archaeologists 2016 doi:10.1017/eaa.2016.2 Manuscript received 18 May 2015, accepted 10 February 2016, revised 29 January 2016 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.22, on 26 Sep 2021 at 16:00:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.2 Roosevelt and Luke – The story of a Forgotten Kingdom? 121 Schliemann’s privileging of textual evidence for a singular capital site, but also for in his search for Homeric Troy is linked thriving communities in its hinterland. ontologically with Manfred Korfmann’sre- Our presentation of the second-millen- covery of empirical datasets at Troy that nium BC archaeology of the Central Lydia support arguments that the Hittites once Archaeological Survey (CLAS) study area knew the area as Wilusa (Starke, 1997; begins with a review of the historical geog- Korfmann, 2006). In such cases, however, raphy of central western Anatolia as illu- survey archaeology has played only a minor strated by Late Bronze Age Hittite role compared to excavation in helping to interests in and general information about flesh the bones of historical interpretation the area. We then discuss survey methods with material realities (see Matthews & and summarize the results analysed to Glatz, 2009). What is the potential for date. With the discovery of six fortified archaeological survey in previously unsys- citadels, five unfortified settlements, and tematically studied regions to recover data- at least twenty-three other sites of contem- sets that link well with and extend the porary activity in the region, this survey textual record in ways that excavation at project illustrates the presence of a well- single sites cannot? developed constellation of local communi- As of the late 1990s, the middle river ties in central western Anatolia that valley of the Gediz (the Hermos of greatly complements our understanding of Classical times) was one such unsystemat- regional settlement from texts alone. ically studied region. With few exceptions, Comparison with contemporary sites and historical and archaeological investigations materials in western Anatolia discovered had focused on the Iron Age kingdom of via survey and excavation also shows that Lydia in the first millennium BC, with this new evidence represents one of the visions of its capital Sardis commanding fullest pictures we have of a western vast hinterlands in Lydian and subsequent Anatolian settlement system of the second times. Yet in a 1998 article, Hittitologist millennium BC, from fortified citadel to J. David Hawkins suggested that Sardis, agricultural countryside. or a site in its environs, may have been an earlier capital of a forgotten Bronze Age kingdom too: the Seha River Land, an in- EMPIRE AND KINGDOM:HISTORICAL digenous realm and later Hittite vassal GEOGRAPHY IN LATE BRONZE AGE state recorded in Hittite texts of the Late WESTERN ANATOLIA Bronze Age (c. 1650–1200 BC). With the express purpose of examining the immedi- The story of the Hittites of north central ate hinterland of Sardis in all periods of Anatolia is well known to scholars of human history—not just the Late Bronze Mediterranean history and archaeology Age or Lydian periods—the Central Lydia (e.g. Bryce, 2005). By the mid-second mil- Archaeological Survey (CLAS) worked lennium BC,kingsrulingfromHattusa,a between 2005 and 2014 to explore an area capital city of monumental walls, temples, of c. 350 km2 around 10 km north of and palaces, interacted diplomatically and Sardis across the Gediz Valley. Among militarily with neighbouring peoples in all results from diverse periods, the work directions. Best known are Hittite interac- offers the best candidate yet known for a tions with Babylonian, Mittanian, Assyrian, capital of the Seha River Land. and Egyptian areas to the south and south- Furthermore, because of its systematic ap- east, where the conquest of previously inde- proach, the survey reveals evidence not just pendent states transformed the central Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.22, on 26 Sep 2021 at 16:00:59, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2016.2 122 European Journal of Archaeology 20 (1) 2017 Anatolian kingdom into a hegemonic Kurunta over a combined group of Mira empire (Glatz, 2009). Of numerous king- and Kuwaliya, Manapa-Tarhunda over a doms affected by Hittite growth over the combined group of the Seha River Land courseoftheLateBronzeAge,agroupof and Appawiya, and, lastly, Alaksandu over politically aligned lands in western Anatolia Wilusa (Beckman, 1999:69–93). knowntotheHittitesasArzawa,orthe The precise locations of these vassal Arzawa Lands, remains one of the least kingdoms in western Anatolia have gained understood. resolution recently, after nearly a century Arzawa enters history fleetingly in of scholarship. Their existence, based on records of the seventeenth and sixteenth evidence provided by cuneiform tablets in century concerning the military campaigns archives at Hattusa, has been known since of Hattusili I and perhaps also those of his early in the twentieth century, yet only in grandson and successor Mursili I the last thirty years have nearly continuous (Heinhold-Krahmer, 1977:19–21; Bryce, epigraphical, archaeological, and topo- 2003:46–47, 2005; Yakubovich, 2008: graphical discoveries and syntheses 97). Little is revealed about the area at enabled their more confident placement that time, however, and it is not until on the map (Figure 1). Particularly influ- much later in the second millennium that ential in these geographical reconstructions more information is gained. were the masterful works of Frank Starke The annals of king Tudhaliya I/II de- (1997) and J. David Hawkins (1998) (see scribe campaigns against Arzawa, the Seha also Mountjoy, 1998, Sarı, 2013, and River Land, and Hapalla in the early to Alparslan & Doğan-Alparslan, 2015). mid fourteenth century (Heinhold-Krahmer, Wilusa, commonly associated with the 1977: 256–58; Bryce, 2003:48–49). By this Greek Ilios, has been tied to the Troad in time Arzawan kings had become powerful north-western Anatolia, with its capital at enough to threaten Hittite sovereignty and Troy, the only known fortified site in the negotiate marriage alliances directly with region (Pavúk & Schubert, 2014; Rose, Amenhotep III of Egypt (Moran, 1992: 2014:25–43). Mira and Kuwaliya prob- 101). According to later fourteenth- and ably coincided