Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27.2 (2014) 135-160 ISSN (Print) 0952-7648 ISSN (Online) 1743-1700 Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments

Felipe Rojas1 and Valeria Sergueenkova2

1 Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Study of the Ancient World, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA E-mail: [email protected]

2 Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This article examines what people in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Anatolia thought about and did with Hittite and Neo-Hittite rock-cut reliefs and inscriptions. It brings together archaeological and textual evidence that demonstrates the intensity, variety, and sophistication of interactions with Bronze and Iron Age material remains between the classical and early Byzantine periods. It also calls attention to the ways in which indigenous inhabitants and foreign visitors alike used such remains to construct or verify narratives about local and universal history. The evidence analyzed here should be of interest to those studying social memory as well as cross-cultural interaction within and beyond the Mediterranean. Keywords: afterlife of monuments, Anatolia, antiquarianism, memory, rock-reliefs

Introduction Hittite tales in the erudite literary traditions of Greece and Rome, there were also—indeed still Tarhuntas is the Luwian name of the mighty are—conspicuous physical traces of the Hittites storm-god, whose exploits were celebrated in Anatolia, including dozens of monumental widely in Bronze and Iron Age Anatolia. Dur- rock-cut reliefs and inscriptions (Rossner 1988; ing the second millennium bc, scribes in the Hawkins 2000; Ehringhaus 2005). In fact, there Hittite capital Hattusas recorded tales about is, if not an obvious network, then at least a Tarhuntas’s combat with the dragon Illuyankas tangible scatter of Hittite monuments, located and, long after the city and the Hittite empire in prominent and otherwise meaningful loca- had disappeared, Greek and Roman poets still tions in the landscape (Seeher 2009; Glatz and sang of that encounter (Porzig 1930; Houwink Plourde 2011; Simon 2012). Unlike material ten Cate 1992). Even in Late Antique Egypt, remains recovered through excavation or survey a prolific and learned poet could rehearse (such as cuneiform tablets and pottery sherds), the cosmic struggle between god and dragon these reliefs and inscriptions have always been using details also preserved in cuneiform tab- exposed, conspicuous signs of former human lets (Bernabé 1988; Watkins 1995: 448-59). activity or, as some argued, divine presence. Tarhuntas, whose name can be etymologized This article examines what people in Greek, as ‘victor’ or ‘he who overcomes’, outlasted his Roman, and Byzantine Anatolia thought about worshippers. But in addition to the echoes of

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v27i2.135 136 Rojas and Sergueenkova oduced by John Wallrodt. John oduced by Map of Anatolia, pr Map

Figure 1. Figure

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 137 and did with those reliefs and inscriptions (Fig- Ramsay and Bell 1909: 502-12), and Hasluck ure 1). Much of the evidence may be surpris- (1929: 363-69). ing. In the Roman period, the inhabitants of a More recent investigations dealing specifically small settlement in central Turkey engaged in with the re-use and reinterpretation of Anatolian athletic competitions next to an abandoned Hit- material culture across cultural and chrono- tite monolith; a Hellenistic priest in Lycaonia, logical boundaries are still rare (but see Redford perched atop a rock outcropping, performed 1993; Rojas 2013; Harmanşah 2014). In some mysterious dynamic rituals next to the carvings ways, scholars such as Frazer, Ramsay, and of a Bronze Age Hittite king; in the 5th century Hasluck were unrecognized pioneers of what can bc, the Greek historian Herodotus recognized be loosely labeled ‘memory studies’ (pivotal con- similarities between some reliefs he had seen tributions include: Connerton 1989; Halbwachs in western Turkey (which we now recognize as 1992; Nora 1996; Assmann 2005; 2011). This Hittite) and others he had encountered in the paper builds both on the insight of those early Levant, and then concluded that they had all 20th-century thinkers—by following, for exam- been commissioned by the same ruler; in the ple, their bold diachronic approach and insisting Byzantine period, Armenian villagers on the on their attention to local perspectives—as well shores of lake Van—arguably inspired by Bronze as on the methodologically self-aware and theo- and Iron Age monuments—sang of a giant who retically explicit investigations of more recent could carve stone with his fingernails and crush archaeologists, historians, and social theorists it leaving zoomorphic figures behind. What do interested in memory. From among this vast these interactions tell us about the way the peo- literature, the studies of two prominent archae- ple of ancient Anatolia imagined their own past? ologists, Alcock (2002) and Bradley (2002), And how can we, as archaeologists and histori- will help us define our intellectual background ans, use this evidence in our own exploration of more precisely and outline the originality of our landscapes and memory in Anatolia? contribution. The main goal of this article is to add the rich and peculiar Anatolian evidence to the ever-grow- Background: Archaeology and Memory ing body of scholarship concerned with the study of the past in the past in the Mediterranean and Bradley’s path-breaking exploration of the beyond (e.g. Schnapp 1997; López Luján 1999; sophisticated and varied engagements of prehis- Alcock 2002; Bradley 2002; Hamann 2002; toric communities with their own past set a new Van Dyke and Alcock 2003; Yoffee 2008; Hung standard for the study of memory in antiquity. 2012; Schnapp et al. 2014;). From the large body His analyses of interactions with the material of evidence of later ancient interest in Bronze traces of the past in Neolithic Europe (as well as and Iron Age material remains, we have chosen in many subsequent moments from the Roman six cases of interaction that involve unmistakably period down to the Middle Ages) has benefited deliberate and mindful engagements that, taken from an academic tradition of thinking about together, showcase the full range of individuals the past of the British Isles in very deep time and communities who interpreted and manipu- (Bradley 2002: 149-57). Even though Anatolia lated Hittite and Neo-Hittite ruins. The evidence has a rich archaeological and historical record we explore has never been compiled and has only that is in some ways unparalleled in Britain rarely been studied—although perceptive obser- and most of the western Mediterranean, rigid vations were made already by early 20th century periodizations continue to be an obstacle for the scholars with explicit diachronic interests such as diachronic study of the history and archaeol- Frazer (1965: 552-56), Ramsay (1927: 140-81; ogy of the region. This is a shame, because not

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 138 Rojas and Sergueenkova only does ancient Anatolia have an abundance Our main contentions can be summarized as of exposed monumental remains that later follows: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine interest generations of people had to confront, it also in Bronze and Iron Age realia (by which we has written records concerning the production mean landscapes, monuments, and objects) was and interpretation of those monuments in a embedded in cultural and political conflicts variety of languages (some of them written as that ranged from competing claims about civic early as the late third millennium bc). Here we genealogies to petty scholarly rivalries. Clas- heed Harmanşah’s (2013; 2014) call for a shift sicists have analyzed the literary, epigraphic, towards focused, micro-scale engagements; we and numismatic evidence for these debates (e.g. zoom in on local landscapes using abundant Chaniotis 1988; Weiß 1995; Jones 1999: 139- textual and material data to analyze how com- 50), but their broader material dimensions have munities and individuals over the course of mil- only recently been recognized and investigated lennia interacted with the material traces of the (e.g. Borg 2004; Dignas and Smith 2012; Rojas past in their midst. 2013). The study of the material evidence of Alcock’s (2002) revolutionary work on the such engagements shows that the people who uses of Bronze Age remains in Classical and took part in discussions about pre-classical Hellenistic Greece and of the Classical past in material culture spanned the entire social spec- Roman Athens has inspired ever more stimulat- trum, even though literary evidence privileges ing investigations within and beyond Greece. elite opinions. Furthermore, the textual and And yet, in Anatolia, reflection about the material evidence together provides access to re-use of physical remains is still affected by competing, often contradictory narratives about academic and political prejudices implicitly local Anatolian antiquity that are often invisible justifying the misconception that Hittite ruins to ancient historians working on canonical texts. in the eyes of Greek, Roman, or Byzantine A more specific point: on occasion, engagement viewers were culturally, chronologically, and with Bronze and Iron Age realia involved con- emotionally more remote than the Lion’s Gate noisseurship. There were ancient specialists who at Mycenae or the Bronze Age tholos tomb were intimately familiar with the ruins of Ana- in Orchomenos, and therefore irrelevant. So, tolia—in other words, experts on Bronze and paradoxically, although since the late 19th Iron Age material remains who could, among century, Indo-Europeanists have explored the other things, compare distant monuments and mostly unconscious continuity of poetic forms objects and place them in a precise historical or in literary traditions associated with Anatolia mythological sequence. Again, the evidence for (e.g. Watkins 1995 passim; Bachvarova 2002), analogous specialists in literary culture has been Greek and Roman engagements with the mate- explored extensively (e.g. Whitmarsh 2005: rial traces of the remote local past in the region 41-56), but its material aspects have received have received almost no attention (Collins et al. almost no attention (cf. Elsner 2007: 49-66, 2010 brings together contributions by linguists, who discusses some of the literary evidence for historians, and archaeologists on Hittite–Greek ancient connoisseurs of material culture). interactions, but they are mostly concerned As we shall argue in greater detail elsewhere, with synchronic contact). These prejudices are many of these interactions should be under- misguided; our paper builds on Alcock’s work stood in the context of history-making with to demonstrate how the people of the region objects. Hittite reliefs and inscriptions drew repeatedly traversed the cultural and temporal later observers into an intense, dynamic, and divide that separated a Hittite relief from Greek, often physical process of interpretation and Roman, and Byzantine observers. manipulation. Those observers, in turn, pro-

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 139 duced stories that explained their relationship springs and lakes, or on mountain passes and with the monuments, as well as with their imag- prominent cliff-faces, as markers of religious ined makers and honorands. We are confident and political dominion over the landscape. Mel- that these stories can and should be recovered. laart (1962) suggested that the Fasıllar statue The following case studies attempt to do so. was intended to be part of the monument at Eflatun Pınar (27 km northwest of Fasıllar, near the shores of Lake Beyşehir), where a grand A Giant in the Middle of Nowhere cultic complex of similar date and facture still The largest extant monolithic statue from the stands (but cf. Baldıran et al. 2010: 221-22). Hittite Empire period lies abandoned in Fasıllar, However that may be, soon after it was carved, a village some 16 km east of Lake Beyşehir (Fig- the monolith was abandoned next to its quarry. ure 2). It is 8.3 m tall, weighs about 70 tons, In the immediate vicinity of the colossal and was carved probably in the 13th century statue there are traces of a small Roman-period bc. The statue represents the Hittite storm-god settlement that include a well, dry-stone walls, standing upon a mountain-god, who is flanked several inscriptions, dozens of cist graves, and by lions. It was destined for one of the imposing a handful of more elaborate rock-cut monu- landscape monuments set up by Hittite kings at ments (Baldıran et al. 2010). In antiquity, the

Figure 2. Fasıllar, abandoned Hittite monolith. Photograph: authors.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 140 Rojas and Sergueenkova monolith must have been simply part of what as ‘Lucianus heros progamios’, or ‘Lucianus, who was there, like a big hill or a tree, an inevitable died before marriage’ (Sterrett 1888: 166-67, thing in the landscape. But was that all? Did no. 274; on the meaning of heros in this context local people in the Roman period care about see Graf 1985: 127-35; Jones 2010: 48-65). A the statue’s origin? How did they imagine and single arch supported by Corinthian columns explain their own relationship to its honorand frames a niche that once contained a statue of and its makers? the young man; to the right of the arch is a half Answers to these questions are recoverable, life-size relief of a horse with elaborate trap- at least in outline, through the examination of pings. The shrine faces the Hittite statue lying later interventions in the landscape around the about 50 m away. In the general area there are statue. Graves and monuments were built in many other cliffs where the hero shrine could and around the Hittite quarry and the aban- have been carved; yet it was constructed right doned colossus. The most conspicuous and in front of the Hittite monolith. It would be elaborate of the Roman-period monuments was perverse to argue that the Roman monument carved directly opposite the monolith in the was not intended to be in visual and spatial 2nd century ad (Figure 3). It is a rock-cut shrine tension with the Hittite statue. But what sort of to a local notable, identified by an inscription dialogue do the relative positions of the shrine

Figure 3. Fasıllar, view of monolith (boxed yellow) and shrine of Lucianus (boxed blue). Photograph of shrine: Ömür Harmanşah.

Figure 4. Fasıllar, monument of Lucianus (boxed blue) and rock-cut inscription stipulating rules for athletic competitions (boxed pink). Photograph: the authors. and the statue imply? And what happened what motivated local communities to carve a in the space between them? A Roman-period shrine to a distinguished ancestor in front of Greek inscription (roughly or possibly exactly an abandoned monolith and then to organize contemporary with the shrine) sheds some light athletic games and funerary rituals between on these matters (SEG 6.449, 39.1418; Robert them. Did the Bronze Age giant hold special and Robert 1989: 50, n. 249). Like the shrine, significance for the entire community, or at the text is carved in the native rock, a few meters least for some of its members? While the precise below and slightly to the right of Lucianus’s motivations of those inhabitants of Fasıllar who monument; it stipulates rules for athletic games held games around the statue are elusive, we can that included horse-racing and pankration (a still make some specific suggestions about their bloody combat with few restrictions, akin to intentions and purpose. The athletic regulations mixed martial arts—Poliakoff 1987: 54-63), are remarkable for their insistence on communal and that were open to both citizens and slaves values such as fair play and cooperation: they (Figure 4). Those athletic competitions were stipulate an unusually limited form of pankra- held in the narrow valley between the monolith tion (wrestling on the ground is forbidden); and the shrine of Lucianus. slaves are allowed to compete in the games and Even if the site is ‘a natural ersatz stadium’ to share a fraction of the prize money with fel- (Swoboda et al. 1935: 16), we may still wonder low competitors; pankratiasts and horse-owners

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 142 Rojas and Sergueenkova are not allowed to win more than once a day (Hall 1959: 122). An alternative possibility is (Gardiner 1929; Crowther 1992). These are that the shrine postdates the inscription and emphatically inclusive rules that must have been that Lucianus was more intimately associated aimed at promoting social cohesiveness, perhaps with the statue than other members of his com- even inter-community fellowship and goodwill. munity only after the games were instituted. How did Lucianus’ family and the partici- One must also note the lack of explicit con- pants in the games conceive of their respective nection between Lucianus or his family and the relationships to the statue? Although, on the foundation and sponsorship of the games. This one hand, we do not know the relative chronol- is a marked difference from many other (better ogy of shrine and inscription, and thus of the documented) cases of local athletic festivals in private funerary rituals and the communal ath- the Roman East, where the benefaction and letic games, we can, on the other, shed light on participation of elite individuals is never out the issues at stake in the production or appro- of focus (e.g. van Nijf 2001; Newby 2005: priation of a monumental landscape, based on 229-71). In any case, what matters here are not abundant and well-studied evidence for private the details of the specific story that may have hero cults and Roman-period games elsewhere explained the statue, but the fact that different in the region (Robert [1989: 712] collected activities took place around the monolith and much of the epigraphic evidence for what he the likelihood that various communally signifi- termed ‘explosion agonistique’; for more recent cant narratives developed around it. syntheses, see Pleket 1998; van Nijf 2001; We would further suggest that it is possi- 2012; Newby 2005). ble that the connection proposed by Mellaart Here is one possible scenario: the commemo- between the Fasıllar statue and the Eflatun Pınar ration of ‘Lucianus, who died a young man’ complex might also have been made in antiq- started as a private family initiative, but became uity. As we show below, there are incontrovert- an increasingly communal affair once it started ible examples of Greek and Roman observers to include the games, whose rules were inscribed who compared and connected ancient Hittite on the rock-face (Hughes 1999; Wypustek monuments that were distant in space (as Hero- 2013: 65-95). The carving of Lucianus’ monu- dotus, for example, did with reliefs found in ment in the prime spot vis-à-vis the statue (i.e. western Anatolia and the Levant; see below); by facing it from the shortest possible distance contrast, Fasıllar and Eflatun Pınar are practi- across the valley) went hand-in-hand with a cally neighbors. Those who participated in the now irrecoverable specific story, promoted as a Fasıllar games might well have included people private family tradition, that related Lucianus who lived near Eflatun Pinar or in Beyşehir, (or his family) to the lying giant. Once the now identified as ancient Misthia (Hall 1959; games were instituted, that story changed (or Belke 1984: 164, 205-206). They would have was supplanted by another, perhaps already been brought together by shared ideas about current, story) so as to involve the entire com- the local past anchored in different places that munity. The games enacted regularly in the were linked by the material similarities between interstitial space eventually incorporated many the Fasıllar statue and the blocks of the Eflatun other individuals, and this communal gathering Pinar pool complex. In any case, the monolith transformed the landscape around the monu- at Fasıllar grounded a dispersed community, ment. The area became a center of civic life not or communities, not just in space but also in just for all the inhabitants (citizens and slaves) time, by providing a material matrix in which to of the Roman-period settlement near Fasıllar, place traditions about the local past. The giant but perhaps also for those of the whole region and surrounding landscape continued to attract

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 143 activity throughout the Roman period as later (rather than a more famous but later character inhabitants buried their dead and built smaller related to Heracles) might have also had politi- funerary monuments nearby it. They too sought cal resonances. As we show below, debates such to substantiate their connections to the territory as the one at Temenothyrae are attested by and its past by interacting with a colossal Hittite material and textual evidence from elsewhere statue that was part of living history. in the region. An analogous process must have We can imagine more clearly how multiple unfolded in Fasıllar, where the proliferation of stories accreted onto the Fasıllar monolith, later monuments and successive interventions in and onto similar traces of the remote past in the vicinity of the monolith have created a land- Roman Anatolia, if we consider a written tes- scape densely layered with personal and com- timony about a debate surrounding landscape munal history. Changing concerns about the monuments in this period. During the 2nd present must have prompted different forms of century ad, the historian and traveler Pausanias engagement with the giant and must have led to (1.35.7) recorded a debate about the antiquities the revision and multiplication of stories about near the town of Temenothyrae, on the bor- the local deep past (on the flexibility of memo- der between Lydia and Phrygia (see also Jones ries connected to monuments, see Elsner 1994). 2001: 35). Pausanias describes a landmark in the form of ‘a man’s seat carved on a rocky spur Jumping from the Throne of the mountain’ and reports that the inhabitants of Temenothyrae associated it with a set Most of the Hittite and Neo-Hittite monuments of giant bones that had been recently exposed we study in this paper are nodes in densely lay- by a storm. They interpreted these bones as ered, multi-period sites that contain evidence the traces of the triple-bodied giant Geryon for a variety of communal activities, from stone (a famed cow-herd killed by Heracles during quarrying to monastic life, and from athletic one of his labors) and buttressed their claim by games to idiosyncratic religious practices. While pointing to bovine horns that would turn up the reliefs themselves, carved as they are on the when local farmers tilled their land. They even native rock (or immovable due to their size in re-named the nearby seasonal stream ‘Ocean’ to the case of the statue at Fasıllar), were mostly match the mythical monster’s traditional abode. left intact, their re-contextualization took place When Pausanias refuted the Geryon identifi- as a result of deliberate manipulations during cation, the local antiquarian specialists were the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine periods. If in forced to come up with the true story: they said Fasıllar a whole community, perhaps a region, the landmark was connected to Hyllus, son of came together for athletic activities, elsewhere Earth and eponym of a local river. individuals and smaller groups within communi- This passage is a remarkable illustration of the ties sought to establish intimate connections to dynamic process of re-making local history in ancient rock carvings and the landscapes around response to newly discovered traces of the past them. around an ancient monument. This revision The most intriguing evidence of interaction of happens as a result of a negotiation between a a distinct religious nature is found on the hill of learned traveler, local experts in antiquities, and Kızıldağ, one of several striking volcanic cones the indigenous population at large. For Pau- rising abruptly over the Konya plain, in what sanias the issue was primarily academic, but one was ancient Lycaonia. The hilltop is covered wonders if for the inhabitants of Temenothyrae with abundant archaeological remains of vari- the suggestion that material remains were to be ous dates, including un-mortared fortification associated with a primordial, indigenous Hyllus walls of Bronze or Iron Age date with Hellenistic

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 144 Rojas and Sergueenkova or Roman modifications and an apsed build- that mention a ‘Great King Hartapus, son of ing with mortared walls that may have been Mursilis’ (Hawkins 2000: 433-35, nos. X.1-3). a church, as well as ceramics from the Bronze At some point in the late Hellenistic or early Age through the Late Roman period that seem Roman period someone carved the outlines of to indicate continuous occupation (Karauğuz at least five sets of footprints on the horizontal et al. 2002; cf. French 1996: 93-95, identifying platform of the ‘throne’ (Güterbock 1947: 64 the site as Barata; see also Harmanşah 2013: and fig. 10; Bittel 1986: 109). Possibly, though 47-50). On the northwest slopes of Kızıldağ not necessarily, at the same time, the follow- there is a prominent red trachyte outcropping ing Greek inscription was also incised: ‘The known ever since Ramsay and Bell (1906: 507) priest Craterus, [son] of Hermocrates, jumped’ as the ‘throne’ (Figure 5). In the Bronze or early (KRATEROS HERMOKRATOU||IEREUS Iron Age, Luwian masons carved a relief on the EPĒDĒSE [SEG 36.1235bis]) (Figure 7). (Dur- vertical surface of this ‘throne’ which depicts an ing visits in July 2013, we noticed that the enthroned bearded king holding a spear in his remains of the Greek inscription and incised left hand and a bowl in his right (Figure 6). In footprints had been almost entirely obliterated the immediate vicinity of the relief are also sev- by looters using dynamite.) eral Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions of varying This set of interventions is bewildering. To facture (some incised and some in high relief) begin with, a leap from the ‘throne’ would

Figure 5. Kızıldağ, the ‘throne’. Photograph: the authors.

Figure 6. Kızıldağ, inscription of Hartapus and associated relief on the ‘throne’. Photograph: the authors. almost certainly be fatal. Chaniotis (2008: 27) sort (and presumably other members of his tentatively suggests: ‘a ritual dance?’, but that community) found this Hittite landscape monu- too could potentially threaten life and limb. ment meaningful and chose to perform religious But even if Craterus did not literally jump off activities as well as to record their actions imme- the cliff, what drew a Greek-speaking priest to diately next to the Hittite relief and inscriptions the relief of a Hittite king in the first place? We (French 1996: 96). The incised footprints were think that he might have identified the seated perhaps meant to record the position of partici- Hartapus as a divinity—as certainly happened pants in a ceremony in honor of the enthroned at Akpınar and, perhaps, in İvriz (see below). divinity or, perhaps, the pilgrimage of followers In any case, it is clear that in the Hellenistic or of Craterus (Dunbabin 1990). In the latter case, early Roman period a religious expert of some we would be dealing with a Hittite monument

Figure 7. Kızıldağ, incised footprints and Greek inscription of ‘Craterus’ on rock that was once part of the ‘throne’ (now damaged by looters). Photograph: Ömür Harmanşah. that was re-activated not just through a unique sibly four centuries later, than the hieroglyphic idiosyncratic interpretation, but also through a inscription which it abuts (Hawkins 2000: series of religious performances of lasting rel- 429; Harmanşah [2013: 47-50] thinks both evance for a Hellenistic or Roman community. relief and inscriptions date to the Bronze Age). Incidentally, this monument had already Although many centuries before Craterus, the acquired a similarly layered biography in the Luwian hieroglyphs on Kızıldağ had ceased early Iron Age: in an effort to re-appropriate the to be intelligible to anyone, and the identity landscape for a different authority, the relief of of Hartapus and whoever might have inserted the seated king was probably carved later, pos- his semblance to Hartapus’ inscription had

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 147 long been forgotten, the inscribed ‘throne’ is carved on a prominent rock outcropping over and indeed the entire landscape continued to a gushing spring, whose waters feed the İvriz be meaningful. In addition to the reliefs and Deresi. Up one of its tributary streams lie the inscriptions, and in fact working in tandem ruins of a massive fortress whose foundations with them, there was—indeed still is—the strik- may date to as early as the Iron Age (Karauğuz ing landscape around Kızıldağ. To a modern and Kunt 2006). Farther up the stream and observer, the volcanic cones seem eerily power- approximately 1 km from the fortress, a smaller ful as they tower over the flat Konya plain and version of the Tarhunzas and Warpalawas relief the (now dry) salt lake. While it is impossible to found by the spring was carved on a sheer cliff, know what a Hellenistic or Roman priest—let perhaps at the same time as the main one below. alone a Hittite king—experienced when look- The smaller relief is now very badly weathered, ing out from the ‘throne’, some of the anthro- but it is clear that the two rock-cut monuments pogenic remains suggest ancient attention to closely resemble each other in form and func- landscape features beyond Kızıldağ proper. A tion. The imagery is nearly identical and they different hieroglyphic inscription and monu- were intended to mark hydrologically-impor- ment, situated a few dozen meters away from tant points in the landscape; the main relief was the ‘throne’, are carved in such a way as to call carved at the spot where a major spring gushed, attention to one of the nearby volcanic cones and the smaller copy was carved near a complex (Hawkins 2000: 435-42, nos. X.4-8). Judging of natural caves and tunnels. The Ambarderesi from narratives attested in authors such as Ovid, used to feed the lower spring at İvriz before the the salt lake, whose level fluctuated in antiquity, construction of a recent dam; even today, villag- probably incited a sense of awe long after Har- ers insist that the underground water systems tapus had commissioned his monument. Tales associated with the reliefs are interconnected. of cataclysmic floods and other sudden shifts in Flanking the smaller relief are several Byz- water levels are well attested in Anatolian land- antine structures, including a church once scape mythology (Jones 1994). Inhabitants of adorned with fine polychrome frescoes (Figure the settlement on Kızıldağ may well have felt for 9; for a clear plan of the relevant topographical centuries that numinous power resided on the and anthropogenic features, see Karauğuz and ‘throne’ that overlooked the plain, the nearby Kunt 2006, which also provides tentative dates volcano, and the disappearing lake. for the various structures). The choice of loca- There is further evidence that suggests that tion for the Byzantine buildings—in a steep, Bronze and Iron Age landscape monuments forbidding canyon about an hour’s walk from were re-imagined as part of religious landscapes the fertile plain—can be explained, at least in even in the Byzantine period. In the northern part, by the lasting cultural relevance of the two foothills of the Taurus Mountains, near the vil- reliefs. What the Christian monks and pilgrims lage of İvriz, in a region rich in springs and cut who lived in this isolated environment thought by deep canyons, there is a scattered and com- of the figures of Tarhunzas and Warpalawas is, plex series of monuments, the earliest of which again, impossible to know. But the fact that dates at least to the Iron Age. Grandest of all the smaller relief is framed by the Byzantine is a colossal 8th-century bc rock-cut relief and structures, and that it has not been defaced, is inscription representing an over life-size local intriguing. Perhaps the complex in İvriz was version of Tarhunzas (the Luwian rendering of built there to counteract the imagined power of Hittite Tarhuntas) receiving offerings of grain demons carved on the rock. (But why, then, not and fruit from ‘Warpalawas, the hero’ (Hawkins do the same with the more accessible and con- 2000: 516-18, no. X.43) (Figure 8). The relief spicuous relief by the spring?) Alternatively, the

Figure 8. İvriz, relief of Tarhunzas (left) and Warpalawas (right) by gushing spring. Photograph: the authors. fact that the relief of Tarhunzas and Warpalawas relief identified as a pre-Christian saint (on the was deliberately chosen as the center-point of Christian afterlife of pagan landscape monu- the community and that daily life was organized ments see Hasluck1929: 188-207; Thonemann around it may point to an emotional, perhaps 2011: 50-98)? Was the secluded monastic com- specifically spiritual, connection. Again, as in munity making a statement about its relation- the case of Fasıllar, comparable geological and ship with the more famous and obvious relief hydrological formations can be found elsewhere down on the plain as well as the settlement in the Ambar Deresi, and yet it was exactly by there? Ramsay and Bell (1909: 256) had already the relief that the Byzantine monks chose to called attention in passing to the continuity of build their community. Was the figure in the religious activity on Kızıldağ and Karadağ and

Figure 9. İvriz, Byzantine complex flaking small relief up Ambarderesi; structure on left obscures view of relief. Photo- graph of small relief: Ömür Harmanşah. compared it to that in İvriz, where ‘the sacred portable monuments and disarticulated ruins. valley was consecrated by chapels’. At any rate, There is abundant and varied evidence that in İvriz, Christian ascetic recluses chose a remote those people interacted frequently with architec- place to lead their lives, an out-of-the-way spot tural blocks and portable stelae, some of which marked by a relief of the Hittite storm-god. bore hieroglyphic inscriptions and figural reliefs. Instead of destroying the landscape monument, The frequent incorporation of this kind of mate- those monks framed it: an anachronic center- rial into later funerary and religious structures piece for Christian life in Byzantine Anatolia. has sometimes contributed to their preservation and recovery. Many of the instances of re-use of portable objects seem strictly utilitarian. It Tork‘ as Scribe is notable, however, and perhaps also meaning- The examples we have discussed so far have ful, that several of those blocks ended up con- involved major landscape monuments commis- spicuously exposed on the walls and floors of sioned by Bronze and Iron Age kings and princes. churches and mosques (on the re-use of Greek Nonetheless, the people of Greek, Roman, and and Roman material remains in Christian and Byzantine Anatolia would have also encountered Muslim structures, see Papalexandrou 2003; non-royal Hittite remains, including smaller Flood 2006; Gonnella 2010).

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 150 Rojas and Sergueenkova A remarkable case of Byzantine interaction Its re-use involved keeping the original round- with a portable Neo-Hittite object involves a top shape of the stele, as well as carefully pre- stele now kept in the Istanbul Archaeological serving most of its hieroglyphic inscription. The Museums, but found in a Christian cemetery Luwian text went on to serve as the visual base in Eğrek, now Köprübaşı (Hawkins 2000: 492, for a new composition including several crosses no. X.23) (Figure 10). This object was originally and two rosettes. How did a Christian come to carved in the late 8th century bc as a funerary use this archaic block? What did he or she think stele for a certain Tarhuwaris, as recorded in a about its origins? Most intriguingly, why did the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription that is almost re-user choose to preserve the hieroglyphic text? entirely preserved. The block, which may have The specific narratives behind this redeployment also borne a figurative relief, was recut and reused are far beyond our ken, but the object suggests as a tombstone, perhaps by an Armenian Chris- that, even in the Byzantine period, individuals tian in the 6th century ad (Elderkin 1937: 97). could and did establish emotional connections to

Figure 10. Eğrek (formerly known as Köprübaşı), Neo-Hittite stele re-used as Christian tomb-stone. Now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, no. 7766.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 151 the local traces of the Bronze and Iron Age past and Iron Age remains in the region, such as and that they were eager to claim such objects as the stelae from Hakkari, Turkey (Sevin 2000; their own. 2005), and even with realia west of Van such The question of what specific emotional con- as the representations of the Hittite storm-god nections Christian individuals or communities preserved in some stelae and reliefs (e.g. Figure established with this material is difficult to 8, above). If the name Tork‘ is indeed related answer. Scholars have sometimes argued that to that of Tarhuntas, the divinity celebrated on Late Antique authors occasionally contemplated Hittite and Luwian monuments seems to have the fate of local pre-Christian ruins in Anatolia. been transformed from god to giant, and from This is the case, for instance, with a series of honorand of inscription to scribe. poems by Gregory of Nazianzus, who was Arch- The local traditions Moses reports have little bishop of Constantinople in the 4th century ad, or nothing to do with literary learning. They concerning grave desecrations that have been are scanty but precious bits of ancient folklore associated with the magnificent funerary com- providing insight into how indigenous commu- plex of Antiochus I of Commagene at Nemrud nities explained the ruins in their midst. These Dağı; most of the alleged references, however, tales seem to have been prompted by familiarity are frustratingly vague (Petzl 1987). And yet with rock-cut inscriptions in both cuneiform some Byzantine-period texts do hold tantalizing and hieroglyphic scripts (Sarkisian 1990: 236, clues about local attitudes to Bronze and Iron n. 244). The mention of eagles calls to mind Age antiquities. The enigmatic historian Moses the various bird-shaped signs of Hieroglyphic of Khorene, who is credited with writing the Luwian (e.g. sign *127 and, more generally first history of Armenia at some point between signs *128-35, in Laroche 1960), as well as the the 5th and 9th centuries ad, relates the content monumental depictions of birds in certain Hit- of pre-Christian songs popular in the region tite reliefs such as those found in Alaca Höyük. around Lake Van in Eastern Turkey. These songs It is hard not to think of cuneiform scripts, and recount that ‘the governor of the West’ in very specifically the sharp and schematic Urartian remote times was a giant named Tork‘ (some- signs, when one imagines the giant Tork‘ incis- times transliterated as Turk‘), ‘deformed, tall, ing the rocks around lake Van with his finger- monstrous, with a squashed nose, deep-sunk nails. It seems, then, that in Byzantine Armenia, sockets and fearsome aspect’. Tork‘ was said to ordinary people were sufficiently interested in rule the house of Angl (which Moses etymolo- Bronze and Iron Age material remains to incor- gizes as ‘hideous’). The historian goes on to say: porate them into the stories they told each other in their daily lives. Like the people of Temeno- They sang that [Tork‘] took in his fist granite rocks in which there was no crack, and he thyrae and Fasıllar, they too had opinions about would crunch them into large and small pieces the origins and honorands of such monuments at will, polish them with his nails, and form and their place in a specific historical sequence, them into tablet shapes, and likewise with his even if they referred to a vague, remote time nails inscribe eagles and other such [designs] when a deformed giant named Tork‘ was ‘King on them. (History of the Armenians 2.8) of the West’. Scholars noted long ago that the name Tork‘ is likely an Armenian reflex of the Hittite name of Contesting Landscapes and Histories the storm-god Tarhuntas (Greppin 1978–1979; Inscriptions and incisions, graves and shrines, Russell 1987: 361-74; 1993: 74-77). Moreover, re-used stelae, and—at least in İvriz—an entire his description seems to fit well with Bronze architectural complex demonstrate that Hittite

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 152 Rojas and Sergueenkova monuments served, both spatially and emo- in the context of ancient debates about the tionally, as material centerpieces uniting diverse distant past and invoked them in comparative individuals and even communities. If our recon- analyses of other distant monuments thought structions of the specific agendas behind ancient to be archaic already in antiquity. This ana- engagements with Hittite material remains have logical manoeuvre is essentially what many been somewhat speculative so far, we can be a lot art historians ever since the Renaissance have more specific in our final two case-studies: the thought to be an exclusive trait of modern art- best-known examples of Greek- and Roman- historical practice (but see Elsner 2007: 49-66). period interaction with Bronze Age rock-cut Although in both cases we are dealing with the reliefs. The monuments in question, the so- judgments of elite experts, who no doubt con- called ‘Sipylus Cybele’ and the Tarkasnawa relief sidered themselves connoisseurs of antiquities, at Karabel, are located in the land known in these passages provide evidence that others in antiquity as Lydia (Figures 11 and 12). What Greek and Roman Anatolia were also capable of sets these monuments apart is that the former drawing stylistic and chronological connections was almost certainly described by Pausanias, between geographically distant monuments—as and the latter by Herodotus. Remarkably, both we suggest might have happened at Fasıllar and authors discussed the Bronze Age monuments Eflatun Pınar.

Figure 11. Akpınar, statue of mountain-god identified by Pausanias as the ‘Mother of the Gods’, now known as Taş Suret. Photograph: the authors.

Figure 12. Karabel, relief and inscription of Tarkasnawa. Photograph: the authors.

The monument known today as Taş Suret, or the plain below. The figure was likely carved ‘Stone figure’, is a giant anthropomorphic statue to represent a bearded mountain-god (Salvini carved almost in the round on a rock outcrop- and Salvini 2003), but people in the Greek ping on the northern slope of Mt Sipylus. It and Roman periods (as well as early modern is generally dated to the 13th century bc on scholars) believed it to be the image of Cybele, the basis of adjacent Bronze Age inscriptions the Mother of the Gods. The statue’s rough (Güterbock and Alexander 1983; Kohlmeyer appearance is almost certainly due to the fact 1983: 28-34). This massive statue, approxi- that it was left unfinished. Although sometimes mately 7.5 m tall and 4.6 m wide, was carved labeled Hittite, it is an eccentric monument inside an artificial niche some 150 m above a that was likely commissioned not by the kings spring at the foothill of the mountain, near the of Hattusas, but rather by their Luwian-speak- hamlet of Akpınar (Salvini and Salvini 2003; ing western contemporaries. Ehringhaus 2005: 84-87 and figs. 153-59). The This monument is almost certainly what Pau- details of the face and the body are hard to make sanias (3.22.4) described as ‘the most ancient out, but the carving is conspicuous even from statue of the Mother of the Gods’. While visit-

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 154 Rojas and Sergueenkova ing the village of Acriae in the Peloponnese, ent quality and size, usually dated to the 13th Pausanias saw a stone statue and a shrine to century bc, are known to have existed at this the Mother of the Gods and reported that local pass on Mt Tmolus. Today, only one survives villagers claimed that their site was the oldest in situ (Hawkins 1998): a life-size relief of a sanctuary of that goddess. Pausanias qualifies man carved in a rock-cut niche above the mod- their statement as ‘Oldest in the Peloponnese’, ern road (Figure 12). A Hieroglyphic Luwian proudly noting that the oldest of all statues of inscription identifies him as ‘Tarkasnawa, king the goddess was not in Greece, but in Anatolia, of the land of Mira’. near his native Magnesia. According to him, his Herodotus confidently asserts that the figure fellow Magnesians believed that the statue on on the relief is Sesostris, an ideal ruler whose Mt Sipylus was carved by Broteas (‘the Thun- sensational career reflects Greek and Egyptian derer’, a son of the mythical Tantalus). The historical traditions related to the reigns of sev- claim of the Acrians to the title of ‘the most eral pharaohs, and who was a focus for patriotic ancient statue of the Mother of the Gods’ could pride during the Persian and Ptolemaic periods not stand against the overwhelming evidentiary (Lloyd 1982: 37-40; 1988). That Herodotus’s power of the Sipylean landscape, dotted as it identification was mistaken does not detract was with landmarks corroborating historical from the fact that his argument was based and mythological narratives about the deep past partly on formal analysis. Nor should it keep (Pausanias 5.13.7, 2.22.3; on Pausanias’ pride us from noticing Herodotus’s own dismissive in his homeland, see Habicht 1985: 13-15 and reference to a competing interpretation, accord- n. 66). Ancient authors from Homer (Iliad 24. ing to which the honorand at Karabel was not 614-18) onwards attest to lively local tradi- Sesostris, but rather Memnon, Priam’s Asian tions associating anthropogenic and natural ally in the Trojan War. We plan to explore this features with various mythical characters, such reference in detail elsewhere; here it is enough as Niobe, Pelops, and Tantalus. The awareness to note that Memnon was likely invoked by that the Lydian landscape was overflowing with local individuals or communities with Persian numinous ancestral power was not limited to sympathies who associated Anatolian realia with specialists like Pausanias, but extended to other a character connected to Persian Susa as a way people in the region, as attested for example by to legitimize contemporary Persian presence in Roman-period dedications to Cybele found in their territory. At any rate, we have a clear indi- the vicinity of the Bronze Age statue (TAM V.2 cation that in the Classical period, Bronze Age 1353-54; Salvini and Salvini 2003: 28). rock reliefs were not simply noticed, but were Ancestral traditions about Bronze Age monu- also the object of debate. ments were heterogeneous, and debate ensued Finally, Herodotus’s conclusion that the figure not only between people on either side of the is the Egyptian Sesostris, though informed by Aegean, but perhaps especially among differ- the patriotic propaganda of his informants, the ent communities living in the same territory. priests at Memphis, is supported by three details: Herodotus’s testimony about the Karabel reliefs the hieroglyphic inscription, the costume and (2.106), while seemingly not polemical, is proof weapons of the honorand, and, critically, his of disagreement and debate. Since the late 19th association of the reliefs in Ionia with the Phar- century, this passage, which is part of the his- aoh’s stelae he claims to have seen in ‘Palestinian torian’s account of the victory monuments set Syria’ (2.106.1). Even though he does not say so, up by the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris, has been Herodotus seems to discount the identification thought to refer to the Hittite reliefs in Karabel. of the figure as Memnon, based on ethnographic Three Bronze Age rock-cut reliefs of differ- expertise and visual connoisseurship: for him,

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 Traces of Tarhuntas 155 the hieroglyphic inscriptions and the attire of a stone hole known as Düdne (?) and disap- the figure are patently Egyptian. Regardless of pears. (Katip Çelebi, Cihânnümâ, translated whether he had seen the Karabel relief person- and edited in Hagen and Dankoff 2014) ally (skeptics’ positions are summarized by West 1985: 297-302; 1992; contra: Pritchett 1982: The passage goes on to explain that the abun- 267-81), he obviously drew stylistic and icono- dance of water and the fertility of the valley graphical analogies between various objects to are due to a miracle effected by the prophet argue his case and to refute somebody else’s; in Muhammad. Thus a learned Ottoman scholar other words, antiquarian expertise enabled him was able to fit the relief of Tarhunzas at İvriz not to make history with an Anatolian Bronze Age just in the local landscape, but also into univer- monument. Similarly, although Pausanias does sal history—a history fashioned under cultural not explicitly state how he concluded that the circumstances that were vastly different from statue near his native Magnesia (at Akpınar) those of the Neo-Hittite masons who carved the was the oldest representation of the Mother of monument as well as those of the monks who the Gods, his pronouncement was also based at built their monastery around the smaller relief least partly on stylistic analysis. He must have up in the mountain. gauged the antiquity of Taş Suret in relation to Literary texts such as the above passage of the the statue of the Acrians on the basis of the effi- Cihânnümâ give us access to the exact details gies’ materials and facture. Thus formal analysis whereby Bronze and Iron Age monuments of differences and similarities could be used not were made meaningful by different people only to draw connections between an observed long after the monuments had been originally object and other distant ones, as Herodotus and made. Through formal analysis of the reliefs perhaps the people at Fasıllar did, but also to in Karabel, Herodotus incorporated the lands put that object in a chronological sequence from around Mt Tmolus into the grand histories of heroic times to the present, as Pausanias and the Egypt and Persia; Pausanias’s confidence that people around lake Van did. the statue on Mt Sipylus was the handiwork of Broteas confirmed not only the antiquity of the monument, but also his pride in his native Conclusions Magnesia. Kâtip Çelebi, in turn, combined the In the 17th century, the great Ottoman trave- iconography of the relief and the fertility of the ler and geographer Kâtip Çelebi (or perhaps a landscape to explain the purpose of the Tar- scholar in his circle) described the large relief by hunzas relief. These were all curious individu- the gushing spring in İvriz thus: als, learned men, members of elite intellectual environments, but their interest in the traces At the source of the river is a great rock on which the image of a man has been carved of the past was not exceptional, nor were their that is still visible. It is supposed to represent motivations. Quite apart from academic learn- the bey of Abrinos, who was an unbeliever ing, people were incited to interact with these and the emir and great man of the village objects by politics, religion, and even aesthetic known as Âbrîz (‘Pouring Water’). He holds empathy. At Fasıllar, engagement with the relief a sheaf of grain in one hand and two bunches had civic and perhaps also political import; the of grapes in the other, implying that the Roman-period priest in Kızıldağ found lasting statue watches over the sown fields and the religious relevance in the reliefs and inscriptions vineyards. The above-mentioned river does of Hartapus; whoever reused the stele in Eğrek not go very far into those plains, but descends made a deliberate effort to preserve the hiero- into the valley and then spreads out into the glyphic characters. reed beds. Eventually the overflow sinks into

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014 156 Rojas and Sergueenkova In Greek and Roman antiquity, Herodotus terranean and is the director of the Brown and Pausanias traveled more widely than most University Labraunda Project. He is currently others who crossed the Karabel pass or vener- writing a book about how the people of Greek ated Cybele on the slopes of Mt Sipylus and, and Roman Anatolia used material remains to almost certainly, much more than the ancient imagine the local and universal past. inhabitants of the towns in central Turkey dis- Valeria Sergueenkova is an assistant professor cussed above. But even the ancient inhabitants of classics at the University of Cincinnati and of İvriz and Fasıllar would have had to inspect specializes in the fields of ancient historiogra- and explain the conspicuous Bronze and Iron phy and the history of science. She is currently Age monuments in their midst, as did people writing a book about the scope and methods of throughout the Mediterranean wherever physical Herodotean history (A Science of the Past: Hero- traces of the past remained exposed or unburied. dotus’ Histories between Nature and Culture). They too had to incorporate them—not into universal histories, but rather into stories that mattered to them; tales that concerned nearby Classical Authors and Texts landmarks and towns, perhaps, or local notables Pausanias. Pausanias Description of Greece. and ancestors. They too used them to address Moses of Khorene. History of the Armenians. their own interests and anxieties. At times, their motives and agendas coincided and overlapped with those recorded in literary texts; at other Abbreviations times they did not. That they were equally rich SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden: in detail—detail that helps us refine and rewrite Sijthoff and Noordhoff. 1923–. the fascinating and diverse histories of Anato- TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vienna: Österreichische lia—is beyond doubt. A pity, then, that we do Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1901. not know the stories told of ‘Lucianus, who died before marriage’, or whether the priest Craterus, References overcome by the power of a Hittite relief, really flung himself down into the Konya plain. Alcock, S.E. 2002 Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monu- ments, and Memories. Cambridge: Cambridge Acknowledgments University Press. The authors would like to thank Angelos Cha- Assmann, J. niotis, John Cherry, Jack Davis, Claudia Glatz, 2005 Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies. Stan- ford, California: Stanford University Press. Ömür Harmanşah, Christopher Jones, Sarah 2011 Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writ- Morris, Christopher Ratté, and three anony- ing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. mous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http:// of this article, as well as Gottfried Hagen for dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996306 guidance with the passage of Kâtip Çelebi dis- Bachvarova, M. cussed in the conclusion. 2002 From Hittite to Homer: The Role of Anatolians in the Transmission of Epic and Prayer Motifs from the Near East to the Greeks. Unpublished About the Authors PhD dissertation, Committee on the History of Felipe Rojas is an assistant professor of archae- Culture, University of Chicago. ology at Brown University. He has conducted Baldıran, A., G. Karauğuz and B. Söğüt fieldwork at various sites in the eastern Medi- 2010 Centre unissant les cultes Hittites et Romains:

Fasıllar. In D. Ertekin and A. Erdoğan (eds.), Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Trade and Production through the Ages, 219-56. Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi. 9780199572069.001.0001 Belke, K. Dunbabin, K.M.D. 1984 Galatien und Lykaonien. Tabula Imperii Byz- 1990 Ipsa deae vestigia…: Footprints divine and antini 4. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen human on Graeco-Roman monuments. Journal Akademie der Wissenschaften. of Roman Archaeology 3: 85-109. Bernabé, A. Ehringhaus, H. 1988 Un mito etiológico anatolio sobre el Tauro (CTH 2005 Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften: die Felsreliefs der 16) en Nonno (Dion. 1.408s.). Aula Orientalis 6: hethitischen Grossreichszeit in der Türkei. Mainz 5-10. am Rhein: Von Zabern. Bittel, K. Elderkin, G.W. 1986 Hartapus and Kızıldağ. In J.V. Canby, E. 1937 A Christian stele from Cappadocia. American Porada, B.S. Ridgway and T. Stech (eds.), Journal of Archaeology 41: 97-99. http://dx.doi. Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of Change and Cultural org/10.2307/498218 Development: Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mel- Elsner, J. link: 103-11. Madison, Wisconsin: University 1994 From the pyramids to Pausanias and Piglet: of Wisconsin Press. monuments, travel and writing. In S. Goldhill Borg, B. and R. Osborne (eds.), Art and Text in Ancient 2004 Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic. Ber- Greek Culture, 224-54. Cambridge: Cambridge lin: Walter de Gruyter. University Press. Bradley, R. 2007 Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and 2002 The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Rout- Text. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer- ledge. sity Press. Chaniotis, A. Flood, F.B. 1988 Historie und Historiker in den griechischen 2006 Image against nature: spolia as apotropaia in Inschriften: epigraphische Beiträge zur griechis- Byzantium and the Dar al-Islam. Medieval chen Historiographie. Heidelberger althistorische History Journal 9: 143-66. http://dx.doi.org/ Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 4. Stuttgart: 10.1177/097194580500900108 Steiner Verlag. Frazer, J.G. (ed.) 2008 Priests as ritual experts in the Greek world. In B. 1965 Pausanias’s Description of Greece. Volume III. Dignas and K. Trampedach (eds.), Practitioners New York: Biblo and Tannen (first published in of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious officials 1898). from Homer to Heliodorus. Hellenic Studies 30: French, D.H. 17-34. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic 1996 The site of Barata and routes in the Konya Studies. plain. Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 93-114. Collins, B.J., M.R. Bachvarova and I. Rutherford. Gardiner, E.N. 2010 Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their 1929 Regulations for a local sports meeting. Classical Neighbours. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Review 43: 210-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ Connerton, P. S0009840X00054123 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge Glatz, C., and A.M. Plourde University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ 2011 Landscape monuments and political competi- CBO9780511628061 tion in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: an inves- Crowther, N.B. tigation of costly signaling theory. Bulletin of 1992 Slaves and Greek athletics. Quaderni Urbinati the American Schools of Oriental Research 361: di Cultura Classica 40: 35-42. http://dx.doi. 33-66. org/10.2307/20547124 Gonnella, J. Dignas, B., and R.R.R. Smith (eds.) 2010 Columns and hieroglyphs: magic ‘spolia’ in 2012 Historical and Religious Memory in the Medieval Islamic architecture of Northern

Syria. Muqarnas 27: 103-20. http://dx.doi.org/ Mediterranean, 379-93. Cambridge: Cambridge 10.1163/22118993-90000161 University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ Graf, F. CBO9781139227216 1985 Nordionische Kulte: religionsgeschichtliche und Hasluck, F.W. epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von 1929 Christianity and Islam under the Sultans. Oxford: Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Bib- Oxford University Press. liotheca Helvetica Romana 21. Rome: Schweiz- Hawkins, J.D. erisches Institut in Rom. 1998 Tarkasnawa king of Mira: ‘Tarkondemos’, Greppin, J.A.C. Boǧazköy sealings and Karabel’. Anatolian Studies 1978–79 Armeno-Luwica. Revue des Études Arméniennes 48: 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3643046 13: 7-13. Hawkins, J.D. (ed.) Güterbock, H.G. 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 1947 Alte und neue hethitische Denkmäler. In Halil Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- Edhem Hâtıra Kitabı. In Memoriam Halil und Kulturwissenschaft, New Series 8. Berlin Edhem. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından, ser. and New York: Walter De Gruyter. http:// 7, nos. 5-5a: 59-70 and figs. 1-15. Ankara: Türk dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110804201 Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Houwink ten Cate, P.H.J. Güterbock, H.G., and R.L. Alexander 1992 The Hittite storm-god: his role and his rule 1983 The second inscription on Mount Sipylus. according to Hittite cuneiform sources. In Anatolian Studies 33: 29-32. http://dx.doi.org/ D.J.W. Meijer (ed.), Natural Phenomena: Their 10.2307/3642687 Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Habicht, C. Near East, 83-148. Amsterdam: Verhandelingen 1985 Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece. Berkeley: Der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van University of California Press. Wetens. Hagen G., and R. Dankoff (eds.) Hughes, D. 2014 Kâtip Çelebi. Cihânnümâ. Trans. G. Leiser, J.J. 1999 Hero cult, heroic honors, heroic dead: some Curry and F. Csirkes. New Haven: Yale Univer- developments in the Hellenistic and Roman sity Press (in press). periods. In R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Halbwachs, M. Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Semi- 1992 On Collective Memory. Trans. L.A. Coser. Chi- nar on Ancient Greek Cult, 21-23 April 1995. cago: University of Chicago Press (first published in French in 1950). Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, Hall, A.S. Series Altera 8(16): 167-75. Stockholm: Sven- 1959 The site of Misthia. Anatolian Studies 9: 119- ska Institutet i Athen. 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642334 Hung, W. 1968 Notes and inscriptions from eastern Pisidia. 2012 A Story of Ruins: Presence and Absence in Chinese Anatolian Studies 18: 57-92. http://dx.doi.org/ Art and Visual Culture. Princeton, New Jersey: 10.2307/3642643 Princeton University Press. Hamann, B. Jones, C.P. 2002 The social life of pre-sunrise things: indigenous 1994 A geographical setting for the Baucis and Phile- Mesoamerican archaeology. Current Anthropology mon legend (Ovid Metamorphoses 8.611-724). 43: 351-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339526 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96: 203- Harmanşah, Ö. 223, I-IV. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/311324 2013 Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient 1999 Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. Reveal- Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University ing Antiquity 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press. Harvard University Press. 2014 Stone worlds: technologies of rock-carving and 2001 Pausanias and his guides. In S.E. Alcock, J.F. place-making in Anatolian landscapes. In A.B. Cherry and J. Elsner (eds.), Pausanias: Travel Knapp and P. van Dommelen (eds.), The Cam- and Memory in Roman Greece: 33-39. Oxford: bridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Oxford University Press.

2010 New Heroes in Antiquity: From Achilles to Anti- Pleket, H.W. noos. Revealing Antiquity 18. Cambridge, Mas- 1998 Mass-sport and local infrastructure in the Greek sachusetts: Harvard University Press. cities of Asia Minor. Stadion 24: 151-72. Karauğuz, G., H. Bahar and H.İ. Kunt Poliakoff, M. 2002 Kızıldağ üzerine yeni bazı gözlemler. Türkiye 1987 Combat Sports in the Ancient World Competition: Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 5: 7-32. Violence, and Culture. New Haven, Connecti- Karauğuz, G., and H.İ. Kunt cut: Yale University Press. 2006 İvriz kaya anıtları ve çevresi üzerine bir araştırma. Porzig, W. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 122: 23-50. 1930 Illuyankas und Typhoeus. Kleiasiatische Kohlmeyer, K. Forschungen 1: 379-86. 1983 Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichszeit. Acta Pritchett, W.K. Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15: 7-154. 1982 Studies in Ancient Greek Topography 4: Passes. Laroche, E. University of California Publications in Classi- 1960 Les hiéroglyphes hittites. Première partie: cal Studies 28. Berkeley, California: University L’écriture. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de of California Press. la Recherche Scientifique. Ramsay, W.M. Lloyd, A.B. 1927 Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization. The 1982 Nationalist propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt. Gifford Lectures in the University of Edinburgh, 1915-16. London: J. Murray. Historia: 31: 33-55. Ramsay, W.M., and G.L. Bell 1988 Herodotus’ account of pharaonic history. Histo- 1909 The Thousand and One Churches. London: ria 37: 22-53. Hodder and Stoughton. López Luján, L. Redford, S. 1999 Arqueología de la arqueología: de la época pre- 1993 The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique. Muqarnas hispánica al siglo XVIII. Arqueología Mexicana 10: 148-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523181 9(52): 20-27. Robert, L. Mellaart, J. 1989 Discours d’ouverture du VIIIe Congrès interna- 1962 The Late Bronze Age monuments of Eflatun tional d’épigraphie grecque et latine à Athènes, Pınar and Fasıllar near Beyşehir. Anatolian Studies 1982. In L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta 6: 12: 111-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642519 709-719, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Newby, Z. Robert, L., and J. Robert Greek Athletics in the Roman World: Victory and 2005 1989 Claros. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisa- Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tions. Nora, P. Rojas, F. 1996 Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. 2013 Antiquarianism in Roman Sardis. In A. Schnapp Trans. A. Goldhammer. New York: Colum- (with L. von Falkenhausen, P.N. Miller and bia University Press (first published in French T. Murrary), World Antiquarianism: Compara- 1984–92). tive Perspectives, 176-200. Los Angeles: Getty Papalexandrou, A. Research Institute. 2003 Memory tattered and torn: spolia in the heart- Rossner, E.P. land of Byzantine Hellenism. In R.M. Van 1988 Die hethitischen Felsreliefs in der Türkei. Ein Dyke and S.E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of archäologischer Reiseführer. 2nd edn. Munich: C. Memory, 56-80. Malden, Massachusetts: Black- and M. Hofbauer. well. Russell, J.R. Petzl, G. 1987 Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Harvard Iranian 1987 Die Epigramme des Gregor von Nazianz über Studies 5. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Grabräuberei und das Hierothesion des kom- University, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages magenischen Königs Antiochos I. Epigraphica and Civilizations; National Association for Anatolica 10: 117-29. Armenian Studies and Research.

1993 Ancient Anatolians and Armenians. In Proceed- Thonemann, P. ings of the Second International Symposium on 2011 The Maeander Valley: A Historical Geography Armenian Linguistics, 74-85. Yerevan: Armenian from Antiquity to Byzantium. Cambridge: Academy Press. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi. Salvini, A.-B., and Salvini, M. org/10.1017/CBO9780511974847 2003 Il monumento rupestre della ‘Niobe’ o ‘Cibele’ Van Dyke R.M., and S.E. Alcock (eds.) del Sipilo. In M. Giorgieri, M. Salvini, M.C. 2003 Archaeologies of Memory. Malden, Massachu- Tremuille and P. Vannicelli (eds.), Licia e Lidia setts: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ prima dell’ellenizzazione, 25-36. Rome: Con- 9780470774304 siglio nazionale delle ricerche. van Nijf, O. Sarkisian, G. K. (ed.) 2001 Local heroes: athletics, festivals, and elite self- 1990 Istoriia Armenii. Movses Khorenatsi. Perevod s fashioning in the Roman East. In S. Goldhill drevnearmianskogo iazyka, vvedenie i primecha- (ed.), Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Iden- niia. Yerevan: Aiastan. tity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development Schnapp, A. of Empire, 306-34. Cambridge: Cambridge 1997 The Discovery of the Past. Trans. I. Kinnes and University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ G. Varndell (New York: Harry N. Abrams (first CBO9780511627323.009 published in French in 1993). 2012 Political games. In K. Coleman, J. Nelis-Clé- Schnapp, A. (with L. von Falkenhausen, P.N. Miller and ment and P. Ducrey (eds.), L’organisation des T. Murray) spectacles dans le monde romain. Entretiens sur 2014 World Antiquarianism: Comparative Perspectives. l’Antiquité Classique 58: 47-95. Geneva: Fon- Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. dation Hardt. Seeher, J. Watkins, C. 2009 Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrücken—heth- 1995 How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European itische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press. als Ausdruck des herrscherlichen Macht- und Weiß, P. Territorialanspruchs. Altorientalische Forschun- 1995 Götter, Städte, und Gelehrte. Lydiaka und gen 36: 119-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1524/ “Patria” um Sardes un den Tmolos. In E. Schw- aofo.2009.0006 ertheim (ed.), Forschungen in Lydien: 85-109. Sevin, V. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. 2000 Mystery stelae. Archaeology 53.4: 46-51. 2005 Hakkâri Taşları/Çıplak Savaşçıların Gizemi. West, S. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 1985 Herodotus’ epigraphical interests. Classi- Simon, Z. cal Quarterly 35: 278-305. http://dx.doi. 2012 Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der org/10.1017/S0009838800040179 Macht: Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen. 1992 Sesostris’ stelae (Herodotus 2.102-106). Histo- In G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representa- ria 41: 117-20. tion, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near Whitmarsh, T. East, 687-98. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisen- 2005 The Second Sophistic. Greece and Rome 35. brauns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sterrett, J.R.S. Wypustek, A. 1888 The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor. Papers of 2013 Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscrip- the American School of Classical Studies at Ath- tions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods. ens 3 (1884-85). Boston: Damrell and Upham. Mnemosyne Supplement 352. Leiden: Brill. Swoboda, H., J. Keil and F. Knoll Yoffee, N. 1935 Denkmäler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien, und Isau- 2008 Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, rien. Ergebnisse einer im Auftrage der Gesellschaft and Landscape in Archaeological Research. Tuc- von Julius Jüthner, Fritz Knoll, Karl Patsch und son: University of Arizona Press. Heinrich Swoboda durchgeführten Forschungsre- ise. Brno: R.M. Rohrer.