ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011

WHEN WERE THE FORTIFICATIONS OF THE UPPER CITY OF HATTUŠA BUILT?

Zsolt Simon

Abstract

The date of the fortification walls of the Upper City of Hattuša is still an unsolved problem. After critically discussing the earlier suggestions, the reign of (presumably the last third of the 16th c.) is proposed as their construction date. This can be supported not only by philological, but also by archaeological evidence (the structure of the wall, the general history of the Upper City) and fits into the general pattern of the changes of the Central Anatolian settlements of this period (cf. Kuúaklı).

The traditional view on the history of Hattuša has connected the building of the fortification walls of the Upper City visible even today to the foundation of the Upper City itself dated since Bittel 1938 to the Empire period, attributed finally to IV.1 The most recent formulation of this theory is as follows (Neve 1999: 10-13, 2001: 97-98): the first phase of the wall – including its gates – was constructed in the Oberstadt 4 period. Oberstadt 4 is to be dated to the reign of Tudhaliya IV for the following reasons: the palace on the Büyükkale (BK IIIb) was enlarged and oriented towards the Upper City during his reign. Besides, there are no significant differences between the finds of the Sphinx Gate and the Temples 2 & 3 from the periods of Oberstadt 4 and Oberstadt 3 to be dated to Tudhaliya IV. These arguments have been critically analysed by Jürgen Seeher who proved that there is no connection between the new structure of the palace and the foundation of the Upper City, the dating of Oberstadt 3 to Tudhaliya IV is baseless; furthermore, the period Oberstadt 4 does not exist (2006c: 134-136, 142-143; cf. 2006b: 203).2 Next to this traditional dating, Seeher was the scholar who intended to determine the age of the fortifications of the Upper City. His starting point was the new chronology of the Upper City established by himself, summarized below following his results (2006c:

1 For a history of research see Seeher 2006c: 131-136. For the proper dating of the wall see e. g. Bittel et al. 1957: 61, Bittel 1938: 9, 1970: 50, 1972-1975: 166, 1983: 64-65; Neve 1985: Blatt Oberstadt/Stadtbefestigung A. Gesamtsituation und Anlage, 1996: 23. 2 Bittel (1976: 233) suggests that the close formal and stylistic parallels between the reliefs of the Lion, Sphinx and King’s Gates with the reliefs of the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya imply that they are approximately contemporary and thus to be dated to the period of Tudhaliya IV, together with the wall. However, the reliefs visible today belong to the last building phase of the gates as indicated by the burnt layers and the remains of previous buildings below the King’s and Lion Gates (Seeher 2006b: 203, 209, cf. Neve 1985: Blatt Oberstadt/Stadtbefestigung B1. Das Königstor, 2001: 45, 97-98). Moreover, as Seeher (2006b: 207) has pointed out, there is no special parallel in the case of the lions or of the sphinxes with the reliefs of the rock sanctuary; furthermore, the depiction on the King’s Gate corresponds to the well- known Hittite standards of the Empire period, thus the dating of these two groups of reliefs to the same period is not reasonable from this point of view. 240 ZSOLT SIMON

136-141, cf. 2006b: 198-208; Schachner 2009a: 12-16; and see already Müller-Karpe 2003: 388-391). Hittite texts have been found in the temples of the Upper City from the reign of and Zidanta II, i.e. from the Old Hittite period (in linguistic sense) onwards, followed by many Middle Hittite texts (e.g. from or the famous Hurro- Hittite bilingual text from Temple 16) and Neo-Hittite texts before Tudhaliya IV (Muršili II and Muršili III). Though theoretically these tablets could have been transferred to their find-spot later, three small oracle texts (one of them is surely, the others are probably Middle Hittite) have been found in the foundation pit of Temple 30 and probably they were parts of the foundation sacrifice. The archive of the so-called Westbau is a similar source: Old and Middle Hittite land donation documents and bullae of kings from before the Empire period have been unearthed there (the documents are continuous from onwards). Although a later transfer cannot be excluded here too, this is not very likely. At the same time, next to these perhaps debateable arguments, there are unequivocal, calibrated radiocarbon data too from the Upper City (for the following see Schoop & Seeher 2006: 60-62, 63-65, resp.). The grain silo below the Southern Ponds has been dated to the first three-quarter of the 16th c. The Southern Ponds themselves – five artificial water reservoirs – belong to the second half the 15th c. (the ceramics found in them – inventory of some temples – come from the middle and from the end of the 14th c.). The oldest layer of the valley in front of Sarıkale is constituted by the two so- called Quadratgebäude (for possible earlier layer(s) see Seeher 2006b: 208) and it can be dated to the last third of the 16th c. – beginning of the 15th c. (the valley is uninterruptedly inhabited from this period onwards and the findings are very similar to the average complexes of the Upper City: clay tablets from Old and Middle Hittite periods, seals and seal impressions from the early Empire period). In other words, the Upper City has been inhabited and used at the latest from the last third of the 16th c.3 Nonetheless, it is hardly probable that precious and important parts of the city that include indispensable infrastructure to the economic life and subsistence of the entire capital would have stood without defence for a longer period (cf. Schachner 2009a: 12),4 not to mention the strategic disadvantages of an Upper City occupied by enemy forces. Thus a defensive wall must have stood there almost from the beginnings, and the beginnings are, according to the data mentioned above, to be dated to the last third of the 16th c. at the latest (Seeher 2010: 30: late 16th or early 15th c.), i.e. –

3 A single stamp seal close to the Konya-Karahöyük Schicht 1 glyptic style from the Upper City does not prove the existence of a settlement between the time of and this period, thus Schachner’s cautious formulation (“besetzt gewesen sein könnte”, 2008: 30 with refs.) is fully justified. 4 Seeher 2006b: 208 mentions that the sanctuaries of Šupitaššu at Kuúaklı and Yazılıkaya are situated outside the city walls. However, this cannot be a counterargument, since the structures to be defended there are infrastructure first of all and not temples (for the function of the buildings of the valley in front of Sarıkale see the summary of Seeher 2008: 5-8, with refs.). ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011 241 whichever chronological framework we take into consideration – during the reign of the earliest Hittite rulers.5 Following this line of argument, Seeher (2006b: 208; 2006c: 142) suggested the following hypothesis: before the wall visible today there was a weaker, preliminary fortification wall (Vorläuferbefestigung) the line of which is followed more or less by the today visible wall (another route is not probable since the wall visible today follows the natural incline). Though Seeher admits that traces of this forerunner wall cannot be found (2006b: 209), he explains it with the simpler construction of the wall most parts of which disappeared during the later rebuilding phases.6 Since, however, the valley in front of Sarıkale shows an entirely urban landscape in the 14th-13th centuries, the wall visible today must have been built by this time, at the latest (accordingly, Seeher dated the construction or the rebuilding of the wall in his guide-book to the Empire period, 2006d: 178).7 Later he proposes that the position of the Lion Gate and the King’s Gate in the wall suggests that the walls were built later to the gates, in place of a former wall, whose material have been re-used in the new one (Seeher 2008: 10-11). It is not clear, however, why the already standing gates would not have been taken into account during the construction of the new wall. It seems to me more probable that the orientation of the gates (either secondary included into walls or not) was determined by other, still unknown factors (cf. Müller-Karpe, Müller-Karpe & Schrimpf 2009). Nevertheless, Seeher 2008: 10-11, 2010: 30 leaves the question of date open until further archaeological research (similarly Schachner 2009a: 1219: the date of the wall is still a desideratum, whereas the archaeological data are unclear at this phase of the excavation).8 Though Seeher’s suggestion can be neither dismissed nor proved (due to the type of his arguments), there is an obvious question: what prevents us from identifying the wall visible today with the first wall surrounding the Upper City? Moreover, if this question will be examined more closely, such a solution seems to be fairly obvious: Unfortunately, there are very few texts regarding Hattuša as a city and about the building of its parts (cf. Klinger 2006). There is only one text about the construction of a city wall of Hattuša, from the reign of Hantili I.9 Though, as is well-known, absolute dates

5 The slightly earlier data of the grain silo can be explained by a gradual establishment of the Upper City that reached the level where a wall was necessary at the time of the foundation of the settlement in the valley in front of Sarıkale. Nevertheless, the 14C data of the grain silo are somewhat varied (Schoop & Seeher 2006: 61. Abb. 6): 1ı: 1610-1565 (44.1%) / 1560-1545 (12.4%) / 1540-1525 (11.7%); 2ı: 1620-1510 (95.4%). 6 He calls attention in this context to the burnt layers beneath the King’s and Lion Gates. However, the date of the construction of the wall and the gates do not necessarily coincide. 7 Seeher (2006c: 143) calls attention to the text “Instructions to the Mayor of Hattuša” (CTH 257, from the period of Arnuwanda I): two officials dispatch sentries to the fortifications of the lower and of the upper parts of Hattuša (Otten 1983a: 134). These two parts have been traditionally identified with Büyükkale and the Lower City (Otten 1983b: 49) – but they are perhaps to be identified with Büyükkale and the Upper City. If this text indeed refers to the Upper City, then a kind of fortification must have already existed during the reign of Arnuwanda I, i.e. – depending on the chronological framework – at the latest in the first quarter of the 14th c. 8 Thus Strobel’s statement (“the Oberstadt and its city wall are now dated to the 16th c. BC”, 2008: 288) is misleading. 9 For the dating of this OH/NS type text to Hantili I and not to Hantili II (as per Carruba 1988: 203) see de Martino 1992: 22, 2003: 190-192, cf. Klinger 2002: 441 and n. 14, 2006: 7. 242 ZSOLT SIMON cannot be assigned to Hittite rulers before the Empire period, Hantili I was the immediate successor of Muršili I, the looter of Babylon, i.e. he ruled either after 1595 or 1531. The text is the following (CTH 11, last edition De Martino 2003: 198-201, my translation).

KBo 3.57 Vo. III

7’ UR]UHa-at-tu-ši 8’ BÀD-eš-ša]r Ú-UL ki-it-ta-at 9’ Ú-U]L pa-ah-ša-nu-wa-an-za 10’ [e-eš-ta ka-]ru-ú-i-li-e-eš-ša-wa 11’ [ku-i-e-eš LUGALME]Š e-e-šir 12’ [nu-wa ŠA KUR URUH]a-at-ti URUDIDLI BÀD 13’ [karnj Ú-U]L ku-iš-ki IB-NI 14’ [nu-wa hu-u-ma-a]n-ti-ya-pát KUR-e 15’ [URUDIDLI BÀD] ú-uk 16’ [mHa-an-ti-li-i]š AB-NI 17’ [URUHa-at-tu-š]a-an-na-wa 18’ [ú-uk mHa-an-t]i-li-iš AB-NI

“[…] there were no [… fortifica]tions in Hattuša, [… ] it [was n]ot defended, and [no]ne of the [f]ormer [kin]gs fortified the city of [H]atti [earlier]. I, [Hantil]i have built [fortified cities] in the [ent]ire country, and [I, Han]tili have fortified [Hattu]ša”.

However, according to the traditional explanation (see already Bittel 1938: 5, 9, 1970: 48-49, 1972-1975: 166 (precautious), 1983: 59; Neve 1985: Blatt Die Poternenmauer; Seeher 2002: 159, 2006b: 200-201, cf. 199 Fig. 1.; but see Schachner 2009b: 1108: “unklar” from an archaeological point of view), this text refers to the so- called Postern Wall surrounding Büyükkale, the Lower City and Büyükkaya built as a defensive wall against the Kaška (Neve 1982: 45, cf. already Goetze 1957: 60; Otten 1966: 121-122 and Fischer 1963: 22-23 are precautious regarding the Kaška). Put aside that a Kaškean attack can be excluded at this time (Klinger 2002, esp. 441, 2006: 7), this hypothesis is at least strange since it implies that the city would have stood without fortifications since Hattušili I who transferred the capital to Hattuša (“there were no [… fortifica]tions in Hattuša”). This is hardly credible (this problem was realized only by Klinger 2006: 7). It is so much the stranger for Hattuša had to have a fortification wall at least in the Assyrian Colony Period (beyond the archaeologically attested fortification wall of the citadel), otherwise Anitta would not have needed to impose a blockade on and besiege it.10 It is possible of course to assume that Anitta destroyed the walls and Hantili I

10 This is suggested by the starvation in the city (CTH 1, Vo. 45-46). It is possible that the fragmentary lines obv. 44- rev. 45 refer to a fortification made by Pijušti before the attack of Anitta (Forrer 1926: 9; Klinger 2005: 140), but this is hotly debated (cf. Neu 1974: 27-28; Carruba 2003: 36, 112, with further refs.). ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011 243 rebuilt it – but the problem of the unfortified capital remains.11 Another suggestion is given by Seeher, who assumes that Hantili I did not build new walls but walls of different type, perhaps more stable ones (2006d: 39). The archaeological dating of the Postern Wall (it was built during the Büyükkale IVc phase, after a destruction layer attributed traditionally to Anitta, see Neve 1982: 35- 36, 44-45) does not help since it lacks absolute dates. However, a terminus ante quem is supposed for the constructing of the Postern Wall: the grain silo lying next to it is assumed to have been built together with the given part of the Postern Wall (Seeher 2000a: 356-358, 2006a: 49; Schoop & Seeher 2006: 59; Schachner 2009a: 12) and the burning of the silo has happened either in the first quarter or in the middle of the second half of the 16th c., according to the calibrated radiocarbon data (unfortunately both dates have approximately the same statistical probability, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 59-60, Seeher 2006a: 74-75), in other words, the wall could have been built in the 17th or early 16th c. (Seeher 2010: 30; Schachner 2009a: 12). However, though the plan of the silo follows the line of the Postern Wall and there is a massive, high protective filling against humidity between the silo and the Postern Wall, it is not necessary that they have been built at the same time as Seeher supposes (2000: 356-358). The silo could have been built secondarily next to the wall or vice versa, the wall to the silo. The latter possibility is supported by the fact that of the posterns otherwise installed in regular distances the one that should have stood at the silo is missing (Fig. 1., Seeher 2000b: 278, 2006a: 49). This renewed relative chronology, however, does not affect that the burning down of the silo remains a valid terminus ante quem and this means that the Postern Wall has been built probably before Hantili I.12 Therefore, in my view, it is more obvious to assume that the Postern Wall was standing there from an earlier period (perhaps from the Assyrian Colony Period?) onwards explaining why the former kings have not built, and Hantili I has surrounded the recently established, unfortified and thus defenceless Upper City with newly built walls. For all that, this would explain why there are no later texts referring to constructions of the city walls of Hattuša.13 Such an explanation, however, faces some problems: Does the description of Hantili I depict real events – or is it a simple topos only, as suggested by Klinger 2006: 7 (cf. Schachner 2009b: 1108)? Though it cannot be excluded

11 This explanation could have been supported by the statement of Anitta that he has sown Hattuša with cress and accursed it – if it would not be a perfect topos. 12 If the first date is right – it has a slightly bigger statistical probability (38.2% to 30%), for further arguments see Seeher 2006a: 74-75 – then this is true in both chronologies (if the latter is right, then the silo has been burnt down either after Hantili I (middle chronology) or at the beginning of his reign (low chronology): but it does not affect the date of its construction since the silo could have been built much earlier). – Needless to say, if the hypothesis presented in this paper turns out to be correct, the construction date of the Postern Wall must be reconsidered. 13 The Postern Wall and the wall of the Upper City visible today cannot be of the same age. This follows from the different age of the given neighbourhoods, the different function of the posterns and from the different structure of the walls themselves: the towers protruding from the wall have been constructed in the Postern Wall by adding two new casemates to the face of the wall (i.e. their bases were made up from four casemates) but they have been constructed in the Upper City wall only by two elongated casemates extending from the wall, cf. Seeher 2006b: 201, Fig. 2. (here Fig. 2.); Seeher 2010: 30 (with Fig. 4.). 244 ZSOLT SIMON that this is a topos (though the archetype would remain here entirely unknown), the buildings of Hantili I fit very well into the general historical setting: the Hittite Kingdom established and fortified by the campaigns of the first two rulers has arrived at the period when it needed the organization and stabilization of the state that was financed by the looting of Babylon and Northern and motivated by the Hurrian attacks experienced during the reign of his predecessor and his own. A prerequisite of such a building programme is a long period of reign and this is true for Hantili I (but is not for Hantili II, see Klengel 1999: 67-71, 91-94; Bryce 2005: 100-101, 113-114, resp.; for the time necessary to such a construction cf. the experiment of Seeher 2007). Hantili I’s words could be further supported by other Hittite settlements fortified or established during his reign since he is speaking about more cities. Unfortunately, we do not have enough data from other Hittite cities for this question, but the date of the foundation of Kuúaklı, the beginning of the last third of the 16th c. falls suspiciously into the similar period as the establishment of the Upper City and its surrounding by a wall. Based on this text and on dendrochronological data Müller-Karpe 2004: 108-110 has already suggested that the founder of Kuúaklı would have been Hantili I. 14 The contemporaneity of the foundation of Kuúaklı and the establishment of the Upper City (and thus its surrounding by a wall) is certain and very remarkable, therefore it is probable that these achievements can be attributed to one and the same ruler whoever he was.15 But we know only one king from this period who has intensively built: Hantili I. This model predicts that the structure of the fortification wall of Kuúaklı should be different from that of the Postern Wall, but the same as of the walls of the Upper City. This is exactly the case, since the bases of the towers of the fortification wall of Kuúaklı show the same elongated casemates as the walls of the Upper City, not the reduplication

14 However, Mielke 2006: 270-271 (emphasizing that Hantili I was not the only ruler with active settlement policy, 26630) dates the foundation of the city to , since the oldest layer of Kuúaklı and ønandıktepe IV belong to the same archaeological horizon: ønandıktepe IV can be dated to the last quarter of the 16th c. by a land donation text sealed by an anonymous Tabarna seal (to be connected with Telipinu or perhaps with his predecessor, Huzziya I) and by a spindle bottle to be connected to the Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware (260-264). However, as Mielke himself mentions, these are termini post quos for the destruction of layer IV whose length is unknown (263). This problem has been realized by Mielke too: in order to shorten the duration of layer IV he suggests the land donation documents with anonymous Tabarna seals (i.e. from the reign of Telipinu) mentioning the House of Hattuša in Šarišša must have been written not long after the foundation of the city (271). This is, of course, entirely ad hoc. All we can say is that the beginning of ønandıktepe IV – because of its parallels to Kuúaklı – may be dated to the final third of the 16th c. (but it can be both earlier and later), and its destruction falls any time after the last quarter of the 16th c. – thus the reign of Telipinu can fall anywhere within this period (not to mention that the length of the rules of the kings between Hantili I and Telipinu [, , Huzziya I] are completely unknown, but they could have been very short ones [Zidanta I must have been already very old at the time of his accession to the throne; Huzziya I is not even known from contemporary sources]). Almost nothing follows from this to the person of the founder of Kuúaklı, only perhaps that a king before Telipinu is more probable. 15 This may be supported indirectly by the fact that the settlement structure of Central Anatolia undergoes a restructuration in the second quarter of the 2nd millennium culminated in the last third of the 16th c.: the foundation of new settlements (the choice of the place), the structure of the new settlements and the new buildings (temples, fortification walls, dams, silos) reveal uniform, centrally determined principles (Schachner 2006: 153-154, 2009a: 25-26). This is probably connected to one king whose identity is, however, unknown, but, following the arguments above, he may have been Hantili I. Schachner 2009a: 26 attributes at least the consolidation and the preservation of this system to Telipinu. ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011 245 of the casemates as in the case of the Postern Wall (Mielke apud Müller-Karpe 2001: 238 Abb. 9; Seeher 2010: 30-32), cf. Fig. 2-3.16 The question of absolute chronology must also be addressed in more detail. Possible dates for the reign of Hantili I were mentioned above. Though both fit into this model, the middle chronology seems to be improbable: in this case (terminus post quem: 1595) Hantili I would have begun his building project many decades after ascending the throne (if Muršili I has been assassinated shortly after his return from Babylon – which is possible, cf. Klengel 1999: 64-65, Bryce 2005: 100, both with refs. – then approximately after six decades). Whereas the low chronology (terminus post quem: 1531) fits very well: in this case he would have begun to build at the beginning of his rule, which is quite logical.17 Since both the technique of posterns and of the casemate wall were already well-known in Central Anatolia at that time (Naumann 1971: 249-252, 302; Di Nocera 2001 with refs.; for the origins of the casemate wall see Seeher 2010: 28-29), such a model archaeologically speaking is possible. In summary, it has to be emphasized that the lack of a fine chronology of Hattuša and texts relating to the history of Hattuša in detail make all hypotheses regarding the history of Hattuša somewhat preliminary. According to the traditional views, the fortification of the Assyrian Colony Period disappears owing to an unknown event (by Anitta’s destruction?) and the first Hittite Great Kings govern from an unfortified capital. Only the third king, Hantili I surrounds the city with fortification walls (or rebuilds the fortification walls of an earlier period). An unknown ruler builds at an unknown point of time a preliminary wall around the recently established Upper City that was rebuilt by an unknown ruler at an unknown time into the wall today also visible. Instead, the model suggested above seems to be more obvious and perhaps answers more questions: the Upper City of Hattuša that overgrew the Postern Walls inherited from the Assyrian Colony Period or from an earlier period has been surrounded by Hantili I with the walls visible even today in the framework of a larger building programme also known from his annals, thus forming the more or less final structure of Hattuša, capital of the .

REFERENCES

Bittel, K., 1938 – Die Stadt und ihre Entwicklung. In: id., R. Naumann, Bo÷azköy II. Neue Untersuchungen hethitischer Architektur. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 1: 5-11. Bittel, K., et al. 1957 – Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Bo÷azköy im Jahre 1956. MDOG 89: 5-80. Bittel, K., 1970 – Hattusha. The capital of the Hittites. Oxford University Press. Bittel, K., 1972-1975 – Hattuša. RlA 4: 162-172.

16 Note that there was no earlier period of the wall in Kuúaklı (Mielke apud Seeher 2010: 329). 17 According to Schachner 2009a: 105, 1112 the calibrated radiocarbon data from the Upper City of Hattuša exclude the low chronology “da in diesem Fall wesentliche Bauprogramme bereits vor der Herrschaft Hattušilis I. durchgeführt worden wären”. However, the time-span of these data (Schoop & Seeher 2006, esp. 59 [Abb. 4.], 61 [Abb. 6.], 64 [Abb. 9.]) does not allow such a strict formulation, not to mention that this suggestion disregards both the attested predecessors of Hattušili I and the problem of their capital. For a detailed discussion see Simon forthcoming with refs. 246 ZSOLT SIMON

Bittel, K., 1976 – Die Hethiter. Die Kunst Anatoliens vom Ende des 3. bis zum Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. München, Beck. Bittel, K., 1983 – Hattuscha. Hauptstadt der Hethiter. Geschichte und Kultur einer altorientalischen Großmacht. Köln, DuMont. Bryce, T.R., 2005 – The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford University Press. Carruba, O., 1988 – Stato e società nel Medio Regno eteo. In: N.N., Stato Economia Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente antico. Milano, Francoangeli, 195-224. Carruba, O., 2003 – Anitta Res Gestae. Studia Mediterranea 13. Series Hethaea 1. Pavia, Italian University Press. Di Nocera, G.M., 2001 – Arslantepe und die Befestigungsanlage vom Beginn des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. am oberen Euphrat. In: R.M. Boehmer & J. Maran (eds.), Lux orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Internationale Archäologie – Studia honoraria 12. Rahden/Westfalen, Leidorf, 85-96. Fischer, F., 1963 – Die hethitische Keramik von Bo÷azköy. Bo÷azköy – Hattuša IV. WVDOG 75. Berlin, Mann. Forrer, E., 1926 – Die Boghazköi-Texte in Umschrift 2. Geschichtliche Texte aus dem Alten und Neuen Chatti-Reich. Leipzig, Hinrichs. Goetze, A., 1957 – On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B.C. JCS 11: 53-62. Klinger, J., 2002 – Die hethitisch-kaškäische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Großreichszeit. In: S. de Martino & F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds.), Anatolia antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati I. Eothen 11. Firenze, 437-451. Klinger, J., 2005 – Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte des Hethiterreiches. In: B. Janowski & G. Wilhelm (Hrsg.), Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte. TUAT NF 2. Gütersloher, Gütersloh, 139-150. Klinger, J., 2006 – Der Beitrag der Textfunde zur Archäologiegeschichte der hethitischen Hauptstadt. In: Mielke, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 5-17. de Martino, S., 1992 – I rapporti tra ittiti e hurriti durante il regno di Muršili I. Hethitica 11: 19-37. de Martino, S., 2003 – Annali e Res Gestae antico ittiti. Studia Mediterranea 12. Series Hethaea 2. Pavia, Italian University Press. Mielke, D.P., 2006 – ønandıktepe und Sarissa. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung althethitischer Fundkomplexe. In: Mielke, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 251-276. Mielke, D.P., U.-D. Schoop & J. Seeher (eds.), 2006 – Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Voraussetzungen – Probleme – Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop, Istanbul, 26.-27. November 2004. BYZAS 4. østanbul, Ege Yayınları. Müller-Karpe, A., 2001 – Untersuchungen in Kuúaklı 2000. MDOG 133: 225-250. Müller-Karpe, A., 2003 – Remarks on Central Anatolian Chronology of the Middle Hittite Period. In: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May-7th of May 2001. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29. Wien, ÖAW, 385-394. Müller-Karpe, A., 2004 – Untersuchungen in Kuúaklı. MDOG 136: 103-111. Müller-Karpe, A., V. Müller-Karpe & A. Schrimpf, 2009 – Geometrie und Astronomie im Stadtplan des hethitischen Sarissa. MDOG 141: 45-64. Naumann, R., 19712 – Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit. Tübingen, Wasmuth. Neu, E., 1974 – Der Anitta-Text. StBoT 18. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Neve, P., 1982 – Büyükkale. Die Bauwerke. Grabungen 1954-1966. Bo÷azköy – Hattuša XII. Berlin, Mann. Neve, P., 1985 – Hattuscha-Information. østanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Neve, P., 19962 – Hattuša – Stadt der Götter und Tempel. Neue Ausgrabungen in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter. Mainz, Philipp von Zabern. ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011 247

Neve, P., 1999 – Die Oberstadt von . Die Bauwerke I. Die Bebauung im zentralen Tempelviertel. Bo÷azköy – Hattuša XVI. Berlin & Mainz am Rhein, Mann. Neve, P., 2001 – Die Oberstadt von Hattuša. Die Bauwerke II. Die Bastion des Sphinxtores und die Tempelviertel am Königs- und Löwentor. Berlin & Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern. Otten, H., 1966 – Hethiter, Hurriter und Mitanni. In: E. Cassin, J. Bottéro & J. Vercoutter (eds.), Fischer Weltgeschichte 3. Die altorientalischen Reiche II. Das Ende des 2. Jahrtausends. Frankfurt am Main, Fischer, 102-176. Otten, H., 1983a – Der Anfang der HAZANNU-Instruktion. Or 52: 133-142. Otten, H., 1983b – Zur frühen Stadtgeschichte von Hattuša nach den inschriftlichen Quellen. IstMitt 33: 40-52. Schachner, A., 2006 – Auf welchen Fundamenten? Überlegungen zum Stand der Erforschung der hethitischen Architektur. In: Mielke, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 149-165. Schachner, A., 2009a – Das 16. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Eine Zeitenwende im hethitischen Zentralanatolien. IstMitt 59: 9-34. Schachner, A., 2009b – Vom Plan zur Durchführung. Gedanken zur Planung und Baudurchführung in hethitischer Zeit. In: M. Bachmann (Hrsg.), Bautechnik im antiken und vorantiken Kleinasien. Internationale Konferenz, 13.-16. Juni 2007 in Istanbul. Byzas 9. Istanbul, 107-118. Schoop, U.-D., & J. Seeher, 2006 – Absolute Chronologie in Bo÷azköy-Hattuša: Das Potential der Radiokarbondaten. In: Mielke, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 53-76. Seeher, J., 2000a – Die Ausgrabungen in Bo÷azköy-Hattuša 1999. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2000: 355-374. Seeher, J., 2000b – Getreidelagerung in unterirdischen Großspeichern. Zur Methode und ihrer Anwendung im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. am Beispiel der Befunde in Hattuša. SMEA 42: 261-301. Seeher, J., 2002 – Hattuša-Bo÷azköy – Hauptstadt des Reiches. Die Entwicklung der Stadtanlage und ihr Ausbau zur Großreichsmetropole. In: N.N., Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter. Stuttgart, Theiss, 156-163. Seeher, J., 2006a – Der althethitische Getreidesilokomplex. In: id. (ed.), Ergebnisse der Grabungen an den Ostteichen und am mittleren Büyükkale-Nordwesthang in den Jahren 1996-2000. Bo÷azköy-Berichte 8. Mainz am Rhein, 45-84. Seeher, J., 2006b – Chronology in Hattusa. New Approaches to an Old Problem. In: Mielke, Schoop & Seeher 2006: 197-213. Seeher, J., 2006c – Hattuša – Tuthalija-Stadt? Argumente für eine Revision der Chronologie der hethitischen Haupstadt. In: T.P.J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. De Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden. PIHANS CIII. østanbul, NINO, 131-146. Seeher, J., 2006d – Hattuscha-Führer. Ein Tag in der hethitischen Hauptstadt. østanbul, Ege Yayınları. Seeher, J., 2007 – Die Lehmziegel-Stadtmauer von Hattusa. Bericht über eine Rekonstruktion. østanbul, Ege Yayınları. Seeher, J., 2008 – Abschied von Gewusstem. Die Ausgrabungen in Hattuša am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. In: G. Wilhelm (Hrsg.), Hattuša – Bo÷azköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 22.-24. März 2006, Würzburg. CDOG 6. Wiesbaden, 1-13. Seeher, J., 2010 – Wie viele Türme braucht eine Stadt? Überlegungen zum Aufwand der hethitischen Befestigungsanlagen in der späten Bronzezeit. In: J. Lorentzen et al. (ed.), Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruktion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen. Byzas 10. Istanbul, 27-43. Simon, Z., forthcoming – Schließen die Radiokarbondaten aus Hattuša die kurze Chronologie aus? N.A.B.U. Strobel, K., 2008 – Tawiniya/Tavium and the regional Hittite road network. In: id. (ed.), New Perspectives on the historical geography and topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium B.C. Eothen 16. Firenze, 281-302. 248 ZSOLT SIMON

Fig. 1. The Postern Wall and the Grain Silo (Seeher 2006b, 199. Fig. 1.) ANATOLICA XXXVII, 2011 249

Fig. 2. Plan of the city walls of Hattuša: a. North city wall at the northern end of Büyükkaya. b. Postern Wall. c. Upper City wall west of Yerkapı. d. North wall at Büyükkaya (Seeher 2006b: 201, Fig. 2)

Fig. 3. Plan of the city wall of Kuúaklı at the Südspitze (Mielke apud Müller-Karpe 2001: 238, Abb. 9)