Anatolian Studies 61 (2011): 35–54
The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple
J.D. Hawkins School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Abstract The location of the Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, one of the most famous cult-centres of antiquity, has long been a matter of speculation, but was finally revealed by excavations on Aleppo citadel begun in 1996. These have gradually uncovered the central cult-room of the temple with a rich inventory of sculptures datable to several phases of the construction. In 2003 came the dramatic exposure of a substantial Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription recording a dedication to the Storm-God by a ruler, Taita King of Palistin, incised alongside his own image standing in an attitude of reverence before the deity. This was followed in 2004–2005 by the discovery of a further, but broken, inscription on portal figures of the entrance, attributable to the same ruler. These inscriptions are datable by their palaeography approximately to the 11th century BC, a period previously regarded as a dark age lacking written records. They suggest the existence of a large and powerful kingdom in an area where the increasingly known archaeology shows an influx of people of Aegean connections bringing with them the distinctive Mycenaean IIIC pottery. A combination of the archaeological data and the evidence of the inscriptions begins to offer an outline history for this little-known age. This paper presents the first full publication of the inscriptions together with some comments on their background and implications.
Özet Antik dünyanın en ünlü kült merkezlerinden biri olan, Aleppo’daki Fırtına Tanrısı Tapınağı’nın yeri uzun bir süre tartışma konusu olmuş, fakat nihayet 1996’da başlatılan Aleppo kalesi kazıları sırasında ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bu kazılar sonucunda kademeli olarak, yapının değişik dönemlerine tarihlenebilen çok sayıda heykeli barındıran tapınağın merkezi kült odası açığa çıkarılmıştır. 2003 yılında, Palistin Kralı Taita tarafından Fırtına Tanrısı’na adanmış, kendisinin Tanrı önünde saygıyla eğilir pozisyondaki heykelinin yanında kazılmış, önemli bir Luvi hiyeroglif yazıtı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunu, 2004–2005 yıllarında, girişteki kapı figürlerinin üzerinde, aynı yöneticiye atfedilebilen daha ileri seviyede fakat kırık olan bir yazıtın keşfi takip etmiştir. Bu yazıtlar paleografik açıdan, daha önce yazılı kayıtlar olmadığı için karanlık çağ olarak kabul edilen, M.Ö. 11. yüzyıla tarihlenmiştir. Bu yazıtlar, giderek daha iyi bilinen arkeolojik verilerin gösterdiği gibi, Ege bağlantıları olan ve beraberinde karakteristik Miken IIIC seramiğini getiren halkın akın ettiği bu bölgede, büyük ve güçlü bir krallık var olduğunu akla getirmektedir. Arkeolojik veriler ve yazıtların birleşimi, bu az bilinen dönemin tarihi hakkında ipuçları vermektedir. Bu makale, yazıtların geçmişi ve etkileri üzerine bazı yorumlarla birlikte, bu yazıtların ilk tam yayınını da sunmaktadır.
he cult of the Storm-God of Aleppo was one of the assumed the role of head of a widening pantheon, as Tmost prominent and enduring of the Ancient Near attested in the documents of Alalah and Mari (Schwemer East, on a level with those of Ištar of Nineveh and the 2001: 211–19), and his temple as his seat will have been Moon-God of Harran. It is attested as important already built and adorned in a manner befitting the cult-centre of in the Ebla tablets, ca 2500 BC, where it enjoyed the the region. The defeat of Aleppo by the Hittites under patronage of the kings of that city, as also from Early Hattusili I and Mursili I led to the eclipse of the city and Dynastic Mari (Schwemer 2001: 108–11). With the rise doubtless to the plundering of the accumulated wealth of to prominence in north Syria of the Amorite kingdom of the cult. However, the old Semitic Storm-God Addu Yamhad with its capital at Aleppo, the city’s patron deity exerted his influence on the conquering newcomers, both
35 Anatolian Studies 2011 the Hittites of the Old Kingdom and then the Hurrians of under the modern city. It was generally assumed that the Mittanni, who adopted and assimilated him to their own temple would be at least archaeologically inaccessible if Storm-Gods under the names Tarhunna (Hittite) and not destroyed. Teššub (Hurrian). There is no reason to think that under Thus the news in the late 1990s of its discovery and Mittannian, then Hittite domination the Aleppo temple of progressive revelation was an archaeological sensation, this now widely worshipped deity was not treated with and high expectations were not disappointed as the north the customary care and devotion. side of the cella with its ‘pedestal wall’ of 26 reliefs was Thus when Suppiluliuma I had mastered Syria, he gradually uncovered (Kohlmeyer 2000). The only appointed his sons, Telipinu ‘the Priest’ and Piyassili, as inscriptions found with this wall were two relief kings of Aleppo and Karkamiš respectively, in effect as epigraphs identifying the central figures in this row, the ‘archbishop’ and ‘viceroy’ of Syria. We even have one of Storm-God himself in his iconic chariot and his supporter the earliest known Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, that the Stag-God (inscription designated ALEPPO 4). of Talmi-Šarruma, son and successor of the Priest, which Following the kind invitation of Kay Kohlmeyer, I survives bizarrely built into the wall of a mosque and visited the site in September 2003. At this time the records the king’s construction of the lesser temple of excavations were descending through Hellenistic fill in Hepa-Šarruma (the inscription ALEPPO 1; Laroche 1956: search of the cella’s east wall, and Kohlmeyer said to me: 131–41). The cult of the Storm-God of Aleppo remained ‘It is a pity that you did not come a fortnight later, we popular at Hattusa throughout the Empire period (Klengel have not yet found the inscription’. During my stay, 1965: 88–93), and the particular icon of the god represents however, the excavations encountered a Hellenistic him in a distinctive posture, half-kneeling in his eagle- cistern which on entry proved to have incorporated the chariot drawn by bulls (Hawkins 2003). preserved angle of the east and south walls. After the fall of the Hittite empire, nothing was I duly returned to England, and, sure enough, in known of Aleppo in the dark age ca 1200–1000 BC until October I received a call from Kohlmeyer saying: ‘Come the discovery of the Aleppo temple and its inscriptions. at once, we have found the inscription’. I came. He had By the ninth to eighth century BC the city had lost uncovered the magnificently preserved figures of the god political primacy, being part of the Aramean tribal state of and the king in the middle focal point of the east wall, the Bit-Agusi ruled from Arpad, but clearly it remained the god accompanied by a relief epigraph identifying him as important cult-centre of the region. Thus, for example, the Storm-God of Aleppo (ALEPPO 5) and the king by an Shalmaneser III records visiting it to sacrifice in 853 BC 11-line incised inscription identifying him as Taita, King while en route from Pitru on the river Sajur against the of Padasatini (now read Palistin) and recording his forces of Hamath and Damascus (Grayson 1996: A.O. dedication of the temple to the Storm-God of Aleppo 102.2, ii 86–87). (ALEPPO 6). I made a tracing of the inscription on A little information on Aleppo in this period may be polythene and Kohlmeyer made a latex squeeze. gathered from Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. The In the seasons of 2004 and 2005, the south entrance of Babylon stele with inscription BABYLON 1, though the cella was cleared, revealing portal figures on its excavated at Babylon, is thought to have come from the preserved west side: a fish-man and a lion protome in Aleppo temple and been carried off by Nebuchadnezzar II. situ, then fragments of a sphinx protome and a lion figure It records the author’s dedication of his daughter and facing outwards bearing between them parts of a broken estate to the Storm-God of Aleppo and dates to the tenth inscription, ALEPPO 7. I visited again in May–June century BC (Hawkins 2000: 391–94). A similar origin is 2008 to work on this inscription. At that time the sphinx assumed for the two stone bowls bearing inscriptions and lion figures with the parts of their inscription were BABYLON 2 and 3, dating to the eighth century BC. still in fragments, roughly assembled and not yet restored, Yariri, a ruler of Karkamiš, records tantalisingly that an because there was, and still remains, the hope of finding Assyrian king (probably Adad-nirari III) did something additional fragments by some further excavation that may (hostile?) to the Storm-God of Aleppo, who did something be permitted. (retaliatory?) to Assyria (Hawkins 2000: 135–36). I have delayed publication of these Aleppo inscrip- tions up to the present in this hope of further fragments of The excavations (fig. 1) ALEPPO 7. But enough time has elapsed since the With attestations of its central role spread over some two original discoveries and I feel that I must now make these millennia, clearly the temple would be expected to appear important inscriptions fully available to the scholarly as an imposing building, and its location has long been a world. If further pieces of ALEPPO 7 are subsequently subject of speculation, whether on Aleppo’s prominent found and render the present publication obsolete, so citadel under its medieval fortifications or elsewhere much the better.
36 Hawkins
Fig. 1. Aleppo temple plan (K. Kohlmeyer)
37 Anatolian Studies 2011
The temple, phases of construction considers that this relief along with most of the other Before turning to the inscriptions themselves, I sculptures of the ‘pedestal wall’ as found were executed summarise briefly the phases of the temple’s construction in this latest period. A final destruction before the as envisaged by the excavator’s keen archaeological and completion of this last refurbishment programme seems stylistic observations (Kohlmeyer 2008; 2009). He to have overtaken the temple, followed by abandonment identifies a three-course row of rough limestone slabs of the site. Since there is no reason to think that the resting on bedrock and serving as the foundations of the importance of the temple ended at this time, we must north wall of the cella as belonging to the Early Bronze suppose that, after this last destruction, it was rebuilt Age temple and re-used. From the Middle Bronze Age elsewhere but probably in the close vicinity. If this is so, temple (the period of the Kingdom of Yamhad) the inner it does indeed seem certain that this later Iron Age Storm- façade of the north wall formed from limestone orthostats God temple will really be permanently inaccessible, carefully dressed by pick survives in situ on either side of sealed beneath the important and recently restored the cult niche, which is axially aligned with the south Ayyubid structures. entrance of the cella. This phase of the temple was destroyed by fire and The editions rebuilt in the period of Hittite domination. The old cult What follows is a complete edition of the Aleppo temple niche was filled in and concealed behind a new façade: at inscriptions: ALEPPO 4 and 5 (epigraphs), ALEPPO 6 a higher level a row of limestone orthostats recut by (complete), ALEPPO 7 (broken). There do remain some chisel (instead of pick) and in front at temple floor level other small fragments which cannot be shown to attach to a ‘pedestal wall’ of relief sculptures, three of which any of the parts of ALEPPO 7. In view of the fact that survive in situ (a mountain-man and two composite further fragments may be hoped from the final potential beasts). The cella was reoriented in the Hittite style to a area of excavation, these currently unattached fragments bent-axis approach by the placing of a figure of the may await subsequent publication. Storm-God as the central focus of the east wall flanked on either side by two false windows separated by a bull-man. ALEPPO 4 (fig. 2) Kohlmeyer’s identification of the Storm-God figure as Location. In situ, Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, belonging stylistically to the Hittite Empire period is Aleppo citadel. corroborated by the epigraph ALEPPO 5, ‘Halabean Description. On slab 7 of the north ‘pedestal’ wall, two Storm-God’, a writing attested only in this period. He relief epigraphs serve to identify the relief figures of (a) likewise identifies three of the four portal figures of the the Storm-God in his bull-drawn eagle-chariot and (b) the south entrance (fish-man, lion protome, sphinx protome) supporting figure of the Stag-God bearing bow and spear. as belonging stylistically to this phase of the temple’s Discovery. Excavated in situ during the 1997 campaign, adornment. Further, an orthostat found out of position fully cleared during the 1998 campaign. showing a god with spear and lituus also belongs to this Publication. Khayyata, Kohlmeyer 1998: 69–96, period and is indeed strikingly similar to the lower part of especially 92–93, Taf. 23; Kohlmeyer 2000: 15, 31–32, another such figure excavated in situ at the Hittite Empire Taf. 15-17; Gonnella et al. 2005: 98–99, Abb. 137–38. site of Ortaköy near Çorum in Turkey (Süel 2005: 691– Edition. Khayyata, Kohlmeyer 1998: 33; Kohlmeyer 93). 2000: 31–32; Gonnella et al. 2005: 98–99. This Hittite Empire phase of the temple too was Content. Epigraphs to divine figures only. destroyed by fire and restored by King Taita some time in Sculpture. All the sculptures of the ‘pedestal wall’ are the 11th century BC. He inserted his own figure to face considered by the excavator to have been executed in the the god in the middle of the east wall, along with his last phase of the temple refurbishment in the later tenth dedicatory inscription ALEPPO 6. He also restored the century BC, with the exception of three earlier slabs, 12, outward-facing lion figure at the south entrance and 17 and 18, belonging to the Hittite Empire (Kohlmeyer wrote a further inscription on that, running it over on to 2009: 199–202). The two deities on slab 7 reflect exactly the Hittite Empire sphinx, the now broken ALEPPO 7. the scene on the great seal of Mursili III (Urhi-Teššub), Kohlmeyer infers that Taita’s reconstruction restored the for which see now Herbordt et al. 2011: Kat. 57; cf. also original straight-axis orientation of the cella, south the Empire period rock relief İMAMKULU and the Late entrance to the north wall. Certainly the final reorgani- period reliefs MALATYA 8 and KARKAMIŠ B30a. sation of the sculptures of the ‘pedestal wall’ into the Here the pair of harnessed bulls are shown only as one order in which they were found, which he dates to ca 900 and the eagle form of the chariot has been reduced to a BC, places the figure of the Storm-God in his chariot with series of lines. For this scene as the particular icon of the the supporting Stag-God in the axial position. He Storm-God of Aleppo, see Hawkins 2003.
38 Hawkins
Fig. 2. ALEPPO 4 (photo K. Kohlmeyer)
Fig. 3. ALEPPO 5 and ALEPPO 6 (photo K. Kohlmeyer)
39 Anatolian Studies 2011
Date. According to the excavator’s analysis (see above, Transliteration, translation. Sculpture), later tenth century BC. (DEUS)TONITRUS Text. Traced from photographs. GENUFLECTERE-MI ‘Halabean Tarhunna’ Photograph. Kindly supplied by K. Kohlmeyer. Comment. In Hawkins 2003 I addressed the reading of the Transliteration, translation. epigraph on the great seal of Mursili III (for which, see (a) DEUS.MATTEA Divine Mace now Herbordt et al. 2011: Kat. 57), identifying a further
(b) (DEUS) CERVUS2-ti (Ku)runtiya occurrence on İMAMKULU and proposing the reading Comment. DEUS.MATTEA (‘God Mace’) is an unparal- (DEUS)TONITRUS GENUFLECTERE-MI, ‘Storm-God leled writing and curious as the epigraph to this icon. The of Aleppo’. I noted that the signs L.84, CRUS2, the link has been made to the ‘weapon’ (GIŠTUKUL) of the ‘horizontal leg’, and L.85, the ‘kneeling leg’, read Storm-God of Aleppo, which itself possessed cultic status HALPA, were effectively interchangeable in Empire (Kohlmeyer 2000: 31–32, with reference to Durand 1993: period seals (see also Hawkins 2005: 253, nos 108–10), 43–46). The epigraph might refer specifically to the in that both are used in writing the onomastic element mace on the god’s shoulder, and in this way it would Halpa. It was gratifying to receive the confirmation of avoid clashing with the other epigraph, ALEPPO 5, this proposal by the immediate appearance of ALEPPO 5 identifying the older figure of the Storm-God of Aleppo with a third example of the writing from the Temple of placed in the middle of the east wall in the Hittite Empire the Halabean Storm-God himself. I argued that the phase of the temple lay-out. writing rendered the Hittite reading Tarhunna Halpuma
(DEUS)CERVUS2-ti: this epigraph is a Hittite Empire as against the Luwian reading well attested in the Late style writing of the name of the Stag-God, argued to be period, Tarhunza Halpawani (for which, see again here read Kurunti(ya) at that date, shifting to Runtiya (Runza) ALEPPO 6, §§2, 3). in the Late period (Hawkins 2005: 290). ALEPPO 6 (figs 3–7) ALEPPO 5 (fig. 3) Location. In situ, Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, Location. In situ, Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, Aleppo citadel. Aleppo citadel. Description. See ALEPPO 5, Description. The right- Description. In the centre of the east wall of the cella are hand central slab of the east wall bears the figure of the four tall slabs: the inner two, black basalt, are sculptured king and the adjoining slab is rebated in three sections. with two figures facing each other, on the left the god, on An 11-line incised inscription begins in the space the right the king; the outer two, white limestone, are between the left-facing king’s hat + head and raised right rebated in three sections. The inscription ALEPPO 5, a arm, jumping his figure and running dextroverse from his sinistroverse relief epigraph, stands on the left-hand slab behind his hat, directly across the rebated slab (line central slab, in front of the right-facing god’s head above 1), descending at its right edge and returning sinistroverse his raised left arm. (line 2) across the rebated slab on to the king’s slab Discovery. Excavated in situ during the 2003 campaign. behind his hat, where it descends to line 3 and runs Publication. Gonnella et al. 2005: 91–92, Abb. 124; dextroverse from his slab across the rebated slab, Kohlmeyer 2009: (193), 195. returning sinistroverse along line 4. At the left edge of Edition. Here for the first time. the rebated slab a single sign overlaps on to the king’s Content. The four-sign epigraph identifies the deity as the slab behind his hair-bunch, but otherwise descends to the Storm-God of Aleppo. rebated slab, line 5, continuing dextroverse and so on, Sculpture. The excavator’s stylistic analysis of the body boustrophedon down the rebated slab, ending with one proportions of the figure of the Storm-God indicates that (dextroverse) word on line 11. the piece belongs to the Hittite Empire period, which Dimensions. Slab 1: height 198cm, width 55cm; slab agrees with the other features characterising an 2: height 193cm, width 55cm. observable phase in the remodelling of the temple Condition. Good, apart from some pitting of the (Gonnella et al. 2005: 92; Kohlmeyer 2009: 194–96). limestone which obscures some signs. Date. According to the above stylistic analysis, Hittite Script, line-dividers. Incised. Empire, 13th century BC. The style of the epigraph Sign forms. Monumental. corroborates this, since this writing of ‘Storm-God of Peculiarities. zi+a for za; i(a) for i and ia, which Aleppo’ is attested only in the Hittite Empire period (seal occurs in two forms; initial-a-final; idiosyncratic sign of Mursili III, rock relief İMAMKULU; Hawkins 2003). forms, ta, ma, tu, POST.
Text. Redrawn from tracing on polythene made in 2003. ‘Word-divider’ as determinative VIR2 (before Photograph. Kindly supplied by K. Kohlmeyer. HEROS, palistiniza-, FILIUS, CAPUT).
40 Hawkins
Discovery. Excavated in situ, October 2003. §2. a-wa/i x: traces of a sign x look as if this might be Publication, edition. Here for the first time. But cf. -ta, but this could hardly give a-wa/i-ta (Ortspartikel) Gonnella et al. 2005: 92–93, Abb. 125; Kohlmeyer 2009: since this should be written wa/i-ta-*a. If there is indeed 198. a sign here, it must belong to another word. Content. Honour of Storm-God of Aleppo by Taita King TONITRUS.HALPA-pa … (URBS): ethnic suffix of Palistin; injunction enjoining future offerings to -wani expected, and -wa/i- may be visible. But cf. the temple. form in §3. Sculpture. The excavator’s stylistic analysis of the figure COR-na: probably represents atrin, ‘form, figure, noted differences of execution from the facing Storm- image’, perhaps referring to the figure of the god before God figure’s Hittite Empire style (Gonnella et al. 2005: which Taita has inserted his own image (COR for former 92–93). This led to the identification of a separate, later VAS, see van den Hout 2002). phase of temple restoration by Taita (Kohlmeyer 2009: i-zi-sa-tá-: for a suggested etymology of this verb, see 197–98), which agreed with C14 dating of the burnt layer Rieken 2007: 265–66. and with the palaeography of the inscription. §3. TONITRUS.HALPA-pa-ní-wa/i (URBS): natural Date. Taita’s inscriptions appear to belong in a historical order of reading, and compare TONITRUS.HALPA-pa-ni context after the dissolution of the Hittite empire, ca 1200 (dative singular BABYLON 3), which thus may not be a BC and before the formation of the Neo-Hittite and mistake. On the other hand, the absence of nominative Aramean states Unqi, Hamath and Bit Agusi-Arpad. singular MF -sa here is odd, so perhaps restore -pa-wa/i- They show archaic traits noted above (Description): zi+a ní<-sa-pa-wa/i> and assume haplography. for za; ia for i and ia; initial-a-final; ‘word-divider’ as COR … -i-sa: COR apparently the same as in the determinative (VIR2). This places them between the early preceding clause though slimmer. The -sa is reasonably MALATYA inscriptions (12th to early 11th century BC) clear, but in the generally uncertain reading it is hard to and the earliest KARKAMIŠ inscriptions (house of Suhi, envisage a meaningful grammatical function – possibly tenth to early ninth century BC), so a dating to the 11th nominative/accusative singular N particle -sa? (See fig. century BC looks likely to be approximately correct. 7b Addendum.) I had previously assumed that Taita author of §4. z[a-t]i-i(a)-za: this would be the Late form za-, ALEPPO 6 was the same individual as the author of the dative plural, as against Empire zatanza (zi/a-tá-zi/a, MEHARDE stele and the husband of the woman YALBURT, block 4 §2). The signs za written zi+a and i(a) commemorated on the SHEIZAR stele. Now, however, for i and ia are now more clearly attested on ALEPPO 7. we may note epigraphic features suggesting that DEUS.DOMUS (-) ha-tà-zi!: same phonetic writing, MEHARDE-SHEIZAR may be later, thus that the Taita perhaps full, occurs on KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §13 and see named there may be Taita II (see in detail below, commentary, KARKAMIŠ A11a, §11. The dative plural Discussion: new evidence). here demands ending -zi<+a>, and indeed the best photo- Text. Redrawn from tracing from the stone on polythene graphs suggest a possible +a. made in 2003; collated. DEUS-ní i-zi-u-na, ‘to the god to celebrate’: for the Photographs. Kindly supplied by K. Kohlmeyer. construction, cf. KARATEPE 1, 214–16, zati Transliteration. See fig. 7a, p. 44. Note the re-evaluation ‘CASTRUM’-si AEDIFICARE-MI-na, ‘for this fortress of the sign ta5 (L.172) as lá/í, also ta4 (L.319) as la/i; and to build’. For iziya-, ‘make/do, i.e. celebrate (a god)’, the word-divider (L.386) as VIR2. also a(ya)-, same sense, see KARKAMIŠ A16a, §3; Translation. See fig. 7b, p. 45. HİSARCIK 1, §§2, 5. The infinitive iziuna is an inter-
Commentary. §1. (VIR2) HEROS, also (VIR2) palistiniza-: esting attestation. Verb forms ending -mi-na have been
VIR2 now recognised as determinative, not yet word- identified by Melchert as ‘gerundives’ (2003: 194; divider (see below, Discussion: new evidence). 2004a). In no cases do these overlap with -una infinitives Unusual arrangement of titles, name and introductory of the same verb except for this one: see i-zi-ia-mi-na, amu-figure, doubtless for ornamental graphic effect. KARKAMIŠ A4a, §4; CEKKE, §10. Perhaps the pa-lá/í-sà-ti-[ní]-za-sa (note absence of REGIO, post- -mi-na forms are alternative forms of infinitive. determinative): the re-evaluation of ta5 as lá/í has been §5. REX-t[á-s]a: unexplained variant for usual REX- convincingly argued by Rieken and Yakubovich (2010), ti-(*hantawati-). and the usage of sà also by Rieken (2010). The resulting §6. BOS … -i(-pa-wa/i): whatever reading may be reading palistiniza-, ‘Palistin-ean’, is thus assured: for a recoverable, this must stand for [waw]i(n)-, accusative discussion of the implications of this toponym, see below. singular MF. The toponym recurs partially preserved on ALEPPO 7, §1 ka+ra/i-tu, also §10: otherwise, unattested verb, sense ([…]-sà-ti-ní-za-sa). dictated by context, etymology invited.
41 Anatolian Studies 2011
Fig. 4. ALEPPO 6 (photo K. Kohlmeyer)
Fig. 5. ALEPPO 6 (drawing J.D. Hawkins)
42 Hawkins
Fig. 6. ALEPPO 6 (laser scan A. Kai-Browne)
§7. zi-ma-pa-wa/i-sa, also §11: presumably to be (VIR2)FILIUS-ní-sa: for VIR2 now recognised as a analysed zi(n)+ma(n)+pa+wa+as in the sequence awa+as determinative, not yet word-divider, see above, man … zi(n)+ma(n)+pa+wa+as … ma(n)+pa+wa+as … Description, also below, Discussion: new evidence. Can ma(n)+pa+wa+as … zi(n)+ma(n)+pa+wa+as. zin should the present REX-lu/i/a-sa (VIR2)FILIUS-ní-sa be recog- be the ablative-adverbial form of the demonstrative za-, nised as a post-Empire rendering of the very common as identified by Goedegebuure (2007), here in an unpar- Empire writing DUMU.LUGAL, ‘prince’, otherwise alleled compound with man, ‘on the other hand if …’. unattested in the Late period? REX-lu/i/a-sa: photographs now confirm that no §9. FLUMEN REGIO DOMINUS: for FLUMEN signs do in fact intervene between lu/i/a and sa. The sign REGIO (= Cuneiform KUR ÍD, read hapat(a)i-), see L.445, original Empire value lu, does on occasion in the HAMA 1–3, 6–7, §3, with other attestations; for Late period alternate with la and li, as listed by Laroche FLUMEN.DOMINUS, see BOYBEYPINARI 1, §2, with 1960 (L.445); cf. also MARAŞ 3, §8 and commentary. other attestations. On the other hand, L.445 alternates with ru in the word §10. POST (+ra/i?)-sa, ‘inferior (man)’ (presence of karuna-/kaluna-, ‘granary’ (see KARATEPE 1, 40, +ra/i? uncertain): cf. MALPINAR, §§20, 27; and Hittite commentary), guaranteeing the value lu, and it has EGIR-iz-zi-uš-ša UNMEŠ-tar, ‘subordinate folk’ (KUB seemed best to accept a lu value in the absence of other 14.7+ i 19). evidence to the contrary (cf. now Yakubovich 2008: 14, (VIR2) CAPUT: VIR2 now as determinative. n.17). Here a word REX-lu- is not easily recognisable, §11–12. A parallel passage is partly preserved on an where REX-li- could be explained as an adjectival deriv- ALEPPO fragment, reading: ative in -ali-, but a li-value of lu at this early Late date 1. ma-pa-wa/i-sa POST [… would be surprising. 2. … ]-sa LIBARE-sa
43 Anatolian Studies 2011
I 1, §1. REX tá-i-tá-sa EGO-wa/i-mi (VIR2) HEROS (VIR2) pa-lá/í-sà-ti-[ní]-za-sa REX
2, §2. a-wa/i x […] mi-i-*a || DOMINUS-na-ni TONITRUS.HALPA-pa…(URBS) (DEUS) TONITRUS COR-na i- zi-i-sa-tá-ha
3, §3. TONITRUS.HALPA || -pa-ní-wa/i (?) (URBS) (DEUS) TONITRUS mu-*a COR- …-i-sa i-zi-ta
4, §4. z[a-t]i-i(a)-za-pa-wa/i || DEUS.DOMUS(-)ha-tà-zi! REL-i-sa PES-wa/i-i-ti DEUS-ní i-zi-u-na||
5, §5. wa/i-sa-*a ma-na REX-t[á-s]a
6, §6. BOS-[…]-i-pa-wa/i || OVIS. [ANIMAL] ka+ra/i-tu
7, §7. zi-ma-pa-wa/i-sa REX-lu/a/i-sa || (VIR2)FILIUS-ní-sa
§8. ma-pa-wa/i-sa REGIO.DOMINUS
8, §9. ma- || pa-wa/i-sa FLUMEN.REGIO.DOMINUS
9, §10. a-wa/i pa-sa-ha-*a OVIS.ANIMAL || ka+ra/i-tu
? 10, §11. zi-ma-pa-wa/i-sa POST (+ ra/i )-sa (VIR2) CAPUT-ti- || sa
§12. a-wa/i (L.291.PANIS) tu+ra/i-pi-sa (LIBARE) sà+ra/i <-la?>-hi-sa ||
11. CAPERE.PANIS-sa-ha
Fig. 7a. Transliteration of ALEPPO 6
? 3. (VIR2) CAPERE.PANIS-t[i ]-s[a…] VIR2 x [… ALEPPO 7 (figs 8–10) 4. … ]-na Location. In situ, Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo, 5. x [… Aleppo citadel. The gap between lines 1–2 is presumably to be Description. Broken incised inscription recovered on restored by the three words [(VIR2) CAPUT-tis awa fragments of two adjoining portal figures, a lion (A) and (L.291.PANIS)turpi]s. Line 3 seems somewhat different a sphinx (B), found fallen from their base slabs on the with the presence of the VIR2 determinatives and running west side of the south entrance of the cella. The right side on beyond the end of ALEPPO 6, §12. of the inscription consists of 12 lines placed on the left §12. (LIBARE) sà-ra/i<-la?>-hi-sa: the restoration side of the sphinx’s cap, head and shoulder; lines 4–12 are would give a recognisable formation, an -ahi abstract of bounded on their right sides by a rosette of the sphinx’s the verb sarli-, ‘libate, offer’, for which see CEKKE, §5 cap and her hair-lock and ear, and lines 1–2 were with attestations (note that the first syllable is elsewhere extended rightwards onto the cap, surviving as a detached always written with sa5-). The LIBARE-sa of the parallel fragment separated from the main text by a short gap. passage is a curiously abbreviated writing, giving no The left edge of lines 1–12 is formed by an incised indication of the -ahi- ending. vertical ridge cut to accommodate the lion figure butted (L.291.PANIS): unclear what L.291 adds to the in to the sphinx protome at a right angle; the text would regular determinative PANIS. have run over on to the lion figure here. The sphinx CAPERE.PANIS-sa-ha: unknown reading and inter- fragment B is almost complete for all its 12 lines. pretation – is -sa nominative singular MF ending? The Parts of the left side of the inscription survive on the ? parallel passage has (VIR2) CAPERE.PANIS-t[i ]-s[a … right flank of the lion, shoulder to fore-leg, bounded on which seems to be determined by VIR2 as a word their left edge by the curls of the lion’s mane; the denoting a person, which is hard to envisage in the preserved lines are identifiable as aligning with the context of §12. sphinx’s lines 3, 4 + 5, 6 + 7, 8, 10, 12 + 13. The relative
44 Hawkins
§1. King Taita (am) I, the Hero, Palistin-ean King.
§2. For my lord the Halabean Storm-God I honoured the image,
§3. the Halabean Storm-God made me … .
§4. (He) who comes to this temple to celebrate the god,
§5. if he (is) a king.
§6. let him sacrifice an ox and a sheep.
§7. On the other hand if he is a … king’s son,
§8. or he (is) a country lord,
§9. or he (is) a river-country lord,
§10. let him too sacrifice a sheep.
§11. On the other hand if he (is) an inferior man,
§12. (there shall be) bread, oblation and … .
Addendum. §3. T. van den Hout comparing Hittite nu-mu DU EN-IA ZI-aš i-ia-du, ‘May the Storm-God my Lord do (that) of my desire’ (literally ‘soul’), suggests the recognition of COR- … -i-sa as free-standing genitive like ZI- aš. This would make excellent sense. We would then translate: §2. For my Lord the Halabean Storm-God I honoured the desire (literally ‘soul’), §3. and for me the Halabean Storm-God did (that) of the desire (i.e. ‘[that] of my soul’).
Fig. 7b. Translation of ALEPPO 6
position of the lion and sphinx parts of the inscription is Condition. As preserved, clear. determinable from their respective base slabs and the Script, line-dividers. Incised. distance between the two parts, thus the loss of text can Sign-forms. Monumental, similar to ALEPPO 6. be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Peculiarities. zi+a for za; i(a) for i and ia; initial-a- The missing beginning of the text was on A line 1, and final; idiosyncratic sign-forms like ALEPPO 6 (no ta). it ran dextroverse on to the preserved B line 1, extending ‘Word-divider’ as determinative VIR2 (before rightwards on to the sphinx’s cap, as noted, descending to B HEROS, SCRIBA (x2), FILIUS, VIR, zaMARA(?)ni). line 2 and running sinistroverse on to the lost A line 2, where Discovery. Excavated fallen from base slabs in 2004– it descended to the preserved beginning of A line 3. There- 2005. The two figures are still in the process of restoration. after it continued boustrophedon across B and A, termi- Publication, edition. Here for the first time. nating on A line 13 (the aligning B line 13 is uninscribed). Content. No context sufficiently preserved to piece The text thus has a preserved right side but only parts together. §§1, 2 and 7 are important, giving the end of of the left side, and the central part is missing. Continuity Taita’s titulary and mentioning Karkamiš and Egypt. of context between the lines on the right side and what is Sculpture. The excavator’s stylistic analysis attributes the preserved on the left is not apparent. sphinx to the Hittite Empire phase and the lion to that of Dimensions. A: maximum width 120cm, original height Taita (Kohlmeyer 2009: 195–99). Taita would have (estimated) 260cm; B: maximum width 88cm, original restored the Empire period portal figures and added his height (estimated) 215cm, height (lines 1–[13]) 109cm. own outward-facing lion.
45 Anatolian Studies 2011
ab
cd Fig. 8. ALEPPO 7. (a) lion (upper part); (b) lion (lower part); (c) sphinx (front); (d) sphinx (side) (photos K. Kohlmeyer)
46 Hawkins
Fig. 9a. ALEPPO 7 (laser scan A. Kai-Browne)
Fig. 9b. ALEPPO 7 (drawing J.D. Hawkins)
47 Anatolian Studies 2011
LION (A) + SPHINX (B) 1, §1. (A) [… pa-lá/í-](B)s[à]-ti-ní-za-sa (VIR2)HEROS REX[…?]
2, §2. […?] [k]ar-ka-mi-sà-ti(UR[BS) ...?||](DOMUS)sa5-sa5-tà-ti PRAE [… ] pa-za-i(a)-ha
§3. […](DEUS) ku[(A) … ||
3, §4. wa/i-na-*a [z]a-[…
§5. … -pa/ha-wa/i-](B) mu TONITRUS L.187[…]ti x x ||
4, §6. ma-pa-wa/i (VIR2)SCRIBA-la-sa(A)[…
5, §7. …]x-*a MÍ.REGIO ASINUS2A-ni || (PES)u-sa-tá
§8. w[a/i?]-m[u?-*a …
§9. … ] (B) hwi-i(a)-nú-wa/i
6, §10. ma-||wa/i-tá-*aza-i(a) POST-ni? (A)[…
? 7, §11. … ] pa-sa-na-*a DOMINUS-na || pa-sa-ha-*a (VIR2)za-MARA -ní […
§12. … ] (B) REGIO-ni
8, §13. pa-sa-||pa-wa/i-*a (VIR2)SCRIBA-la-sa (A)[…
§14. … ]-i(a)[…] hwi-i(a)-tu||
9, §15. […
10, §16. … ](B) BRACCHIUM-ru-la-sa ‘L.87’(?)(-)|| ku+ra/i-ku+ra/i-na (A)[…
11, §17. … ]PRAE-ni || […
§18. … ] (B) 90(-)ru-wa/i(-)x (VIR2)FILIUS || (VIR2)VIR
12. TONITRUS- HALPA-pa (A) […
13, §19. … ] -na SCALPRUM hi-tu-n[a-t]i || LIGNUM hi-ti(-)tu(-)wa/i-tà[…
Fig. 10a. Transliteration of ALEPPO 7
Date. Attribution to Taita on the basis of the (incomplete) Transliteration. See fig. 10a. titulary and the close similarity to ALEPPO 6. Taita Translation. See fig. 10b. would have written the inscription on his lion, running it Commentary. §1. A line 1 restoration: [EGO-wa/i-mi Itá- over on to the adjoining sphinx. It shows the same i(a)-tá-sa (VIR2)pa-lá/í-] B line 1 … looks an adequately archaic features as ALEPPO 6, and like it may be dated to secure restoration, perhaps with space for further details the 11th century BC. (for example, patronym).
Text. Traced in situ from the stone on polythene in June (VIR2)HEROS: VIR2 as determinative as on ALEPPO 2008 and redrawn. 6, §1. Photographs. Kindly supplied by K. Kohlmeyer. §2. The short gap between the main text and the still
48 Hawkins
LION (A) + SPHINX (B) §1. (A)[ I (am) Taita(?) … Pali](B)stin-ean Hero King.
§2. From the city Karkamiš from the bed-chamber(?) forth (to(?) … ) I went.
§3. The god(dess?) Ku[baba? …
§4. and him/her(?) … […
§5. (to) me …
§6. But if a scribe […
§7. …] he/they brought mule(s) (to/from) the land Egypt,
§8. and (to?) me(?) […
§9. … ] I will(?) make run,
§10. and these my last […
§11. … ] to his lord and to his … […
§12. … ] to the land.
§13. But that scribe […
§14. … ] let him/them run.
§15. […
§16. … ] … […
§17. … ] forth […
§18. … ] ninety … to/for child (and) man, Halpa […
§19. …
Fig. 10b. Translation of ALEPPO 7 unattached fragment should permit the presence of an word here if a plausible context can be understood. Alter- introductory word or words. natively the double use of the seal sign sa5 (L.327) might
[k]ar-ka-mi-sà-ti(UR[BS]) || DOMUS sa5-sa5-tà-ti: suggest a DOMUS sasa(n)t-, ‘seal-house, treasury’, inspection of the fragments seems to show that the Hittite É NA4KIŠIB (siyannas per). The interpretation of sphinx’s cap was not inscribed beyond this point, thus the verb must also affect the understanding of the context. that here line 1 descends to line 2 and nothing is lost pa-za-i(a)-ha: we may probably take this as the verb, except the lower part of URBS. fully preserved, of §2, with the loss of one or two words
DOMUS sa5-sa5-tà-ti: the similarity to Hittite É.ŠÀ in the preceding gap. Can this be identified with the sastas, ‘bed-chamber’, suggests the recognition of this known verb (PES2) paza-, ‘go’ (KARKAMIŠ A5b, §1,
49 Anatolian Studies 2011 with attestations) or ‘allocate’ (Melchert 2004b: 375–78)? Here it is third person preterite. But lack of text precludes The presence of the -i(a)- may indicate a different verb. recognition as singular or plural. §3. If §2 ends with the verb pa-za-i(a)-ha, some such §8. w[a/i?]-m[u?-*a]: traces perhaps sufficient to copula as awa-mu might be expected, though it is not indicate connectives awa-mu, ‘and (to) me ...’. clear that space would permit. §9. hwi-i(a)-nú-wa/i: without context it is uncertain DE[US]ku[…: in a clause following one with a whether this represents hwi(ya)nu(wa)-wi, ‘I will make run’ mention of karkamis, this looks likely to be a reference to (first person singular present), or, less likely, hwi(ya)nuwa, the goddess Kubaba. If so, the following sign should be ‘make run!’ (second person singular imperative). [AVIS]. §10. ma-wa/i-tá-*a: the initial-a-final, regular in these §4. wa/i-na-*a: only preserved word, seems to be a inscriptions, leads to the analysis ama(-wa-ta), ‘my’, clear clause connective awa-an, ‘and him ...’. nominative/accusative plural N, a useful attestation. The §5. -mu: perhaps ‘(to) me’, end of particle chain forms of ami-, ‘my’, ending in -i- are regularly written connective. The rest of B line 3 is very unclear: with initial-a-final (mi-*a, = ami-) in Empire, Transi- especially TONITRUS without DEUS or HALPA. tional and early Late periods, while those ending -a(-) B lines 3–4: line 3 might have continued a little to the (nominative/accusative singular/plural N amanza, ama) right, but line 4 must begin with ma-pa-wa/i since to its are written with initial á- in the early Late period, but are right is the first of the row of rosettes which border the hitherto unattested in Empire or Transitional, hence the sphinx’s cap. interest of this Transitional ma-*a = ama. §6. ma-pa-wa/i (man-pa-wa), ‘But if ...’, adequately za-i(a) should represent zaya, nominative/accusative clear. plural N of demonstrative za-. ? ? (VIR2)SCRIBA-la-sa: cf. §13, apas-pa-wa POST-ni : cf. ALEPPO 6, §11, POST(+ra/i )-sa,
(VIR2)SCRIBA-la-sa, ‘But that scribe […’. These ‘inferior’ (aparis). Here ‘these my last [things]’ would be clauses do not suggest a usual context for such an intelligible, yet the possible presence of -ni might rather inscription. indicate POST-ni, ‘back, behind’, leaving a less easily §7. […]-*a: probably initial-a-final at end of understood ama zaya, ‘these my (things)’. connective particle chain. §11. pa-sa-na-*a, followed by pa-sa-ha-*a: clear MÍ.REGIO, ‘the land Egypt’: this interpretation is examples of initial-a-final, representing apasan ... based on KARKAMIŠ A6, §4, (‘MÍ.REGIO’) mi-za+ra/i apasa(n)-ha, ‘to his … and his …’ (dative singular of (URBS), i.e. logographic writing of the toponym apasi-). ? followed by phonetic rendering Mizri, ‘Egypt’. Unfortu- (VIR2)za-MARA -ní […]: identification as MARA nately, no case ending is indicated here: ‘to/from’? (L.462) not certain (for this sign, see Hawkins 2004:
ASINUS2A-ni: see Hawkins 2005: 295, Excursus 11. especially 367–68). Determinative VIR2 should indicate The equid head is found in this form regularly on Empire that the word denotes a person, but it is otherwise period seals as an onomastic element and in titles, also on unknown. YALBURT, blocks 13 + 3 standing for equids. The §16. BRACCHIUM-ru-la-sa: unknown, nominative variant form ASINUS2 (with protuberance under the jaw) singular MF? is found on the seals Boehmer, Güterbock 1987: nos 263– L.87(=‘CRUS+CRUS’)(?): logogram perhaps so to 64, on the TARKONDEMOS seal and on the KARABEL be recognised (cf. KARKAMIŠ A15b, §13) and appar- inscription, all giving the name of Tarkasnawa, King of ently with logogram-markers (L.410) below – if so, this Mira (Hawkins 1998), and the TARKONDEMOS would be the earliest attestation of the sign. digraph gives the Cuneiform reading as tar-kaš-ša-na ku+ra/i-ku+ra/i-na: unknown, accusative singular (-wa). For the Late period it seems that we must distin- MF? Possibly full phonetic writing of preceding guish tarkasna-, ‘donkey’, and a derived form in -i(ya)-, logogram? tarkasni-, ‘mule’ (Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies 1998). §18. 90(-)ru-wa/i(-)x: numeral + unknown word(s).
The -ni- form is already attested in the Empire period, (VIR2)FILIUS: VIR2 as determinative (as all other
YALBURT, block 13, §5, ASINUS2A-ni-i(a)(-pa-wa/i) as occurrences in ALEPPO 6 and 7), not just the upper now reinterpreted (Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies 2010: crampon (L.386) of FILIUS usual in later writings. with n.16; Schürr 2010: 19–20), and again YALBURT (VIR2)VIR: relation of VIR(ziti-) to VIR2 (also ziti-?) block 3, §3, ASINUS2A-n[í…]. This then is the form uncertain. which we have here. We would expect a case ending, TONITRUS.HALPA-pa[...: reference to Halpa city or probably accusative plural MF, -zi. Aleppine Storm-God? (PES)u-sa-tá: verb adequately attested in §19. SCALPRUM hi-tu-n[a-t]i LIGNUM hi-ti(-)tu(-) KARATEPE 1, §XXXIX, 146, also ANDAVAL, §3. wa/i-tá[…: SCALPRUM elsewhere determines stone or
50 Hawkins stone objects, LIGNUM wooden objects or words marks CAPUT (‘person’, §22) and URBS (‘city’, §§9, 13, denoting authority. The word division of the second 22). But it is ALEPPO 6 and 7 which show the most group is uncertain: hi-ti-tu wa/i-ta-[…*a] or hi-ti tu-wa/i- extensive examples of this usage, determining with VIR2 tá[…]. One might also suspect a repetition of a verb stem the words HEROS, ‘hero’, palistiniza-, ‘Palistin-ean’, hiti- in hit-una-(a)ti, -una abstract + ablative (singular). FILIUS, ‘son’, CAPUT, ‘person’, SCRIBA, ‘scribe’, The end of the text must follow closely in the gap, VIR, ‘man’, and zaMARA(?)ni-, ‘?’ (see above). since the space aligning with A line 13 on B is After these Transitional inscriptions, the usage of the uninscribed. sign shifted from determinative marking words for persons ultimately to the generalised word-divider as Discussion long recognised in such later eighth century inscriptions I have already discussed the question of Taita’s kingdom, as those from Tabal (SULTANHAN etc.) and the ASSUR its name, location and date (Hawkins 2009: 169–72). letters. The stages of this development, best followed in Important factors bearing on the matter were already the tenth to ninth century inscriptions of KARKAMIŠ changing when I wrote and have continued to change and TELL AHMAR, seems to be approximately as since then. follows: determinative of words denoting persons > As soon as Taita, King of PaDAsatini (as then read), collectives (city, army) > logograms rendering personal appeared in 2003 on the inscription ALEPPO 6, I pointed actions, especially those written with parts of the body to the already known Taita King of WaDAsatini on the (giving etc.) > logograms generally > phonetically inscriptions MEHARDE and SHEIZAR, and noted that written words with personal content (‘my’, ‘name’ etc.) > the toponym recurred elsewhere only on the fragment pronouns (‘this’, relative). TELL TAYINAT 1, excavated at that site in the Amuq. Examining MEHARDE and SHEIZAR with this in Meriggi had already suggested (1975: 224, 227) that this mind, we note that they have advanced quite far in gener- was the Hieroglyphic Luwian designation of the Amuq alising L.386 as the word-divider in marked contrast to kingdom itself. The features which MEHARDE and the ALEPPO 6 and 7 usage as the VIR2 determinative. SHEIZAR shared with ALEPPO 6 were sufficiently This forces us to consider whether this marks marked to prompt the identification of the two Taitas, as MEHARDE and SHEIZAR as significantly later than Kohlmeyer reported (in Gonnella et al. 2005: 92). ALEPPO 6 and 7, and thus to recognise two Taitas, Taita I King of Palistin and Taita II King of Walistin. On the New evidence other hand, the shared personal name and title, as well as Evidence for re-reading the signs rendered DA in the the epigraphic peculiarities common to the two pairs of toponym (L.319, ta4, and L.172, ta5) was already appearing inscriptions (see above, ALEPPO 6 and 7, Description), (Hawkins 2005: 299–300), and has now been thoroughly suggests that they can hardly be too widely separated. assessed (Rieken, Yakubovich 2010: especially 216), The degree of separation to be envisaged might best arise leading to the convincing re-evaluation, TA4 = la/i, TA5 = from Taita II being, for example, grandson of Taita I. lá/í. This, together with a reassessment of the usage of the sign sà (L.104, Rieken 2010), leads to the re-reading of the Historical implications toponym as Palistin/Walistin. Further, it has recently Before we had to consider the possibility of two Taitas, I reappeared on a pair of near-duplicate stelae, ARSUZ 1 and wrote (2009: especially 172) that the distribution of the 2 found at that place (near İskenderun: see Dinçol, Dinçol monuments suggested the existence of a large if forthcoming), which supports the Amuq location. ephemeral kingdom in the 11th century BC, ruled from A further epigraphic development bearing on the the Amuq as Palistin/Walistin, including Aleppo (with relative dating of ALEPPO 6 and 7 in relation to Ain Dara) and perhaps Karkamiš (ALEPPO 7, §2), and MEHARDE-SHEIZAR is a reassessment of the usage of extending as far south as Meharde-Sheizar near Hama. the sign L.386, the ‘word-divider’ (see now Hawkins The modification of the picture demanded by the recog- 2010). Güterbock had shown that in the Empire period nition of two Taitas would be: a kingdom of perhaps three L.386 stood for ‘man’ as opposed to ‘woman’ on seals, generations, 11th to early tenth century BC, ruled from and in ligature with ‘hand’ for ‘son’ as opposed to the Amuq by Taita I controlling Aleppo and Karkamiš(?); ‘daughter’ (Güterbock 1975: 73–74). Recently and by Taita II controlling (additionally?) as far south as Yakubovich, following Poetto, noted that it was used on Meharde-Sheizar. As things now stand, this looks
YALBURT (Empire period) as a determinative VIR2 perhaps the most probable scenario. We turn to the marking words denoting persons (Yakubovich 2008: 3, question of how to fit the existence of such a kingdom n.6). This usage continued into the Transitional period into the increasingly better known archaeology of the inscriptions as can be seen on KARAHÖYÜK, where it period and area.
51 Anatolian Studies 2011
The archaeology The form Palistin/Walistin is reached by removing Recent archaeological activity in the northern Levant, the Luwian ethnic suffix -iza-, as seen for example in specifically at Tell Tayinat in the Amuq and Tell Afis in Karkamisiza-, ‘Karkamisean’. The forms in which the inland Syria, has confirmed and much extended our ethnonym ‘Philistine’ are attested are: Egyptian prst; knowledge of the spread of Mycenaean IIIC pottery from Hebrew plšt, ‘Philistia’, and plšty, ‘Philistine’, plural the Aegean through Cyprus and Cilicia into this area in the plštym; Akkadian KUR palast- (Adad-nirari III, Tiglath- period Iron Age I, Amuq Phase N, ca 1200–1000 BC (see pileser III) and KUR pilišt- (Sargonid). A Greek suffix Janeway 2006–2007; Harrison 2010; Venturi 2010). The -inē appears as early as Herodotus, who refers to Συρίη Plain of Antioch Survey in the 1930s had already identified Παλαιστίνη, ‘Philistine Syria’, the former area of a notable increase in site density in this period, followed by Philistia, and this later became the name of the Roman the emergence of Tell Tayinat as by far the largest site and province, giving us ‘Palestine’. But if our Palistin/ thus probably the regional capital city. This observation Walistin is to be linked to Philistia, its -in ending, which has been amply confirmed by recent survey work (see can hardly be connected with the Greek -inē, must find Harrison 2001: 122–24; Janeway 2006–2007: 125–27). another explanation. One possibility is that the Luwian This population expansion together with the spread of -iza- ethnicon was formed on the base of the plural Mycenaean IIIC1 pottery and associated artefacts, such as plštym, ‘Philistines’, and Luwian being a language the cylindrical loom weights, has been seen as marking the without final -m adapted the form to its own morphology arrival of groups of settlers with Aegean connections. as plštyn. As to the alternation of initial pa- and wa-, we These population movements have been linked to the could suppose that it reflects a hesitation in rendering an historically attested Sea Peoples, especially the initial f, where Egyptian, Hebrew and Akkadian all opted Philistines, who after clashing with Ramses III ca 1180 for p. We may also note that if we are to think in terms BC were settled in the south Levant coastlands from Joppa of two Taitas, the form Palistin would be the older by a to Gaza, which thus became known as Philistia. There the clear margin. earliest Philistine pottery is precisely that locally manufac- In this context, we should also remember the tured Mycenaean IIIC1, which suggests an origin from the suggested link of the mysterious ethnicon applied to Aegean via Cyprus and Cilicia (see Maeir 2005). kings of Unqi in the ninth century BC by Assurnasirpal II Can then our picture drawn from the inscriptions of a and Shalmaneser III, Patinayya (KURpa-ti-na-a-a), with kingdom of Palistin/Walistin, centring on Tell Tayinat and the toponym Walistin, then read wa-da-sà-ti-ni-, even controlling inland Syria from Aleppo to Hama at a date before the appearance of the Palistin form (see Yamada estimated on palaeographic grounds of the 11th century 2000: 96, n.71). This would require a shift Palistin > BC (plus/minus), be combined with the archaeological Patin and deserves consideration. picture of peoples of Aegean origin with a distinctive pottery and associated culture spreading from north to Ethno-linguistic connections south Levant and into the Syrian interior? And further, If then the association of the land Palistin/Walistin with can this movement be linked to the beginning of the Philistines may be thought at least plausible, we monumental architecture at Tell Tayinat in Amuq Phase would further need to consider to what ethnic or language O, Building Period I, Buildings XIV and XIII, also at a group Taita himself might have belonged and why he similar date at Tell Afis (Venturi 2010: 8–11). An answer composed his dedicatory inscriptions in Hieroglyphic will depend on future research bringing into closer Luwian. On the first question we can say little. The alignment the dates of the Aleppo temple inscriptions and name Taita is hardly distinctive: the nearest available the beginning of Building Period I at Tell Tayinat at ca comparandum is the name of Tette King of Nuhašše and 1000 BC, earlier or later. For the present, this may be contemporary of Suppiluliuma I, but though his dynasty regarded as not implausible. shows Hurrian connections, his own name is as unidenti- fiable as that of Taita. On the use of Hieroglyphic The name of the kingdom Luwian, we may recognise in the Aleppo temple a Since the name of the Philistines has been linked to the tradition of monumental sculpture deriving from the archaeology of the period and area, it has become Hittite Empire period, and no doubt the Hieroglyphic necessary to consider whether the name of the Taita Luwian script and language was part of that tradition. kingdom as it now appears, Palistin/Walistin, does But we could not on those grounds alone attribute to Taita actually reflect that ethnonym. I have already discussed an Anatolian-Hittite pedigree. this question (Hawkins 2009: 171–72), but repeat the points for consideration here, without claiming to advance the argument significantly.
52 Hawkins
Conclusions Gonnella, J., Khayyata, W., Kohlmeyer, K. 2005: Die The kingdom of Palistin/Walistin was centred according to Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wetter- our best evidence in the Amuq at Tell Tayinat. The Aleppo gottes. Münster temple inscriptions show that under King Taita its reach Güterbock, H.G. 1975: ‘Hieroglyphensiegel aus dem included Aleppo and Ain Dara, where he undertook major Tempelbezirk’ in K. Bittel, H.G. Güterbock, G. building works, and may have extended as far as Karkamiš Neumann, P. Neve, H. Otten, U. Seidl (eds), in the 11th century BC. Either under him, or, if the Boğazköy V. Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und MEHARDE-SHEIZAR inscriptions demand a later Taita, 1971. Berlin: 47–75 under a successor, perhaps grandson, the kingdom Harrison, T.P. 2001: Tell Ta‘yinat and the Kingdom of extended as far south as the environs of Hama, at a latest Unqi’ in P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers, M. Weigl date of the early tenth century BC (contra Sass 2010), i.e. (eds), The World of the Arameans II. Studies in clearly earlier than the earliest Karkamiš inscriptions by a History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène distinct margin. Such a kingdom at this date may plausibly Dion (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, be associated with the archaeological evidence of the Supplement Series 325). Sheffield: 115–32 intrusion of Mycenaean IIIC pottery through the Amuq — 2010: ‘The Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition into inland Syria. The spread of this pottery from north to in the north Orontes valley’ in F. Venturi (ed.), south Levant has been associated with the movement of Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Sea Peoples, especially the Philistines, and it has thus the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II become necessary to examine the possible connection and Early Iron Age. Bologna: 83–102 between this ethnonym and the kingdom of Palistin/ Hawkins, J.D. 1998. ‘Tarkasnawa King of Mira: Tarkon- Walistin. This I have addressed in this paper, concluding demos; Boğazköy sealings and Karabel’ Anatolian that it is not implausible. In a sense, however, the plausi- Studies 48: 1–31 bility or otherwise of the suggestion is of no great signifi- — 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions cance. The likelihood remains of the formation of an I/1–3. Berlin, New York intrusive and powerful kingdom with western connections, — 2003: ‘The Storm-God seal of Mursili III’ in G. an inference based on disparate pieces of evidence, new Beckman, R. Beal, G. McMahon (eds), Hittite and old, which can be combined to suggest what seems to Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Winona have occurred in 11th century north Syria. Lake: 169–75 — 2004: ‘The Stag-God of the Countryside and related Acknowledgements problems’ in J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European I am extremely grateful to Professor Kay Kohlmeyer, for Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo his invitations to visit his excavations and then to publish Davies. Oxford: 355–69 these remarkable results, and further for the unstinted help — 2005: ‘VIII.3. Commentaries on the readings’ in S. and friendship which I have always enjoyed from him. Herbordt, Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Bibliography Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattuša (Boğazköy-Hattuša Boehmer, R.M., Güterbock, H.G. 1987: Glyptik aus dem 19). Mainz: 248–313 Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy (Boğazköy-Hattuša 14). — 2009: ‘Cilicia, the Amuq and Aleppo: new light in a Berlin dark age’ Near Eastern Archaeology 72.4: 164–73 Dinçol, A.M., Dinçol, B. forthcoming: ‘Two new — 2010: ‘The usage of the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign inscribed Storm-God stelae from Arsuz “crampon” (L.386)’ Kadmos 49: 1–10 (İskenderun)’ in A. Yener (ed.), Across the Borders. Hawkins, J.D., Morpurgo Davies, A. 1998: ‘Of donkeys, Leuven mules and Tarkondemos’ in J. Jasanoff, H.C. Durand, J.-M. 1993: ‘Le mythologème du combat entre le Melchert, L. Olivier (eds), Mír Curad, Studies in dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie’ MARI 7: Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: 243–60 43–61 — 2010: ‘More negatives and disjunctives in Hiero- Grayson, A.K. 1996: The Royal Inscriptions of glyphic Luwian’ in R. Kim, N. Oettinger, E. Rieken, Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 3. Toronto M. Weiss (eds), Ex Anatolia Lux, Studies in Honor Goedegebuure, P.M. 2007: ‘The Hieroglyphic Luwian of H. Craig Melchert. Ann Arbor: 98–128 demonstrative ablative-instrumentals zin and apin’ in Herbordt, S., Bawanypeck, D., Hawkins, J.D. 2011: Die A. Archi, R. Francia (eds), VI Congresso Inter- Siegel der Grosskönige und Grossköniginnen auf nazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005 Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattuša (Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49). Rome: 319–34 (Boğazköy-Hattuša 23). Darmstadt, Mainz
53 Anatolian Studies 2011
Janeway, B. 2006–2007: ‘The nature and extent of Rieken, E. 2007: ‘Hieroglyphen-luwisch i-zi-ia-: ein Aegean contact at Tell Ta‘yinat and vicinity in the Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der urindo-german- Early Iron Age: evidence of the Sea Peoples?’ ischen Kulturgeschichte’ in W. Hock, M. Meier- Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 123–46 Brügger (eds), Festschrift für Christoph Koch. Khayyata, W., Kohlmeyer, K. 1998: ‘Die Zitadelle von Munich: 263–75 Aleppo-Vorläufiger Bericht über die Untersuchungen — 2010: ‘Das Zeichen
54