OLD HITTITE POLYCHROME RELIEF VASES AND THE ASSERTION OF KINGSHIP IN 16TH CENTURY BCE ANATOLIA A Master’s Thesis by THOMAS MOORE Department of Archaeology İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Ankara July 2015 To Anne Marie OLD HITTITE POLYCHROME RELIEF VASES AND THE ASSERTION OF KINGSHIP IN 16TH CENTURY BCE ANATOLIA The Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University by THOMAS MOORE In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY July 2015 ABSTRACT OLD HITTITE POLYCHROME RELIEF VASES AND THE ASSERTION OF KINGSHIP IN 16TH CENTURY BCE ANATOLIA Moore, Thomas M.A., Department of Archaeology Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates July 2015 The Old Hittite polychrome relief-decorated vases have attracted scholarly interest since the first substantial fragment was discovered at Bitik in the 1940s. Academics have concurred that the vases illustrate cult practice, but have differed as to whether the figures portray the king or the gods, both, or neither. The publishing in 2008 of a second nearly complete vase now permits a programmatic comparison between it and the famous İnandıktepe vase (published 1988). This thesis studies the vases’ decorative program and contends that the relief vases represent centralized monumental art. In contrast with iconography of the preceding and later periods, the vases portray gods without attributes. Similarly, the vases’ reliefs depict an anonymous king who engages alongside others in cult activities. Rank is de-emphasized. The focus on solidarity within the ruling iii group recalls the major historical document of the period, the Edict of Telepinu. Material evidence also links the vases to the network of royal storehouses, listed in the second part of the Edict. This political requirement of solidarity evident in the vases may have arisen from the exigencies of supporting chariotry, a new form of warfare. Keywords: Old Hittite, Relief Ceramic, Central Anatolia, Storm God, Cult Practice, King, İnandıktepe, Hüseyindede, Boğazköy, Bitik, Eskiyapar, Alacahöyük, Telepinu, Reliefkeramik, Trichterrandtopf, Vexiervase iv ÖZET ESKİ HİTİT ÇOKRENKLİ KABARTMALI VAZOLARI VE M.Ö. 16 Y.Y. ANADOLU’DA KRALIYET BEYANI Moore. Thomas Yüksek Lisans, Arkeoloji Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates Temmuz 2015 Eski Hitit çok renkli kabartmalı vazoları Bitik’te 1940 larda ilk önemli parçanın keşfedildiğinden beri akademisyenlerden ilgisini çekmiştir. Akademisyenler vazoların kült icraatının bir göstergesi olduğunu kabul ediyor ancak vazolardaki figürler konusunda ayrışmaktadırlar. Bazen kral, bazen tanrı, bazen de ikisi bir arada figür edildiğini kabul ederken bazıları akademisyenlerde hiçbirini kabul etmemektedir. İnandıktepe de yayınlanan ilk vazo (1988 yayınlanmış) dan sonra 2008’te ikinci vazo yayınlanabilmiştir. Dolayısıyla bu iki vazo ile ilgili bir karşılaştırma yapabilmek mümkün olabilmiştir. Bu tez deki v iddiamız vazoların üzerindeki anıtsal göstergelerin bir merkezden alınan kararla yapıldığı ve de bu şekilde üretildiği üzerinedir. Önceki ve sonraki dönemlerin ikonografisine karşılık, bu iki vazo ve diğerleri özelliksiz tanrıları göstermektedir. Vazoların üzerindeki figürler anonim kralı ve yanında insanları gösterirken yanında kült icraatları (dini inanışları sembolize eder) yapan insanları da gösterir. Bu da rütbesi fazla vurgulanmamış, dayanışma gösteren bir hükümet grubu, Telepinu’nun Fermanını hatırlatır. Ayrıca, bu vazolar materyal delil ile Ferman’ın ikinci parça listelenmiş olan asil haznelerine bağlanır. Bu dayanışmanın siyasal gereksinimi olan savaş arabası, yeni bir savaş formunu destekliğinden meydana çıkmış olabilir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Eski Hitit, Kabartmalı Seramik, Orta Anadolu, Fırtına Tanrısı, Kült İcraatı, Kral, İnandıktepe, Hüseyindede, Boğazköy, Bitik, Eskiyapar, Alacahöyük, Telepinu. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper marks the end of three years’ study at Bilkent University’s Archaeology Department, 2012-2015. In my view, the modern re-creation of the Ancient Near East represents one of the great accomplishments of scholars working in the humanities. Their achievements measure up to the age’s brilliant works of engineering and scientific discoveries. Prominent among the achievements are the recovery of the long-dead languages, cultures, and polities of second millennium BCE Anatolia. This thesis represents not so much an addition to the scholarship of Bronze Age Anatolia as an admiring look at one small part of it. I feel lucky to have undertaken my studies in Turkey. In that regard, I would like to express my admiration for the Doğramacı family, whose civic-minded vision led to the establishment of Bilkent University and continues to guide it today. I deeply appreciate the University’s providing this excellent program on scholarship. The Archaeology Department’s faculty members welcomed and encouraged my studies. In particular, I would like to offer thanks to my thesis advisor, Professor Marie-Henriette Gates. The idea for this topic came from her vii graduate seminar. She has proved an ideal advisor: motivating and empathetic, but directive when needed: she made me get my facts right. I would also like to express appreciation to my two thesis readers, Professor Ilknur Özgen and Dr. Selim Adalı. My fellow master’s students provided solidarity. Humberto Deluigi, in particular, freely shared his knowledge, his library and his considerable how-to skills. My daughter Charlotte offered crucial help during the final push. To close, I would like to thank my wife Anne Marie. She gave unflagging material and emotional aid, not least as IT guru and travel buddy. Because of her, I was able to dedicate three years to learning, not earning. It is to her that this thesis is dedicated. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................iii ÖZET........................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................vii TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................ix LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................xii LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1 1.1 The İnandıktepe-Hüseyindede group (IHG) of cult vases ...................................................................................1 1.2 Methodology..........................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: OLD HITTITE POLYCHROME RELIEF VESSELS AND SHERDS ....................................................................................7 2.1 The substantially intact vessels .............................................................8 2.1.1 The Bitik Vase ..........................................................................8 2.1.2 The Inandiktepe A vase............................................................13 2.1.2.1 The Vessel’s Inner Rim.........................................15 2.1.2.2 The First (top) Frieze.............................................15 2.1.2.3 The Second Frieze.................................................16 2.1.2.4 The Third Frieze....................................................18 2.1.2.5 The Fourth (bottom) Frieze ...................................23 2.1.3 The Hüseyindede A vase ..........................................................25 2.1.3.1 Hüseyindede A vase compared to Bitik and İnandıktepe A vases........................................26 ix 2.1.3.2 The First (top) Frieze.............................................28 2.1.3.3 The Second Frieze.................................................29 2.1.3.4 The Third Frieze....................................................30 2.1.3.5 The Fourth Frieze ..................................................31 2.2 Sherds of the relief vases.......................................................................32 2.2.1 Sherds from Alişar: the wagon and the ideology of kingship......................................................................33 2.2.2. The Amasya Museum fragment: dogs and purification .............................................................................37 2.2.3 Sherds from Boğazköy/Hattuša ..............................................39 2.2.3.1 Boğazköy/Hattuša – sherd of an eagle’s claw ...............................................................41 2.2.3.2 Boğazköy/Hattuša – building sherd: temple building and the king..........................................42 2.2.4. Eskiyapar B sherds: the stool as image of the Goddess Halmasuit .............................................................45 2.2.5. Sherd from Kabaklı (Kırşehir): the bull as offering .....................................................................................47 2.2.6 Karahöyük (Elbistan) sherd: image of the king ......................48 2.2.7. The relief sherds from Kuşaklı/Sarissa: dating the IHG vases.....................................................................50 CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE VASES......................55 3.1. Typological Description ......................................................................55