Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:19:14.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hittites and Arzawans: a view from western Anatolia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Naoíse Mac Sweeney
Naoíse Mac Sweeney
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been much recent research in archaeology on the dynamics of imperial systems, and valuable work has been done on the complex relationships between the Hittite state and groups on its imperial periphery. The nature of the available source material means that these relationships are usually studied from a Hittite perspective, and that interactions with the Hittites are often seen as centrally important for these groups. In this paper, however, it is argued that archaeological evidence can be used to gain insight into alternative views – views which may not necessarily privilege relationships with the Hittites over those with other groups. One well-documented example of such a group is Arzawa, a quarrelsome coalition of principalities in western Anatolia. This paper will focus on the western Anatolian site of Beycesultan, caught between the Hittite and Arzawan heartlands. It will show that people at Beycesultan did not define themselves primarily in relation to either the Hittites or the Arzawan confederacy, but had their own dynamic and shifting world-view.

Özet

İmparatorluk sistemlerinin dinamikleri konusunda pek çok yeni arkeolojik araştırmalar yapılmiştır. Bu araştırmalara dayanarak, Hitit devleti ile çevresindeki gruplar arasındaki karmaşık ilişkileri inceleyen birçok değerli çalışma yapılmıştır. Mevcut olan kaynakların doğası gereği, bu ilişkiler genellikle Hitit bakış açısıyla incelenmekte ve çoğunlukla Hititlerle etkileşimin bu gruplar için çok önemli olduğu varsayılmaktadır. Ancak, bu makale arkeolojik kanıtların farklı bakış açılarına sahip olabilmek için kullanılabileceğini savunmaktadır – ki bu bakış açısı, Hititlerle olan ilişkilerinin bu gruplara ayrıcalık sağlaması gerekmediğidir. Bunlar arasında iyi belgelenmiş olan bir örnek de, batı Anadolu'daki savaşçı beyliklerin koalisyonundan oluşan Arzawa grubudur. Bu makale batı Anadolu'daki Hitit ve Arzawa merkezlerinin arasında sıkışmış Beycesultan yerleşimi üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır ve aslında Beycesultan halkının kendilerini öncelikli olarak Hitit veya Arzawa birliklerine ait görmediklerini, farklı dinamiklere ve değişken bir dünya görüşüne sahip bir toplum olarak gördüklerini ortaya koyacaktır.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 60 , December 2010 , pp. 7 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abay, E., Dedeoğlu, F. 2005: ‘Yılı Çivril Ovası Yüzey Araştırması 2005’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı Cilt 1: 277–93Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. 1988: ‘Introduction’ in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: 3–63Google Scholar
Bal, M., Bryson, N. 1991: ‘Semiotics and art history’ College Art Association of America 73: 174–208Google Scholar
Basedow, M.A. 2002: ‘Cemetery and ideology in the west Anatolian coastal region’ in Aslan, R.Blum, S.Kastl, G.Schweizer, F.Thumm, D. (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfman. Remshalden-Grunbach: 469–74Google Scholar
Bayne, N.P. 2000: The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. BonnGoogle Scholar
Beckman, G. 1996: Hittite Diplomatic Texts. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R.S.P. 2003: ‘Luwians and Lydians’ Kadmos 42: 47–49Google Scholar
Bell, D., Valentine, G. 1997: Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat. London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
Bliege Bird, R., Alden Smith, E. 2005: ‘Signalling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital’ Current Anthropology 46: 221–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T.R. 1999: Kingdom of the Hittites. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T.R. 2006: Trojans and Their Neighbours. London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 1997: Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
Cline, E.H. 2008: ‘Troy as a “contested periphery”: archaeological perspectives on cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary interactions concerning Bronze Age Anatolia’ in Collins, B.J.Bachvarova, M.R.Rutherford, I.C. (eds), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Oxford: 11–20Google Scholar
Cohen, B. (ed.) 2000: Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art. LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, B.J. 2008: The Hittites and their World. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
Collins, B.J., Bachvarova, M.R., Rutherford, I.C. (eds) 2008: Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Coombes, A.E. 1994: Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture and Popular Imagination in Late Victorian and Edwardian England. London and New HavenGoogle Scholar
DeMarrais, E., Castillo, L.J., Earle, T. 1996: ‘Ideology, materialization, and power strategies’ Current Anthropology 37: 15–31Google Scholar
Dietler, M., Hayden, B. 2001: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
Dinçol, A.M. 1998: ‘Hatip Kaya Antıtnın Keşfi ve Bunun Hitit Ülkesinin Tarihi ve Coğrafi Sorunlarına Etkileri’ TÜBA-AR 1: 27–34Google Scholar
Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2003: Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C. 2001: Archaeology: The Basics. LondonGoogle Scholar
Garstang, J., Gurney, O.R. 1959: The Geography of the Hittite Empire. LondonGoogle Scholar
Gates, M.-H. 2001: ‘Potmarks at Kinet Hüyük and the Hittite ceramic industry’ Varia Anatolica 13: 137–57Google Scholar
Glatz, C. 2006: Contact, Interaction, Control – The Archaeology of Inter-Regional Relations in Late Bronze Age Anatolia. PhD Thesis, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
Glatz, C. 2009: ‘Empire as network: spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 127–41Google Scholar
Glatz, C., Matthews, R.J. 2005: ‘Anthropology of a frontier zone: Hittite-Kaska relations in Late Bronze Age north-central Anatolia’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 339: 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. 2004: Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Grélois, J.-P. 1988: ‘Les Annales décennales de Mursili II’ Hethitica 9: 17–146Google Scholar
Gunter, A. 2006: ‘Issues in Hittite ceramic production: a view from the western frontier’ in Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D., Seeher, J. (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen – Probleme – Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004. Istanbul349–63Google Scholar
Gurney, O.R. 1975: The Hittites. HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
Güterbock, H.G. 1983: ‘Hittite historiography: a survey’ in Tadmor, H., Weinfeld, M. (eds), History, Historiography and Interpretation. Jerusalem: 21–31Google Scholar
Hall, E. 1989: Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1995a: The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1995b: ‘The political geography of north Syria and south-east Anatolia in the Neo-Assyrian period’ in Liverani, M. (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography. Rome: 87–101Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1998: ‘Tarkasnawa King of Mira, “Tarkondemos”, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel’ Anatolian Studies 48: 1–31Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2002: ‘Anatolia: the end of the Hittite Empire and after’ in Braun-Holzinger, E.A., Mattäus, H. (eds), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jarhtausend v. Chr. Mainz: 143–51Google Scholar
Heinhold-Kramer, S. 1977: Arzawa: Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen. HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1989: The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
Hodos, T. 2006: Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
Impey, O.R. 1977: Chinoiserie: The Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration. LondonGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, D. 1993: Chinoiserie. LondonGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. 1997: The Archaeology of Ethnicity. LondonGoogle Scholar
Joukowsky, M.S. 1986: Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. Louvain-la-NeuveGoogle Scholar
Keay, S., Terrenato, N. 2001: Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Klengel, H. 2002: ‘Problems in Hittite history, solved and unsolved’ in Yener, K.A., Hoffner, H.A.J. (eds), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock. Winona Lake: 101–09Google Scholar
Knappett, C. 2005: Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
Lamb, W. 1936: ‘Excavations at Kusura near Afyon Karahisar’ Archaeologia 86: 1–64Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. 1954: ‘Clues to the Arzawan Empire’ The Times Newspaper 24 September. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S. 1955: ‘The citadel of an ancient ruler: discoveries in Turkey’ The Times Newspaper 28 June. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S. 1956: Early Anatolia: The Archaeology of Asia Minor before the Greeks. HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S. 1972: Beycesultan. Vol. III. Part I. Late Bronze Age Architecture. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1955: ‘Beycesultan excavations. First preliminary report’ Anatolian Studies 5: 39–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1956: ‘Beycesultan excavations: second preliminary report’ Anatolian Studies 6: 101–35Google Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1957: ‘An Early Bronze Age shrine at Beycesultan’ Anatolian Studies 7: 27–35Google Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1958: ‘Beycesultan excavations: fourth preliminary report’ Anatolian Studies 8: 93–125Google Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1962: Beycesultan. Vol. I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S., Mellaart, J. 1965: Beycesultan. Vol II. Middle Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C.L., Papadopoulos, J.K. 2002: The Archaeology of Colonialism. Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
Mac Sweeney, N. 2009: ‘Beyond ethnicity: the overlooked diversity of group identities’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22/1: 101–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, J.C. 1975: The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. LondonGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R.J. 2000: ‘Hittites and “barbarians” in the Late Bronze Age: regional survey in northern Turkey’ Archaeology International 3: 32–35Google Scholar
Mellaart, J., Murray, A. 1995: Beycesultan. Vol. III. Part II. Late Bronze Age and Phrygian Pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age Small Objects. LondonGoogle Scholar
Mora, C. 2003: ‘On some clauses in the Kurunta Treaty and the political scenery at the end of the Hittite Empire’ in Beckman, G., Beal, R., McMahon, G. (eds), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Winona Lake: 289–96Google Scholar
Mountjoy, P. 1998: ‘The east Aegean – west Anatolian interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa’ Anatolian Studies 48: 33–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, S. 2007: Collectors, Collections and Museums: the Field of Chinese Ceramics in Britain, 1560–1960. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, R. 1999: Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1994: ‘The archaeology of religion’ in Renfrew, C., Zubrow, E., (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: 47–54Google Scholar
Riva, C., Vella, N.C. 2006: Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Processes of Change in the Ancient Mediterranean. LondonGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T. 2007: ‘The body in space: embodiment, experientialism and linguistic conceptualisation’ in Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., Frank, R., Derven, R. (eds), Body, Language and Mind. Berlin: 339–78Google Scholar
Sagona, A.G., Zimansky, P.E. 2009: Ancient Turkey. AbingdonGoogle Scholar
Schoop, U.-D. 2003: ‘Pottery traditions of the later Hittite empire: problems of definition’ in Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, É., Köroğlu, K. (eds), Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions. Istanbul: 167–78Google Scholar
Schoop, U.-D. 2006a: ‘Assyrer, Hethiter und Kaškäer – Zentralanatolien im zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus’ in Korfmann, M.O. (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz: 29–46Google Scholar
Schoop, U.-D. 2006b: ‘Dating the Hittites with statistics: ten pottery assemblages from Bogazkoy-Hattuša’ in Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U-D.Seeher, J. (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen – Probleme – Neue Ansätze. International Workshop Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004. Istanbul: 215–39Google Scholar
Seeher, J. 2005: ‘Überlegungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem hethitischen Kernreich und der Westküste Anatoliens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.’ in Horejs, B., Jung, R.Kaiser, E., Terzan, B. (eds), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Bonn: 33–44Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1989: ‘Interpreting material culture’ in Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London and New York: 185–94Google Scholar
van Dommelen, P. 1998: On Colonial Grounds. A Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settlement in First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia. LeidenGoogle Scholar
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 1990: ‘Crescent loomweights?’ Oriens Antiquus 29: 97–113Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1984: ‘Reconsidering the behavioural basis for style: a case study among the Kalahari San’ Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 190–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakubovich, I.S. 2008: ‘Luwian migration in light of linguistic contacts’ in Collins, B.J.Bachvarova, M.R.Rutherford, I.C. (eds), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Oxford: 123–34Google Scholar