Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:43:49.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biconvex Seals of Alişar Höyük*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Ronald L. Gorny
Ronald L. Gorny
Affiliation:
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Archaeological excavations were conducted at Alişar Höyük in central Turkey from 1927 to 1932 by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The six years of investigation uncovered evidence that indicated the mound had been occupied intermittently from at least the Early Bronze Age through the modern Turkish period. The premature cessation of excavations at the site, however, left many issues unresolved, a situation that has bedeviled Anatolian specialists up to the present day.

Foremost among the problems left unsettled by the Oriental Institute excavations was the question of whether a Late Bronze II settlement (1400–1200 B.C.) had existed at the site, an issue that was raised by the discovery at Alişar of cuneiform tablets written in the Old Assyrian script that referred to a town called Amkuwa, known also from Hittite texts as Ankuwa. On the basis of these references, scholars were quick to associate Amkuwa/Ankuwa with Alişar. The problem with this equation is that, on the one hand, a Hittite text dating to the reign of Hittite king Ḫattušili III makes it clear that Ankuwa was occupied in the LB II.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 43 , December 1993 , pp. 163 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1993

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

1 The results of the Alişar excavations are published by the Oriental Institute in two forms. Preliminary reports appear in the Oriental Institute Communications monographs (OIC) while final reports were published as part of the Oriental Institute Publications (OIP) series. See von der Osten, H. H., Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, OIC 2, Chicago, 1927Google Scholar: Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1927–28, OIC 6, Chicago 1929Google Scholar; Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1929, OIC 8, Chicago, 1930Google Scholar; The Alişar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930–32, OIP 28, Part 1, Chicago, 1937Google Scholar; The Alişar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930–32, Part 2, OIP 29, Chicago, 1937Google Scholar; Explorations in Central Anatolia: Season of 1926, OIP 5 (Researches in Anatolia 1), Chicago, 1939Google Scholar. von der Osten, H. H. and Schmidt, E. F.. The Alishar Höyük: Season 1927 Part 1, OIP 6, Chicago, 1930Google Scholar, The Alişar Hüyük Season of 1927, Part 2, OIP 7, Chicago, 1932Google Scholar; von der Osten, H. H., Martin, R. A., and Morrison, J. A., Discoveries in Anatolia 1930–31, OIC 14, Chicago, 1933Google Scholar; Schmidt, E., Anatolia through the Ages: Discoveries at Alishar Mound 1927–29p, OIC 11, Chicago, 1931Google Scholar; The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929, Part 1, OIP 19, Chicago, 1932Google Scholar. Gelb, I. J., Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity (OIP, 27), Chicago, 1935Google Scholar.

2 See discussion on Alişar-Ankuwa in Gorny, R., Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990, pp. 395–436Google Scholar.

3 KUB 15 I rev. iii 17–21; cf. Ünal, A., “Nochmals zur Geschichte und Lage der hethitischen Stadt Ankuwa,” SMEA 24 (1984): 101Google Scholar.

4 M. Francipane and A. Palmieri, “Clay Sealings from A206 (Building IV)” and “Clay Sealings from A77”, in Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–83 Campaigns, Origini XII (1983): 414–153Google Scholar, Figs. 67–68 and Fig. 78.2; Also cf. Ferioli, P. and Fiandra, E., “Clay Sealings from Arslantepe VIA: Administration and Bureaucracy”, Origini XII (1983): 455–509Google Scholar.

5 See for instance Edith Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals in North American Collections (Wash. D.C.: Bollingen Foundation, 1948), Vol. I, p. 1Google Scholar; Porada, Edith, Ancient Art in Seals (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 1–30Google Scholar; Buchanan, Briggs, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

6 The number of Hittite cylinder seals from the southeastern part of present day Turkey indicates that they did enjoy some popularity in that part of the Hittite realm. See Beckman, Gary, “A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Babylonian Collection”, AnSt 36 (1986): 129–35Google Scholar for a discussion of the known Hittite cylinder seals and cylinder seal impressions.

7 This is clearly shown, not only in the Alişar Höyük glyptic corpus, but also in the finds from other central Anatolian sites. See for instance, Alp, Sedat, Zylinder-und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series 5, no. 23, 1968)Google Scholar.

8 See Güterbock, H. G., “Seals and Sealing in Hittite Lands”, in From Athens to Gordion, Fs, Rodney Young, ed. by De Vries, Keith,, 1980, pp. 51–7Google Scholar for a general overview of Hittite gylptic practices, and Beran, Thomas, Die Hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy, WVDOG 76 (Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann, 1967)Google Scholar for a more detailed look at Hittite seals and impressions from the Hittite capital.

9 See Hogarth, D. G., Hittite Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1920Google Scholar. Here he discusses the following types—handless types: (1) conoids, (2) scaraboids, (3) gables, (4) hemispheroids, (5) tabloids, and (6) Bullae; handled types (1) stalks, (2) loops, (3) knobs, (4) tripods, and (5) hammers.

10 See The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe, Ankara, 1971Google Scholar; “New Light on the Dating of the Levels of the Karum of Kanish and of Acemhöyük near Aksaray”, AJA 72 (1968): 317–19Google Scholar; Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series V, no. 25, 1968Google Scholar; “Samsat Mühürleri”, Belleten 51 (1987): 429–39Google Scholar and “Seal Impressions from Acemhöyük, in Porada, Edith, Ancient Art in Seals, p. 70 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 See Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals in North American Collections, Wash. B.C.: Bollingen Foundation, 1948Google Scholar; “On the Problem of Kassite Art”, in Herzfeld Fs, 1952, 184–7Google Scholar; and Ancient Art in Seals, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980Google Scholar.

12 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša XIV (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar.

13 Mora, C., La Glittica Anatolica del II Millennio A. C: Classificazione Tipologica, Studia Mediterranea 6. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano editore, 1987Google Scholar.

14 Boysan, N., Marazzi, M., and Nowicki, H., Sammlung Hieroglyphischer Siegel, Würzburg: Verlag Dr. Johannes Königshausen und Dr. Thomas Neuman, 1983Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Woolley, L., LAAA 26 (1940): 18Google Scholar, n. 2; Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22Google Scholar; See also Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 1Google Scholar.

16 For a good summary of the use of bullae in ancient Syria and Babylon see the study by Rostovtzeff, M., Sleeked Babylon: Bullae and Seals of Clay with Greek Inscriptions, Reprint from Yale Classical Studies, 1932Google Scholar.

17 For amulets and pendants see Hogarth, , Seals, 87Google Scholar, and Jakovidis, , “An Inscribed Mycenaean Amulet”, Kadmos 3 (1964): 149–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Hogarth's description of Ashmolean “Bullae” see Seals, pp. 22–3, 89–90, 87–91, Pl. X no. 308–36, figs. 313–36, 46–8.

18 Güterbock, Hans, Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 1Google Scholar.

19 See Neve, P., AA (1986): 378Google Scholar.

20 Buchanan, B., “Five Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals”, JCS 21 (1969): 18–23Google Scholar.

21 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša XIV (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1987), pp. 65–9Google Scholar.

22 Mora's analysis lead her to date the biconvex seals to the end of the 13th and beginning of the 12th centuries, pp. 166 and 337.

23 In some cases the names on both sides of the seal are identical, while at other times the names are different. Some seals have the names of a man and a woman on the respective sides, and as Güterbock has pointed out, it can be assumed that these represent the names of men and their wives. A woman may also possess a seal of her own (cf. Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, pp. 56–7).

24 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22Google Scholar.

25 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27Google Scholar, seals nos. 72, 73?, 74?, and 89.

26 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27Google Scholar, seals nos. 72, 73, 81 and 91.

27 For Alişar seals which fit into this category see Gelb, , OIP 27Google Scholar, seal no. 76.

28 With regard to this diversity within the Alişar corpus, see below, pp. 12–15.

29 See Schaeffer, C. F. A. on this discovery in “Materiaux pour L'Étude des Relations Entre Ugarit et Hatti”, in Ugaritica III, p. 55Google Scholar and Fig. 88, p. 63, and Gonnet, H., “Un Sceau Hittite inédit: AO 29395”, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Özgüç, Fs. T., 1989, 153–4Google Scholar, Pl. 37, 1a–1b. There is also one example of a bronze biconvex seal with its “metal loop” still in place. See Bittel, K., “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy im Jahre 1968”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 101 (1969): 8–9Google Scholar, fig. 4. For similarly made hemispheroids with the “metal loop” mountings, see Masson, E., Syria 52 (1975): 215–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 1 p. 231, and p. 220, fig. 7 p. 232; Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, p. 52 and p. 60 fig. 5; and Poette, M., “Sigilli et iscrizioni in Luvio Geroglifico”, La Collezione Borowski, StudiaMed 3 (1981): 24–25Google Scholar, Pl. XVIA-XVIB.

30 For second examples see Gonnet, H., “Un Sceau Hittite inédit: AO 29395”, Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Özgüç, Fs. T., 1989, 153–4Google Scholar, Pl. 37, 1a–1b; cf. above, p. 324, n. 16.

31 Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs. p. 57.

32 Garstang, J. claims that one such seal was made of ivory (“Notes on a Journey through Asia Minor,” LAAA 1 (1908): 1–47Google Scholar and Pl. XIV fig. 1.). This is not the case, however, as Hogarth identifies the material as a rare white serpentine (Hogarth, , Seals, pp. 89, 90Google Scholar).

33 Personal communication.

34 See Hogarth, , Seals, pp. 94–5Google Scholar (he does indicate here, however, that they may actually run a little later. This seems to be based on his assumptions about the seals from Carchemish, Deve Höyük, and Tell Basher).

35 Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs, p. 56; also see Werner, , Revue hittite et asianique 54 (1952): 15–18Google Scholar; Poetto, , Studia Mediterranean (1981): pp. 24–7, Pl. XV–XXGoogle Scholar; Dinçol, and Dinçol, , “Zwei Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel im Elaziğ Musuem”, Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschungen 9 (1983): 290–1Google Scholar, Pl. 2, fig. 2a–b; and note 13 below.

36 Ward, W. Hayes, “Some Hittite Seals”, AJA IX (1899): 361–5Google Scholar, Pl. XV fig. 3; Hogarth, , Seals, p. 22Google Scholar, OIP 29, p. 414.

37 This particular seal was found in Neo-Hittite level IX and has two flat sides, each of which is inscribed with a linear design. Side B seems to be a stylized animal (Özgüç, N., “Samsat Mühürleri”, Belleten 51 (1987): 436Google Scholar, Figure 12.). Interestingly, however, the flat edge has two preserved grooves which are uncharacteristic of the seals from this class. Its placement in our schema is problematic and engenders several questions. Does it date to the level in which it was found and therefore indicate a continuity with earlier traditions? Or, could it be a survival from an earlier period which shows a combination of the two traditions in this area at an early point in their syncretism? At present we are not equipped to answer these questions. It is to be hoped that more seals of this type will be found, either at Samsat or in neighbouring areas.

38 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 23Google Scholar; Güterbock, Rodney Young Fs., p. 52; Boehmer and Güterbock, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, Pl. XXVIII, no. 228.

39 See for instance, the original publication of a biconvex seal from Tarsus discussed by Goldman, Hetty in “Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1935”, AJA 39 (1935): p. 535Google Scholar and n. 1.

40 Hogarth set his lower limit for these seals in the seventh century B.C., see Seals, pp. 89–90.

41 OIP 30, pp. 450–1.

42 OIP 29, p. 289.

43 Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 49Google Scholar.

44 See von der Osten, H. H., “Die anatolischen Siegel”, Altorientalische Siegelsteine der Sammlung Hans Sivius von Aulock (Uppsala: Almquist und Wiksells Boktryckeri AB, 1957), p. 46Google Scholar.

45 See Laroche, , Les hiéroglyphes hittites I, Sign 386 (on Alişar Höyük seals 67, 70, 75, and 83), pp. 206–7Google Scholar.

46 See “The Late Hieroglyphic Luwian Corpus: Some New Lexical Recognitions”, in Hethitica 8 (1987): 269Google Scholar.

47 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65Google Scholar.

48 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65Google Scholar.

49 Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65Google Scholar. Also see Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, p. 49Google Scholar; For Alişar seals of this category see Gelb, , OIP 27Google Scholar, seals 71, 74, 82, 85, and 87.

50 Hogarth, , Seals, p. 91Google Scholar. Note, however, that Moorey, P. R. S. claims an earlier date for these biconvex seals in Cemeteries of the First Millennium B. C. at Deve Hüyük near Carchemish, salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, London: BAR International Series, no. 87, 111, pp. 463–4Google Scholar.

51 For current list of 19 biconvex and related seals see Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, 1987, pp. 65–9Google Scholar, nos. 183, 184–7, 194–7, 204–13. Three new biconvex seals from the Upper City are discussed by Neve, P. in AA (1985): 338Google Scholar; AA (1986): 378Google Scholar. For earlier discussions see Beran, T., Boğazköy III, pp. 42–56Google Scholar, Plate 31 no. 26. See also Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57 for flat sided geometric-naturalistic style seals; Güterbock, , Boğazköy V, pp. 68–75Google Scholar nos. 35–40; Güterbock, , StudiaMed 1 (1979): 239–40 and 244–5Google Scholar.

52 Also to be published by Ali and Belkıs Dinçol. See “Neue Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Ankara und Mersin”, Akkadica 45 (1985): p. 33Google Scholar; See also Boehmer, R. M. and Güterbock, H. G., Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, 1987Google Scholar.

53 See Koşay, H. and Akok, M., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940–1948, 1966Google Scholar, Pl. 32:1 52, f 156 and 1 75; Koşay, H., TAD XIII (1965): 68 and 88Google Scholar, Pl. 6 n. 175; Koşay, H., TAD XIV (1965): 169, 213Google Scholar A1. P. 52; and Dinçol, , “Bir Alacahöyük Mühürünün Okunuşu Hakkinda”, JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61Google Scholar.

54 Özgüç, Tahsin, Maşat Höyük II, pp. 117–18Google Scholar, and Pl. 58: 5a-c.

55 Özgüç, Tahsin, Kültepe and its Vicinity in the Iron Age (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayıınları, Series 5, no. 29, 1971), pp. 84Google Scholar, Pl. XXIX, 2a-b. The fact that settlement seems to have ended at Kültepe with the cessation of the Old Assyrian Colony period would suggest that this seal is out of place at Kültepe and, based on the Alişar examples, could not be dated to the Late Bronze Age. However, the seal was either dated to the 14th century (E. Akurgal, Kunst und Kultur der Hethiter: Eine Ausstellung des Deutschen Kunstrates, no. 164), and Özgüç himself believes that it is earlier than the Alişar examples. The explanation of this problem may have something to do with a collection of Hittite text that mentions a group of individuals known as the “singers of Kaneš”. This group has perplexed scholars because Kaniš is mentioned nowhere else in the Hittite records of this period. Because the site is thought to be uninhabited after the Old Assyrian Colony Age, the group's existence has never been satisfactorily explained, (see Jakob-Rost, L., “Bemerkungen zum “Sänger von Kaneš”, Beitrzäge zur Sozialen Struktur des Alien Vorderasien, ed. Klengel, H., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1971, pp. 111–15Google Scholar; also see Forrer, E., ZDMG 76 (1922): 169 ff.Google Scholar) While they may have lived in Ḫattuša, it may be that “the singers of Kaniš” were part of a small community that continued to live at Kültepe, perhaps a necessity of the cult. In another Hittite text, the presence of 5 singers from Ankuwa are noted, perhaps presenting a parallel to the Kaniš singers and offering an explanation for the presence of the biconvex seal at Kültepe (Cf. KBO XXI 71.4Google Scholar (HT 2 Rv. V 14).

56 To be published by Ali and Belkıs Dinçol. See Akkadica 45 (1985): p. 33Google Scholar.

57 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, fig. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see seals c 2168 (78), d 821 (79), e 1591 (87), e 1993 (89), e 270 (86), d 1840 (82), b 571 (73), 3100 (71), 3099 (70), a 385 (72), b 2225 (74), 3095 (69), c 700 (75), d 2128 (84), d 1881 (83), d 1361 (80), d 2587 (85), c 857 (76), and 3092 (68).

58 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, fig. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), 3100 (71), b 2225 (74), d 1840 (82), d 2587 (85), and e 1591 (87).

59 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, figs. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see seals 3095 (69), 3099 (70), 3100 (71?), c 700 (75), c 857 (76), c 2168 (78?), d 821 (79), d 1840 (82?), d 1881 (83), d 2128 (84), e 270 (86?), and e 1591 (87?).

60 OIP 29, p. 416, fig. 477 (Gelb number from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see Alişar seal d 1361 (80).

61 OIP 29, pp. 415–17, figs. 476–8 (Gelb numbers from OIP 27 in parenthesis), see Alişar seals d 72, e 2294, c 625, d 1847, d 1517, e 1783, e 1645, and b 2675 (91).

62 OIP 29, p. 418, for plates see 416, fig. 477 (Gelb number from OIP 27 in parenthesis), d 1200 and p. 422.

63 See Mora, La Glittica Anatolica del II Millennio A. C. for latest attempts to decipher the inscriptions on the Alişar biconvex seals.

64 OIC 6, p. 6; OIP 29, p. 289.

65 See OIP 29, pp. 4–10, Figs. 47–9, 102–3, 107–8.

66 OIP 29, p. 289.

67 See my speculations in “Architecture and Stratigraphy: The Post Kārum Period”, (Chapter V) in Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Gorny, R., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990Google Scholar.

68 The idea that the citadel wall was originally built in pre-Phrygian period and reused by the Phrygians was first mentioned by Kurt Bittel, who excavated the mound for von der Osten, (OIP 29, 306Google Scholar). In OIP 29, 292, n. 13. he writes that:

“All these buildings contrast noticeably from the citadel wall. The latter, with its bastion and gateway, is, in execution and arrangement, witness to a much further advanced building technique than the poor buildings in the interior. The only explanation is that the fortifications of the Early Bronze Age (At this time Bittel used Early Bronze Age to indicate the early Hittite period—editor's note) was found standing by later settlers, who repaired it, added minor alterations in a few places, and re-used it.”

I am inclined to see the 4cM period wall in a similar light, but based on the association of the hieroglyphic biconvex seals with these walls, which gives a LB II date for their construction.

69 OIP 28, 10.

70 Meriggi, P., “Ritrovamenti Epigrafici Nella Campagna di Scavi 1962 a Malatya”, Oriens Antiquus 3 (1964): 45–9Google Scholar, Pl. LXXIV; Meriggi, P., “Sesto Viaggio Anatolico”, Oriens Antiquus 7 (1968): seals 10–12, 269–71Google Scholar, Pl. LXVIII; Meriggi, P., “Settimo Viaggio Anatolio”, Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969): seals 13–15, 131–39Google Scholar, Pl. XXIII-XXIV; Meriggi, P., “I Nuovi Sigilli di Malatya S 17–19”, SMEA 9 (1969): 25–31Google Scholar. The site was probably known in ancient times as Melid, Maldiya, or Mal(i)tiya (See RGTC 6, p. 257Google Scholar).

71 See for example the seals from the 1968 campaign at Malatya in Meriggi, , “Nuovi Sigilli Di Malatya S 17–20”, SMEA 9 (1969): 25–31Google Scholar.

72 For seals from the cremation cemetry at Deve Höyük see Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, pp. 89–90Google Scholar. Also see Moorey, P. R. S., Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük near Carchemish, salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913, London: BAR International Series, no. 87, 111, 463–4Google Scholar.

73 For Tell Basher see Hogarth, , Seals, p. 89Google Scholar, nos. 313, 314, 321.

74 For Carchemish seals see Woolley, L., Carchemish II, Pl. 25b, nos. 8–9Google Scholar; Carchemish III, p. 206Google Scholar, n. 2 and probably fig. 83; and Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, 1920, p. 89Google Scholar where a biconvex seal is referred to as having been found in a 10th c. house.

75 Buchanan, B., JCS 21 (1967): 21Google Scholar, n. 16, and 22, n. 20.

76 Moorey, , Deve Hüyük, p. 111Google Scholar.

77 For pottery see 12, nos. 1–2. For seals see 105, no. 442 (Cappadocian) and no. 443 (Mitannian).

78 One must consider the possibility, however, that Late Bronze traditions continued longer in this area than on the plateau. See discussion below.

79 For possible survivals of the Late Bronze Age biconvex glyptic tradition at Hama see Riis, P., Hama II 3, 1948, p. 131Google Scholar, fig. 165 and p. 159, fig. 201A for biconvex seal from Hama Cemetery Period I (dated 1200–1075); also from Hama is a biconvex seal from Cemetery Period II dated 1075–925 (=Albright 1100–1000), p. 159, fig. 201B; also see Fugmann, E., Hama II 1, 1958, p. 200Google Scholar, fig. 245, 6A63 and 80 (p. 193).

80 Garstang, J., “Notes on a Journey Through Asia Minor”, LAAA 1 (1908): 11Google Scholar, Pl. XIV.

81 For biconvex seals now in museums of cities such as Adana and Malatya. See Dinçol, Ali, “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Adana, Hatay, und Istanbul”, JKF 9 (1983), 213–249Google Scholar, Pls. 1–35; Dinçol, Ali and Dinçol, Belkiş, Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen für Anatolische Zivilisationen, Ankara, 1981Google Scholar; “Zwei Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel im Elaziğ Museum”, JKF 9 (1983), 289–91Google Scholar; Akkadica 45 (1985), 33–40Google Scholar; “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Samsun, Gaziantep und Karamanmaraş”, JKF 10 (1986), 233–44Google Scholar, Pls. 1–8; “Unpublished Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals in the Regional Museum of Adana”, Hethitica VIII (1987), 81–93Google Scholar.

82 Note Beran's earlier descriptions of these seals in Boğazköy III, Pl. 31 no. 25, and in Boğazköy V pp. 68–75Google Scholar.

83 While the biconvex seals can only be said to have been found in the destruction debris in the vicinity of the temple area, there are many bullae which were found in the temple storerooms. Some were even found in the pithoi from those storerooms. See Boğazköy V, pp. 68–75Google Scholar.

84 Bittel, , Ḫattusha, p. 60Google Scholar; Neve, P., “Untersuchungen in der Altstadt”, MDOG 91 (1958): 8Google Scholar.

85 See Güterbock, , “Hieroglyphische Miszellen” StudiaMed 1 (1979): pp. 239–40 and pp. 244–5Google Scholar.

86 Beran, T., Boğazköy III, p. 55 no. 26Google Scholar, and Pl. 31 no. 26 (note that the years of the finds are designated by letters: 1952=k, 1953=l, 1954=m, and 1955=n).

87 Ibid., p. 56 no. 56 and 57, Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57.

88 Ibid., pp. 65–9, Pls. XX-XXVIII.

89 Ibid., p. 65.

90 Ibid., seals 184, 185, 186, 197, 204, 205, 206, 211?, 213.

91 Ibid., seals 194, 207, and 212.

92 Ibid., seals 195 and 208.

93 Ibid., seal 196.

94 Ibid., seal 210.

95 Ibid., seal 209.

96 Ibid., seals 195 and 208, seal impression nos. 192–3 and 200–1.

97 Ibid., seals 221, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, and 234.

98 Ibid., seals 218, 219, and 231.

99 Ibid., especially note seal 226, but also seals 221 and 227.

100 Gelb, , OIP 27, seal 69Google Scholar.

101 Private communication with the excavator. Also see Neve, P. in AA (1985): 338Google Scholar; AA (1986): 378Google Scholar.

102 In a letter dated June 17, 1990, Peter Neve writes that “We have hundreds of typically late biconvex seals or their stamps on bullas found in the Upper City (they will be published by A. and B. Dinçol within the next years). They all belong, so far as found in clear context, (to) the latest Hittite period, i.e. O. St. 4, which will mean, that they can't be Post Hittite. O. St. 4 on the other hand is well dated by written documents from Suppi(luliumma) II.”

103 By this I mean that the body of the seal is usually more finely fashioned, while the engravings are cleaner and more precisely cut. The designs are often more complex and the composition is usually better. In general, I would say that the Boğazköy seals display a finer aesthetic sense than those from Alişar.

104 See Koşay, H. and Akok, M., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940–1948, 1966Google Scholar, Pl. 32:1 52, f 156 and 175; Koşay, H., Türk Arkeoloji Dergesi 13 (1965): 68 and 88Google Scholar, Pl. 6 no. 175; Koşay, H., TAD 14 (1965): 169, 213Google Scholar Al. P. 52; and Dinçol, , JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61Google Scholar.

105 Koşay, H., TAD 14 (1965): 169 and 213Google Scholar, fig. Al P 175; Dinçol, B., JKF 8 (1980): 61Google Scholar, figs. 1–2.

106 Compare this seal with nos. 184 and 185 from Boğazköy, (Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 75)Google Scholar.

107 For Middle Kingdom seals with guilloche style decorations see Beran, T., Die Hethitische Glyptik von Boğazköy, 9–61Google Scholar, Pls. 9 and 10 Also cf. Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, nos. 184–5, pp. 18, 31Google Scholar.

108 Koşay, H., Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1937–1939, pp. 191–2Google Scholar, Pl. LXXVIII, fig. 3.

109 Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, nos. 184 and 185Google Scholar.

110 Özgüç, Tahsin, Maşat Höyük II, pp. 117–8Google Scholar, and Pl. 58: 5a-c. Note that at this time Özgüç has assigned five levels at Maşat Höyük to the Hittite period. There is a later sequence of three Phrygian levels which lies atop the levels from the Hittite era.

111 Ibid., 117.

112 See OIP 27, Pl. LVIII no. 91.

113 See Beran, T., Boğazköy IIIGoogle Scholar, Pl. 32 nos. 56 and 57. Note, however, that these seals come from late levels at Boğazköy and would thus seem to be much later than the above mentioned seals from Maşat and the one from Alalakh.

114 Dinçol, A. and Dinçol, B., “Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Eskiyapar”, Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae, Fs Otten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988), pp. 87–98Google Scholar.

115 Note, however, that the Alişar example seems to have a female indicator rather than the male indicator normally associated with Armaziti.

116 Cf. Dinçol, and Dinçol, , Akkadica 45 (1985): 33Google Scholar.

117 Wafler, Marcus, “Zu den Hieroglyphenluwischen Siegeln und Bullen vom Norşuntepe”, in Keban Project 1971 Activities (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1974), pp. 101Google Scholar and Pl. 80:3; For the Hittite ceramics from this grave see Hauptmann, , Keban Project 1969 Activities, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1971), p. 83Google Scholar, Pl. 57 no. 4.

118 Esin, Ufuk, Keban Project 1969 Activities, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Press, 1971), p. 88, 123Google Scholar, fig. 1 no. T69–1457 and 69–607, 1971.

119 van Loon, , Korucutepe 3, p. 150Google Scholar and Plate 49, nos. Q-R and S-T.

120 Ibid., pp. 43–64.

121 Güterbock, H., “Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impressions”, in van Loon, , Korucutepe 3, pp. 127–32Google Scholar, Plates 37–41.

122 Ibid., p. 127.

123 Ertem, H., Korucutepe 1: 1973–1975 kazı yıllarında ele geçen Erken Hitit-Impoaratorluk Çağı arası buluntuları, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Series 5, no. 42, 1988), pp. 7–9Google Scholar, nos. 6–7.

124 H. Ertem, Korucutepe 1973–1975, nos. 8–9.

125 See Mellink, , AJA 89 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: and AJA 91 (1987): 11Google Scholar.

126 See “Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey”, AnSt 35 (1985): 195Google Scholar and AnSt 36 (1986): 197Google Scholar.

127 Mellink, , AJA 91 (1987): 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Summers, G. D. et al. , Tille Höyük IV, The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transition (Ankara 1993)Google Scholar, Appendix 1, Pl. 28, nos. 5 and 6.

128 Tarsus 38.819, published by Gelb, I. J. in “Hittite Hieroglyphic Seals and Impressions”, in Goldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956), n. 48, p. 251Google Scholar, Pl. 403, 407; Also see photograph in Goldman, H., AJA 44 (1940): 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 47; Gelb, I. J., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, II, no. 57, p. 253, pl. 404, 408Google Scholar; photograph in Goldman, H., AJA 44 (1940): p. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 31; Tarsus 36.1180, in Gelb, I. J., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II, no. 24, p. 249Google Scholar, Pl. 402, 406.

129 The region in which Tarsus is situated seems to have first been known as Adaniya and later as Kizzuwatna. Many Hittite kings campaigned in and through this area as control of the region was essential for Hittite domination of Syria. See Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940Google Scholar, and Beal, R., “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Šunaššura Treaty” Orientalia 55 (1986): 424–45Google Scholar.

130 Gelb, I. J.. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), 242–54Google Scholar; Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Plates), 246 ff.Google Scholar, Plates 401–8.

131 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 244Google Scholar. See seals 2, 5, 6, 11, 44, 48, and 55.

132 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 247Google Scholar. Seal 5 which seems to have come from an Iron Age context.

133 Gelb, , Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II (Text), p. 243, 246Google Scholar.

134 See above, p. 5, n. 18.

135 Astour, M., “New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit”, AJA 69 (1969): 258Google Scholar.

136 Other seals of this type are known to have come from Minet-el-Beida, the port of Ugarit. See Schaeffer, C. F. A., Syria 12, (1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Pl. IV:3 and Forrer, E., Syria 18 (1937): pp. 156–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137 Ugaritica III, p. 57Google Scholar Fig. 80, 58 Fig. 81, 59 Fig. 83. For dating of the impressions see Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Statgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65Google Scholar.

138 L. Woolley, Alalakh, Pl. LXVII, fig. 153.

139 Barnett, R. D., Ant. Journal 19 (1939): pp. 33–5Google Scholar.

140 See above, pp. 24–5.

141 For Alişar examples see OIP 27, Pl. LVIII and seal 91 which also portrays a primitively developed style that has a well defined circular middle field with a minimum of signs and a well balanced naturalistic border design. Also compare OIP 29, fig. 478, p. 417, and seals d 72, e 2294, e 625, d 1847, d 1517, and e 1783 which also seem to fall into this early category of naturalistic double-sided and axled seals. For Alaca see TAD 13 (1965): 68, 88Google Scholar Pl. 6 no. 175; TAD 14 (1967): 169, 213Google Scholar, no. Al. P. 175.

142 One might suggest that the sign on Alişar 91 is the same as a similar sign at Alaca Höyük called L434 by B. Dinçol. See JKF 8 (1980): pp. 59–61Google Scholar. For impressions from Boğazköy that are similar to these seals see Güterbock, , Siegel aus Boğazköy II, 184 and 185Google Scholar.

143 Woolley, , Alalakh, 266–67Google Scholar, Pl. LXVII, nos. 155, 156, 157, and 159. There are also several related seals and impressions, especially seals no. 161–162 and seal impressions 154, 162, and 163.

144 Seal no. 159 comes from the topsoil, while 155 dates to levels I-II, no. 156 was found in level III, and no. 157 also came to light in levels I–II. By Woolley's dating level III ranges from 1370–1350, level II from 1350–1273, and level I from 1273–1194 (see page 395–9). For more recent work on the problems of the Alalakh chronology see Henriette-Gates, Marie, Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Reassessment, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4.2, (Malibu: Undena, 1981)Google Scholar, and “Alalakh and Chronology Again”, High, Middle, or Low?, Astrom, Paul, ed., Gothenburg: Paul Astroms Förlag, 1987, pp. 60–88Google Scholar.

145 Woolley, , Alalakh, p. 398Google Scholar; note my insertion of the words “biconvex” and “Hittite” in this quotation as a means of clarification.

146 Loud, G., Megiddo II: The Seasons of 1935–39, Oriental Institute Publications 62, Chicago 1948Google Scholar, Plates, Pl. 162, no. 7 (level VII B). Also note Pl. 162, no. 2 which is a good example of our geometric type seal with a cross motif (level IV).

147 Singer, I., “A Hittite Seal Impression from Tel Aphek, Tel Aviv 4 (1977): 179–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 Singer, I., “Takuḫlina and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek”, Tel Aviv 10 (1983): pp. 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

149 Sürenhagen, D., “Ein Königssiegel aus Kargamis”, MDOG 118 (1986): 183Google Scholar, n. 2.

150 Hawkins, J. D., “Kuzi-Tešub and the ‘Great Kings' of Kargamis’,” AnSt 38 (1988): pp. 99–108Google Scholar.

151 Hawkins has not only established the existence of Kuzi-Tešub as the son of Talmi-Tešub, but established a clear link between Kuzi-Tešub and the previously mentioned Neo-Hittite kingdom of Melid (Arslantepe), Kuzi-Tešub being the grandfather of two Melidian kings. Thus, on the one hand, the seal adds an additional representative to a genealogical line that started with Šuppiluliuma's appointment of Piyaššili (=Šarri-Kušuḫ) as king of Carchemish. As such it would now include the latter's successors, X-Šarruma (possibly Šaḫurunuwa), Šaḫurunuwa, Ini-Tešup, and Talmi-Tešub. See also Güterbock, H. G., “Survival of the Hittite Dynasty”, in Ward, W. W. and Joukowski, M. S. (ed.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C., Dubuque, Iowa (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.), 1992, 53–55Google Scholar.

152 G. D. Summers et al., op. cit. (above, n. 27), with Appendices 1 and 2 by D. Collon and P. Kuniholm.

153 Mellink, , AJA, 91 (1987): 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

154 On the Medinu Habu Inscription of year 8 in the reign of Ramesses III it states that

“… As for the foreign countries, they made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands (the Sea Peoples) were on the move, scattered in war. No country could stand before their arms. Hatti, Kode (Kizzuwatna), Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya. They were cut off. A camp was set up in one place in Amurru. They desolated its people and its land was like that which has never come into being …” (After Sandars, N. K., The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, p. 119Google Scholar).

The possibility that some Syrian or Levantine cities escaped relatively unscathed from the initial onslaught of the Sea Peoples probably means that Ramses' reference to Carchemish refers only to coastal territories which were under the direct rule of the Carchemish viceroy. If there was a brief incursion by the invaders into the interior it was not sustained by permanent occupation and/or settlement. The indications are that the region probably survived virtually intact, not succumbing until the Assyrian onslaught several hundred years later.

155 See Albright, , AJA 55 (1951): 106 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. for an earlier version of this viewpoint, especially as it relates to the city of Hama.

156 Albright, , AJA 55 (1951): 106 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

157 Arnaud, , Emar-Meškene, p. 5Google Scholar.

158 See Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions II, pp. 82Google Scholar and n. 107, and §95. See also Weidner who read the name mi-li in AfO 18, (1957–1958)6: 344Google Scholar No. 128 ? 350 II 30 and is corrected by Landsberger in Sam'al 33 n. 67. Note Mufaddi, Abu Taleb Mahmud, Investigations in the History of North Syria, 1115–717 B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1973, pp. 4, 11, 18–19Google Scholar, 51, 60 n. 33, 61–2, 73, 76, 81, 127, n. 35 for information on the reign of this later Ini-Tešup, as well as Hawkins, D. “Hatti in the 1st Millennium”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4, 153Google Scholar, “Hittites and Assyrians”, Iraq 36 (1974): 70 ff.Google Scholar, and “The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia”, CAH Volume III, Part 1, ed. Boardman, John, Edwards, I. E. S., Hammond, N. G. L., Sollberger, E. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 380Google Scholar.

159 For possible survivals of the Late Bronze Age biconvex glyptic tradition at these sites see Riis, P., Hama II 3, 1948, p. 131Google Scholar, fig. 165 and p. 159, fig. 201A for biconvex seal from Hama Cemetery Period I (dated 1200–1075); also from Hama is biconvex seal from Cemetery Period II dated 1075–925 (=Albright 1100–1000), p. 159, fig. 201B; also see Fugmann, E., Hama II 1, 1958, p. 200Google Scholar, fig. 245, 6A63 and 80 (p. 193); and Woolley, L., Carchemish II, Pl. 25b, nos. 8–9Google Scholar; Carchemish III, p. 206Google Scholar, n. 2 and probably fig. 83; and Hogarth, , Hittite Seals, 1920, p. 89Google Scholar where a biconvex seal is referred to as having been found in a 10th c. house.

160 Buchanan, JCS 21 (1967): p. 22Google Scholar.

161 This also holds true for other areas to the west and southwest of the Hittite core area. Hawkins has also indicated that the monuments of the Kizil Dağ/Kara Dağ group show indications of being earlier than once thought, perhaps as early as the 12th century. The ascription of the title “Great King” to Hartapus in these inscriptions may stem from his desire to lay claim to the title once held only by the king at Boğazköy, but vacant since the demise of that city. In a lecture delivered at the Oriental Institute on Dec. 7, 1989 Hawkins argued the inscription belonged to a group which was paleographically dated to the 12th century. The actual line-drawn figure of the king, on the other hand, was to be seen as a later addition that was fashioned around the already existing inscription (see also Bittel, K., “Hartapus and Kızıldağ”, in Ancient Anatolia (Essays… Mellink), (1986), pp. 103–111Google Scholar; Gonnet, H., “Nouvelles données archéologiques relatives aux inscriptions hiéroglyphiques de Hartapusa à Kizildağ”, in Archéologie et religions de l'Anatolie Ancienne 10 (Mél. Naster) (1984), pp. 119–25Google Scholar (who advocates a late Empire date).

162 Based on Neve's dating of the levels on Büyükkale, Büyükkale, pp. 75–136.

163 See my dissertation, Alişar in the Second Millennium, B.C., University of Chicago, 1990, pp. 353–94Google Scholar.

164 Note that the Phrygian seals seem to be much different from their Hittite counterparts. See Boehmer, Rainer Michael, “Siegel phrygischer Zeit”, ZA 67 (1977): pp. 78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Boehmer, Rainer Michael, “Weitere Siegel aus phrygischer Zeit”, ZA 68 (1978): pp. 284–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

165 See Hawkins', J. D. discussion of this in “Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: Some New Evidence for the Connection”, Nachr. der Akad. Göttingen, I. Phil.-hist kl. 6 (1973): 154Google Scholar (2.2). Here he notes that the early form of i/ya is ∩ whereas the later period witnesses a differentiation by the addition of a double stroke beneath the sibilant. ∩ continues to be used for i whereas is used for ia. A similar development is noted for zi/za (where represents the sign's early form while the later differentiation produces ↑ for zi and for za. The dividing line between early and late scripts is unclear, but the Hittite Empire period would certainly fall within this early group. For examples of the early use of ‘za’ see seals c 700 (Gelb 75), c 2168 (Gelb 78), and e 270 (Gelb 86).

166 See RŠ 17:248 and RŠ 18.70, Ugaritica III, p. 62, fig. 87Google Scholar; Laroche, Noms, Maššana-Ura, No. 774; Mora, Glittica, group XIIa 2.4, 283, Pl. 82.

167 See Laroche, , Noms, Armaziti, pp. 40–1Google Scholar, no. 141. For name Armaziti at Eskiyapar see A., and Dinçol, B., “Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Eskiyapar”, Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae, Fs Heinrich Otten, Wiesbaden: Verlag Otto Harrassowitz, 1988, p. 96Google Scholar and Pl. 5.

168 See Laroche, , Noms, Armawiya, p. 40Google Scholar, no. 140; Mora, , Glittica, group XIIb 1.7, p. 303, Pl. 95Google Scholar.

169 For similar use of sign on seals see Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik, p. 66Google Scholar, no. 187, Pl. XXI, no. 187b. Also see Laroche, , Noms, Armapiya, p. 39, no. 135Google Scholar.

170 Besides the use of the scribal sign discussed above (L326), both Güterbock, (Siegel aus Boğazköy, II, p. 13)Google Scholar and Beckman, (“A Hittite Cylinder Seal in the Yale Collection”, AnSt 36 [1986]: 134Google Scholar) suggest that the jug sign (L345, 354) of seal impression 69 (and inscription 66) represents the office of the GAL.GEŠTIN “great one of the wine cellar”, or LÛ ŠSAQI, “cupbearer”. Laroche further suggests that sign L482 on Gelb 78 may also represent a functionary (Les hiéroglyphes hittites I, p. 478).

171 For a similar analysis see Mora, C., Oriens Antiquus 16 (1977): 179Google Scholar. For the Taki-Šarruma seals sees Ugaritica III, pp. 37–9Google Scholar, figs. 58–60.

172 The sign in its particular form is found on seals from several sites. Among the seals where this sign is attested are the following: From Ugarit (Ugaritica III, pp. 37–9Google Scholar, figs. 58–60); From Alişar (Gelb, Oriental Institute Publications 27, seal 72, perhaps seal 75; and from Korucutepe (Ertem, , Korucutepe I, p. 7Google Scholar, seal 6, and 7–8, seal 8).

173 Such an association with scribal personnel may be hypothesized, in part, by the large percentage of biconvex seals and impressions displaying the scribal sign (See, for instance, Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik, pp. 65–9Google Scholar, [seals] no. 184; [impressions] nos. 181, 187, 189, 193, 200, and 203.) This would be in keeping with the belief that the original popularity of the seal can be ascribed to its ability to accommodate two proper names. Such a capability may have been particularly attractive to scribes whose signature would have been needed on numerous cuneiform clay documents. Scribes, however, are probably only one of a number of professional people who might have taken advantage of the seal's unique character.

174 Neve, P., “Die Grabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 1990”, AA (1991): 332Google Scholar, Fig. 38; Mellink, , AA 96 (1992): 128Google Scholar.

175 OIP 19. p. 263, fig. 346.

176 For other examples see OIP 19, pp. 261–3 and fig. 346, b611. See also OIP 29, 418–20 and fig. 479, scarab b611. This assessment was confirmed by Bruce Williams with a strong caution that it could also appear as a copy in the 25th Dynasty.

177 See Grenell, Alice, “The Scarab Collection of Queen's College, Oxford”, JEA 2 (1915), 224Google Scholar, Plate XXXIII, no. 114; The same seal also cited in Hornung, E. and Stoeheli, E., Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen I (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1976)Google Scholar, Pl. 109 no. B27.

178 Laroche, E., “Les Hieroglyphes de Meškene-Emar et le style “Syro-Hittite”, Akkadica 22 (1981): 5–14Google Scholar.

179 Laroche, E., “Matériaux pour L'Étude des Relations entre Ugarit et le Hatti”, Ugaritica III, 1956, 55–66Google Scholar, Figs. 40, 42, 43, 51, 53, 79, and 80–91.

180 Laroche, E., Akkadica 22 (1981): 5–14Google Scholar.

181 Goldman, , Tarsus II, p. 245 ffGoogle Scholar, Pls. 401–8.

182 Boehmer, and Güterbock, , Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy, p. 65Google Scholar.

183 Ibid. p. 65.

184 These include pieces of a spindle bottle (ASC nos. 395 and 396), 2 libation arm fragments (ASC no. 393), several platter fragments (ASC nos. 336–8, a cylindrical cup (ASC no. 339), the top of a regular sized pilgrim flask (ASC no. 359), the neck of a long-necked White Ware pilgrim flask (357, ASC no. 235), handles from two other White Ware pilgrim flasks (ASC nos. 358 and 360), and several pitchers with pointed bases (366, 367, and 368). For further discussion see R. Gorny, “The Pottery of the Post Kārum Period”, (Chapter IV) in Alişar Höyük in the Second Millennium, B.C., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990Google Scholar.

185 See discussion on Alişar-Ankuwa in Gorny Diss. Chapter VII, pp. 395–436.

186 Buchanan, , JCS 21 (1969)Google Scholar.

187 See Wente, E. and van Siclen, C., “The Chronology of the New Kingdom”, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1977, pp. 217–61Google Scholar. Also see “Hittite Chronology” in Biblical Archaeologist 59 (1989): 88–9Google Scholar.