The city of Hartapu: results of the Türkmen-Karahöyük Intensive Survey Project

Osborne, James F.; Massa, Michele; Şahin, Fatma Tezel; Erpehlivan, Hüseyin; Bachhuber, Christoph

doi:10.1017/s0066154620000046

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, others (Ekrem Akurgal, Kurt Bittel, Winfried Orthmann, Sanna Aro-Valjus) argued that the relief is more likely for the 9 th or 8 th centuries B. C., on stylistic grounds [1, p. 334; 9, pp. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Some attempted to reconcile the discrepancy by postulating that the relief was added centuries later, next to the already existing inscription [12, pt.…”

Section: Kızıldağmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has also been a recent development in the question of the complex's dating. The region is currently studied by the Türkmen-Karahöyük Intensive Survey Project [18]. The scholars of the project argue that the new inscription, and also all the previously known monuments of Hartapu, should belong in the 8 th century B. C. The unexcavated mound of Türkmen-Karahöyük, 14 km from Kızıldağ, might be the city where Hartapu lived: and the two places are clearly visible from each other: "It is easy to envision Hartapu and other rulers of Türkmen-Karahöyük leading a retinue to Kızıldağ and performing rites on the throne monument before the crowd gathered below and then continuing south to the slopes of Karadağ" [18, p. 23].…”

Section: Kızıldağmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ancient and New Interpretations of Anatolian Rock-cut “Thrones”

Kisbali

2021

PTHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rock-cut monuments in Anatolia are represented by a wide variety of artificially modified rocky outcrops and stone surfaces. These peculiar places, especially the figurative reliefs and the rock-cut architecture, have attracted plenty of attention -both now and in the past. This is, after all, one of the key aspects of rock-cut monuments: that they are integrated into the landscape, which leads to a continuous interaction with all inhabitants of the territory, even after the loss of their original function, meaning and connotations.Rock-cut features could serve several functions: domestic (foundations for buildings or installations like presses), funerary (cist-or chamber tombs), cultic (platforms, altars, monuments for the focus or framing of religious activities). It is this last subset that I would like to examine in my article, in particular the group of monuments which can be called "thrones".It has to be pointed out, though, that "thrones" are not a strictly defined category of landscape monuments, but rather an intuitive descriptor applied to a range of modified natural stones. At first glance, this is a self-evident category: a natural outcrop cut to resemble a seat; with armrests and a higher back. But this design and seemingly self-explanatory identification shouldn't be automatically correlated with function.In the existing classification systems, "thrones" are usually included as a variation or symbolic reference point of stepped altars. For example, in Phrygia, where the variety of rock-cut "installations" is the highest, a number of classification systems exist, developed by scholars such as Emily Haspels, Géza de Francovich, Taciser Tüfekçi Sivas, Susanne Berndt-Ersöz and Rahşan Tamsü Polat. Tamsü Polat's system is based on the formal characteristics of rock-cut altars with important distinctions made according to the placement of the semi-circular "idol" on the top step. The "throne" designation is relegated to "Type II c", which features "two protrusions on the sides, similar to arm-rests" [25, pp. 207-208].In Susanne Berndt-Ersöz's monograph "Phrygian Rock-cut Shrines" (2006), it is stressed that "throne" is not a systemic category, but an interpretative framework [4, pp. 194-196]. However, she agrees that "step monuments recall divine thrones" [4, pp. 174-175, 194]. The interpretation of these monuments as "thrones" has an allure: it allows scholars to include the Anatolian monuments in the broader context of Near Eastern and ancient Greek cultic practices. For these areas we have more sources, so a comparative approach can be pursued 1 . 1The historiography of cultic thrones and throne-like structures is too vast to recount here in its entirety. Thrones as cult places were discussed, for example, by Wolfgang Reichel [21]. Rock-cut thrones and "mountains as thrones" were studied by Arthur Bernard Cook in his extensive books on the cult of Zeus [5,.

show abstract

Section: Kızıldağmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kızıldağmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ancient and New Interpretations of Anatolian Rock-cut “Thrones”

Kisbali

2021

PTHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The responsibility for text lies of course with me alone. 2 For the circumstances of the discovery and the site see Osborne et al 2020. 3 For the name Muška/i see below § § 17-18 with further references. A fuller discussion of the problem of the relationship between the western (Anatolian) Muška and the eastern Muška attested in Northern Mesopotamia will be presented elsewhere (Oreshko in preparation).…”

Section: La Lengua Sidética Una Actualización 145mentioning

confidence: 99%

The onager kings of Anatolia: Hartapus, Gordis, Muška and the steppe strand in early Phrygian culture

Oreshko

2020

Kadmos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article discusses a complex of questions associated with the king Ḫartapus and early culture of the Phrygians. §§ 1-3 revise the evidence of the newly discovered HLuw. inscription TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK, arguing that the correct reading of king’s name in the first line is AQUILA+ra/i-tá-pu-sa = Ḫartapus, and (once again) that the king is not a conqueror, but a native king of Masa or Muška, who reigned in the late 2nd millennium BC. In §§ 4-5 it is suggested that HLuw. Ḫartapus conceals an early Phrygian name preserved in the toponym *Γαρδιβιον (*Γαρδυβιον) attested in the inscriptions of the Xenoi Tekmoreioi. §§ 6-11 argue that the name *Gardabos is connected with Sanskrit gardabhá- ‘donkey’, that it corresponds semantically to the west-Anatolian names Tarkasnawas and Tarkašnalliš, and that donkey ears of King Midas are a late ‘refraction’ of this fact. § 12 discusses the morphological structure of *Gardabos, revising the PIE suffix *-bho- and suggesting new cognates for Skr. gard- ‘shout’ (Armenian kard- and Baltic gerd-). §§ 13-14 discuss a probable steppe background of the ‘donkey-names’. In § 15 it is suggested that Phrygian name Gordis is based on the same root as *Gardabos, and some relevant Phrygian epigraphical evidence is presented. § 16 discusses a further probable Anatolian ‘donkey-name’, Mugallu and its likely cognate μύκαλος. §§ 17-18 touch upon the etymology of the ethnic names Masa and Muška, connecting them with the word for ‘mule’ preserved in the modern Balkan languages (Alb. mushk(ë) etc.), and, more speculatively, with the old Balkan word for ‘horse’ (*me(n)za-). § 19 argues that the ethnic name Φρύγες may have a similar original meaning, going back to another Balkan term for ‘donkey’, βρικός.

show abstract

“…Projects that have applied intensive methods fall broadly into two main groups. The first comprises projects focused on the hinterlands of large sites that have usually been subject to excavation, for example, Aphrodisias, Avkat, Komana, Sagalassos, and Türkmen-Karahöyük (Newhard 2018;Osborne et al 2020;Ratté and De Staebler 2012;Tatbul and Erciyas 2020;Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003). The second includes landscape-oriented surveys in which intensive fieldwalking is applied across a more dispersed study area, with concentrations in the Mediterranean or Black Sea littorals (e.g., 32 Doonan 2004;Koparal 2020;Wilkinson and Slawisch 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey Archaeology in the Mediterranean World: Regional Traditions and Contributions to Long-Term History

Knodell

Wilkinson²,

Leppard

et al. 2022

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we describe the development and state of archaeological surface survey in the Mediterranean. We focus especially on surface survey as a means of documenting long-term settlement patterns at various scales, as an approach to the archaeology of regions, and as a pathway to the interpretation of past landscapes. Over the last decades, literature on Mediterranean survey has increasingly emphasized a distinct set of practices, viewed both favorably and critically by regional archaeologists in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. We show that Mediterranean survey in fact comprises several discrete regional traditions. In general, these traditions have much to offer to wider dialogues in world archaeology, particularly concerning sampling and research design, the interpretation of surface assemblages, and the integration of complex, multidisciplinary datasets. More specifically, survey investigations of Mediterranean landscapes provide comparative data and potential research strategies of relevance to many issues of global significance, including human ecology, demography, urban-rural dynamics, and various types of polity formation, colonialism, and imperialism.

show abstract

The city of Hartapu: results of the Türkmen-Karahöyük Intensive Survey Project

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Ancient and New Interpretations of Anatolian Rock-cut “Thrones”

Ancient and New Interpretations of Anatolian Rock-cut “Thrones”

The onager kings of Anatolia: Hartapus, Gordis, Muška and the steppe strand in early Phrygian culture

Survey Archaeology in the Mediterranean World: Regional Traditions and Contributions to Long-Term History

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About