maner - a comparative study of hittite and mycenaean fortification architecture,in the earthly,...

5/26/2018 Maner - A Comparative Study of Hittite and Mycenaean Fortification Architecture,In the Earthly, Celestial, And the Underworld in the Mediterr

1/20


2/20

o

This volume is dedicated toProfessor Vassos Karageorghis, Nestor of Cypriot Archaeology


3/20

ISBN 978-960-7143-40-2

Copyright 2012

. .

,

UNIVERSITY OF CRETEDepartment of History & Archaeology

MINISTRY OF CULTUREArchaeological Institute of Aegean Studies

Archaeological Institute of Cretological Studies

MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY


4/20

- C O N T R I B U T O R S

.

It is noted that each writer was responsible for the corrections of his/her paper.

Nicoletta Antognelli MichelDoctoral candidate (PhD) at theUniversity of Freiburg i. Bernau-Menzen-

schwanderstr. 16. D - 79837 St. [email protected]

Dr. Andrea BabbiAlexander von Humboldt Post-Doc.Ruprecht-Karls-Universitt HeidelbergZentrum fr AltertumswissenschaftenInstitut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichteund Vorderasiatische ArchologieMarstallhof 4. D-69117 [email protected]

. . [email protected]

Sabine Beckmann

University of Crete.Vigla Panagia Lakonia. 72100 [email protected]

Dr. Giorgos BourogiannisPostdoctoral Research Fellow. Medel-havsmuseet, Fredsgatan 2. Box 16008,103 21 [email protected]

. . [email protected]

. .

. KA. 71202, [email protected]

. . 23, . , [email protected]

Dr. Florentia Fragkopoulou 28100. [email protected]

Dr. Kostas Georgakopoulos

Archaeologist. 23d Ephorate ofPrehistoric and Classical Antiquities.Xanthoudidou and Chatzidaki 71202,[email protected]

Professor Antoine HermaryUniversit dAix-Marseille I. CentreCamille Jullian.

[email protected]. Reinhard JungFachbereich Altertumswissenschaften.Universitt Salzburg. Residenzplatz 1 /II. A-5010 [email protected]

Dr. Athanasia KantaDirector of the 23d Ephorate ofPrehistoric and Classical Antiquities.Xanthoudidou and Chatzidaki 71202,[email protected]

Professor Vassos [email protected]

Professor Litsa Kontorli-PapadopoulouAssociate professor of PrehistoricArchaeology. University of IoanninaThemistokleous 69, .Psychiko, 154 [email protected]

Dr. Konstantinos KopaniasLecturer in Prehistoric Archaeology.University of Athens. Department ofHistory and Archaeology - UniversityCampus. GR 157 84 Athens - [email protected]

Dr. Antonios KotsonasAmsterdam Archaeological CentreUniversity of Amsterdam. Turfdraag-

sterpad 9, 1012 XT. Amsterdam. [email protected]

Professor Panagiotis KousoulisAss. Professor of Egyptology. Depart-ment of Mediterranean Studies. Univer-sity of the Aegean. Rhodes, [email protected]

. () 33, 11257 [email protected]

.lebentakis_nikos@yahoo

Professor J. Alexander MacGillivrayPalaikastro Excavations. British Schoolat [email protected]

Dr. idem ManerKoc University. Department of Archology and History of Art. Rumeli Fen

34450 Sariyer. Istanbul [email protected]

Dr. Isabelle MartelliPhD. University IULM Milan-Paris IVSorbonneItalia [email protected]

Dr. Mathias MehoferArchaeometallurgy. VIAS - Vienna tute for Archaeological Science. FrKlein-Gasse 1. A-1190 [email protected]

. . 10, 71305,

[email protected]

. [email protected]

Professor Thanassis PapadopoulosEmeritus professor of PrehistoricArchaeology. University of IoanninaThemistokleous 69, .Psychiko, 154 [email protected]

Dr. Laura-Concetta RizzottoAntikensammlung Staatliche Musezu Berlin. Bodestr. 1-3 D- 10178 lrizzo

[email protected]/[email protected] . . . .. - 85 100 [email protected]

T . 4 GR - 302 00..

. . . [email protected]


5/20

- C O N T E N T S. .

8

N. Chr. Stampolidis

Introductory note 9

. 10

Angeliki Giannikouri

Greetings and Compliments 1

- Abbreviations 12

- The Earthly World

Vassos KarageorghisNotes on Music and Dance in Cyprus: The Archaeological Record, from the Late Bronze Age to the Cypro-Archaic Period. 15

Sabine Beckmann

Resin nd Ritual Purification: Terebinth n Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age Cult 27

Nicoletta Antognelli MichelPalms And Papyruses in the Late Minoan/Helladic III: The Exotic World, the Fantastic World and the Afterworld 4

idem ManerA Comparative Study of Hittite and Mycenaean Fortification Architecture 53

Giorgos BourogiannisRhodes, Cos and the White Painted Ware of Cyprus: Introduction to Contacts in the Early Iron Age 65

83

. : ; 93

Florentia Fragkopoulou

Lakonia and Samos during the Early Iron Age: a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates 10

- The Celestial World

Kostas GeorgakopoulosA Note on a Hittite Bull-Leaping Scene and its Minoan Perspectives 11

J. Alexander MacGillivrayThe Minoan Double Axe Goddess and Her Astral Realm 115

Panagiotis KousoulisEgyptian vs. Otherness and the Issue of Acculturation in the Egyptian Demonic Discourse of the Late Bronze Age 127

Efthymios LazongasGates and Pillars of Heaven. The Architectural Structure of Cosmos in Greek, Egyptian and Near Eastern Tradition and Art 139

. , , 153

. M A: K 16

Antonios Kotsonas

Three Early, Limestone Sculptures from Gortyn and their Mediterranean Profile 177

8 ATHANAS


6/20

- The Underworld

Konstantinos Kopanias

Paradise Lost. The Image of the Netherworld in the Near East 1

2

Athanasia Kanta

A Minoan Version of the Djed Pillar and Other Borrowed Ideas About the Afterlife in the Cretan Late Bronze Age 2

Thanasis Papadopoulos - Litsa Kontorli-Papadopoulou

Power, Troubles nd Death in Late Bronze Age Aegean nd Cyprus: the Evidence of Warrior-Graves and Painting 2

- Reinhard Jung - Mathias Mehofer

. 2

Laura-Concetta Rizzotto

Sptbronzezeitliche und Frheisenzeitliche Steinerne Sarkophage auf Kreta und auf Zypern 2

.

. 2

Andrea Babbi

, , ...Clay Human Figurines from Early Iron Age Italian Childrens Tombs and the Aegean Evidence 2

3

Isabelle Martelli

Women Go Further: Understanding the Handmade Globular Pyxis from Protogeometric Greece to Southern Italy 3

- .

. ; 3

Antoine HermaryThe Cypriot Kourotrophoi : Remarks on the Mother with Child Theme 3

ATHANASIA


7/20

I N T RO DU C T O RY N O T E

An arduous effort which we made in 1997 had two aspects: first a series of international conferences

symposia and second extensive archaeological exhibitions, both focusing on the relations developed betwthe peoples of the Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The present Internatio

Archaeological Conference entitled Immortality; The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in

Mediterranean from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age is included among them.

The Athanasia conference was preceded by: 1. The International Conference Eastern Mediterrane

Cyprus Dodecanese Crete, 16th-6th c. BC, 1997 Proceedings of which were published in English in 1

2. The International Conference PLOES - Sea Routes; Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th - 6th c. BC

2002, whose Proceedings were published in English in 2003.

In the interval from 1997 to 2003 the following great archaeological exhibitions with the same name as the ab

conferences took place. The first exhibition was in Heraklion, Crete in 1998. This exhibition was taken to Italy

the Musei Capitolini of Rome in 2001, with the title Sulle Rotte di Omero. The second exhibition, Ploes, t

place at the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens in 2003. At the same time as the exhibitions detailed catalog

pertaining to them in Greek and English (1998), Italian (2001) and in Greek and English (2003) respectively, w

published.

Parallel to this overall investigation, a series of symposia on more specific topics began. Their aim was to co

gaps in various sectors of our knowledge. Thus, the International Symposium Cremation in the Bronze Age

Early Iron Age was held in 1999 and its proceedings were published 2001; also, The Aegean in the Early

Age took place in 2002 and its proceedings were released in 2004.

In conclusion, the continuous effort to understand the relations of peoples, groups or individuals in the Anc

Mediterranean in an ideological frame, is focusing now on issues related to the Earthly, the Celestial and

Underworld aspects of culture. This focus, through discussion and papers hopefully will produce new knowle

and conclusions which will help move research one step further.

Unfortunately, various problems concerning the collection of the papers, their corrections and other exte

causes, delayed the printing of the proceedings of this conference, three years after its realization. This is

unusual occurance for us in all our previous editions. We apologize for this and we hope that it will not

repeated in our future efforts.

Warmest thanks are once again due to the Ministries of Culture and of Merchant Marine, Aegean and Isl

Policy, not only for their financial but also their moral support. The University of Crete is always willing to sup

similar initiatives and for this we offer our thanks. We are also grateful to the Institute of Aegean Archaeolog

Studies and its Director Angeliki Giannikouri and to the Institute of Cretological Studies and its former direc

Dr. Athanasia Kanta (former Head of the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion and now Director of the 2

Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities) and to the staff of both Institutes. Special thanks are due

archaeologists Alexia Speliotopoulou and Danai Kontopodi for their efforts towards the organization of

Conference. The difficult task of producing this volume of the Proceedings was taken over by Athanasia Ka

and by Danai Kontopodi who was responsible for the layout, organization and graphics design. Finally, sincthanks are offered to the Mediterranean Archaeological Society, which through the selfless work of its mem

has become a major sponsor of this volume.

Nicholas Chr. Stampo

ATHANASIA


8/20

G RE E T I N G S A N D C O MP L I ME N T S

It was a great pleasure and honour for me to welcome the delegates to the International Archaeolog

Conference Immortality: The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean from the LBronze and the Early Iron Age.

The Institute of Aegean Studies has always worked constructively with the Ephorates of the Dodecanese

with universities, research centres and other organizations. Among them were the Technical University of B

the Universities of Molise and Palermo, the University of Crete, the National Technical University of Athens,

Institute of Historical Research: Department of Greek and Roman Antiquity, the Democritus Institute and oth

The present conference, organized with the productive cooperation between the Archaeological Instit

of Aegean Studies, the University of Crete and the Archaeological Institute of Cretological Studies, falls in

context.

Our cooperation with the University of Crete is an old, successful recipe, which dates from 2001. With my d

friend Nicolas Chr. Stampolidis we have organized four conferences, the Proceedings of which have be

published.

However, I am delighted, for the launch of collaboration with the Institute of Cretological Studies, which hope

will not be limited only in terms of conferences and research activities. Let this be the beginning of activat

and cooperation among the institutes of the Ministry of Culture on common goals, in order to develop into

active research area of the Ministry.

The conference was organized with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Mercan

Marine, Aegean and Island Policy and the University of Crete. Our gratitude is expressed to the Ministries

rector authorities. It would be remiss not to mention the important facilitation of our efforts by the officer

the Department of Culture - Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Island Policy. I refer in particular to

Magda Alvanou, who always finds a way to support our efforts.

My heartfelt thanks are due to the Mayor of Rhodes Mr. Hatzis Hatziefthimiou who demonstrated once agai

sensitivity and interest for the cultural matters of our region, which for him are a top priority.

Thanks are also due to the KAIR company and Mr Pontikakis, owner of Pane Di Capo for their support.

I would like to express my thanks to Nicholas Stampolidis and Athanasia Kanta, as well as to the people w

helped and contributed to the success of this conference. These include the staff of the Archaeological Insti

of Aegean Studies and especially Anna Karavokyrou and Fani Seroglou. Also, many thanks are due to Dan

Kontopodi and Alexia Spiliotopoulou, archaeologists of the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion.

Finally, we owe many thanks to the Ephors Mrs. Melina Philemonos and Eleni Papavasiliou, as well as to

colleagues of the 22nd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and of the 4rth Ephorate of Byzan

Antiquities, who guided us to museums, archaeological sites and monuments of the city of Rhodes.

Angeliki Giannikouri

ATHANASIA


9/20

idem Maner

A Comparative Study of Hittite and Mycenaean Fortification Architecture

ABSTRACT

In the last 100 years the similari ties and parallels between Hitti te and Mycenaean fort ification architecture and constructechniques have been discussed by several archaeologists. In particular, in the last 20 years it has been stressed thatconstruction and form of Late Helladic Mycenaean fortifications in the Argolis and Boeotia, several building units sas towers or postern gates, gate reliefs, masonry and also the application of materials are similar to the Late Br

Age Hitt ite fort ification architecture in Anatolia. One of the reasons for these assumptions is the skilled accomplishmenthe corbelled vault in Mycenaean fortification architecture, which is considered an influence from the Hittites. This ar

provides an overview of the research history, indigenous building units and construction techniques of each civilization.

the information obtained, a comparison will be made. Finally, the question of whether there was a technology transfeimpact from one to the other will be discussed.*

100 , . 20 ( , , , ) /. .. , . .

. , , , .

*I am grateful to Chad Nagle, who has corrected this article and to Dimos Yacolu, who has translated the abstract to Greek.

ATHANASIA


10/20

1. Research History

The history of research dealing with similarities in the fortification architecture of the Hittites and Mycenaeans goes bac

to the beginning of the 20th century. Several scholars have recognized similarities in the construction of many of th

fortifications building units and also in the application of different technologies, such as masonry techniques, stone drilli

and stone sawing. These similarities are seen as a cultural exchange or technology transfer between these two civilizatio

The research history of the above mentioned parallels can be summarized in four groups: (1) corbelled vault, (2) buildi

techniques, (3) building units, and (4) tools. The similarities of the corbelled vaults in Hittite and Mycenaean settlements we

recognized very early. Puchstein, who excavated Boazky, was one of the first scholars to mention these similarities. H

recognizes that the vaults of the Tirynthian galleries are very similar to the vaults of the postern gates in Boazky.1Kpp

compares the corbelled vaults from Bykkale in Boazky with the corbelled vault from the Westgate in Tiryns. He argu

that the construction of the vaults is identical.2Seeher postulates that the corbelled vault in the Mycenaean fortificatio

architecture is influenced by the Hittite architecture.3Neve argues that it is difficult to say whether the building of corbell

vaults is based on local traditions or if the corbelled vaults in Mycenaean Greece are built under foreign influence.4Mar

postulates that building corbelled vaults started earlier in time in Hittite Anatolia than in Mycenaean Greece, and that

diffusion of this building technique from Anatolia to Greece may have taken place.5

The cyclopean masonry of the Mycenaean fortification is a building technique the roots of which are sought in Anatol

Iakovidis assumes that the prototypes for the heavy cyclopean Mycenaean fortifications are seen in the east, especially

Hittite Asia Minor.6Ik recently wrote that the Mycenaeans owe their types of fortifications to foreign influence, namely tHittites. The similarities in the corbelled vault, the cyclopean masonry of the fortification walls of Tiryns and Gla, and the rel

above the Lion Gate in Mycenae should be considered signs of exchanges. He also refers to Historians like Strabo, Pausan

and Bakchylides, who wrote that the Tirynthian craftsmen came from Lycia to build the Mycenaean fortifications.7Nieme

also assumes that the cyclopean fortifications and the building techniques were inspired by the Hittite prototypes.8

Scoufopulos, who worked on Mycenaean citadels in detail, recognized that the gate types of Tiryns and Gla are very simi

to those of the Hittite cities. He assumes that the gate type from Bykkale in Boazky was adopted from the Mycenaean

Tool marks such as hammer marks in the form of white dots on stone slabs10and also drilling holes in stones can be listed

parallels in tool marks.11In contrast, Seeher tried to show that stone drilling and also stone sawing could have develope

out of the local know-how of the craftsmen, and comes to the conclusion that stone drilling and stone sawing develope

independently in each civilization.12

The above summarized research history concerning influences in the fortification architecture shows that scholars see rath

a Hittite influence on Mycenaean fortification units and building techniques.

Several scholars have pointed out these similarites concerning the fortification architecture, but they have never bee

examined precisely. They have remained mere assumptions. In the following sections, the building units and techniqu

of Hittite and Mycenaean fortifications will be investigated and analyzed separately. With the obtained data, a prop

comparison can be undertaken, and an attempt to answer the question of whether Hittite fortification architecture had a

impact on Mycenaean fortification architecture, or vice-versa.

1 Puchstein 1984, 38

2 Kpper 1996, 119

3 Seeher 2008

4 Neve 1991, 164

5 Maran 2003, 2676 Iakovidis 1983, 108

7 Ik 2006, 441. Strabo VIII 6, 11; Pausanias II 25, 8; Bakchylides X 77-81

8 Niemeier 2002, 298-99

9 Scoufopoulos 1971, 101

10 The Hittites used a round stone hammer to flatten the surface of stone slabs. This hammering left white dots on the surface of the slabs. In Boazky, Kuakl, AlHyk they are very obvious. See also Seeher 2007, 68-9 Fig. 48,

11 Kpper 1996, 118

12 Seeher 2008

IDEM MANER

56 ATHANAS


11/20

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HITTITE AND MYCENAEAN FORTIFICATION ARCHITECT

2. Hittite Fortification Architecture

Hittite cities started to be fortified in the Old Hittite period (ca. 1650-1500 BC). 13Boazky (Hattua, the capital city o

Hittite empire), the first excavated Hittite city, was where the traces of a fortification wall and gates were found. This

at the beginning of the 20th century. Over time, Hittite fortification walls and city gates were revealed in Alaca Hy

Yumuktepe,15 Kuakl,16 Aliar Hyk,17 Karkemish,18 Sirkeli Hyk,19, adr Hyk,20 Tille Hyk,21 Oymaaa22, Kayalpn

Zeyve-Porsuk Hyk.24They all share the typical characteristics of Hittite fortification architecture. Hittite settlements are on plateaus, ridges or valleys. The fortification wall follows the natural boundary of the rock. The following paragraphs

introduce the building techniques and units.

2.1 Building Technique

The building technique of the Hittite fortification wall is very unique. The base of the wall was built of stones and

superstructure was made of framework masonry of wood and mudbrick. 25Hittite craftsmen were using different mas

styles for the base of the wall, such as masonry made of rubble stones, ashlar masonry, polygonal masonry26and inde

stone masonry.27The stones were finished with stone hammers to get an even surface. These finishings can still be seen to

in the form of little white dots on the stone slabs. On top of the stone base, wooden beams, and on top of these, la

of mudbricks alternating with wooden beams were placed. Afterwards the wall was plastered. On top of the wall w

battlement, which was decorated with pinnacles made of mudbricks (Fig. 1).28

2.2 Construction of the Fortification Wall

The fortification wall is built of two parallel walls at variable distances.29At regular distances, cross walls bond the pa

walls. Hence, this wall consists of many cabinets at regular distances (Fig. 2). In German, this type of construction is ca

Kastenmauer.30The English equivalent would be cabinet wall. These cabinets of the wall were filled with rubble sto

and sand. The superstructure is the framework masonry, which was described previously.

2.3 Building Units

Three different building units of the Hittite fortification wall can be listed. These are: (1) towers, (2) postern gates, and

city gates. The Hittites supported their fortification walls with towers at regular distances (Fig. 3). They are built in betw

13 Middle chronology. See Dinol 2006

14 Koay 1938, 1951; Koay & Akok 1966; Ark 1937

15 Lloyd 1940, 93-97

16 Mller-Karpe 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004 a and b

17 Von der Osten 1929, 1930, 1937. Von der Osten & Schmidt 1932

18 Woolley & Lawrence 1914; Woolley 1921; Woolley&Barnett 1952

19 Ahrens et al. 2008

20 Gorny et al. 1995, 2002, Gorny 2006

21 Summers 1993

22 Czichon 2008

23 kse 2000, 91-92 Abb. 5a-b

24 Pellon 1970, 1992

25 Naumann 1971, 93; Mielke 2009, 94 Abb. 8

26 For example at the Lion Gate in Boazky

27 For example in Alaca Hyk at the backside of the Sphinx Gate.28 An architectural piece from a vase, depicting a tower, was found in Boazky. This piece also shows that the top of the fortification wall was decorated pinnacles. Bittel 1960, 31 Fig. 34 a-b; 33 Fig. 36-37. A similar group of vases which imitate towers was found at Hittite sites as well. Examples were excavaKuakl, Boazky and Ortaky. For Boazky: Seeher 2007, 20-21 Fig. 13-14; Schachner 2008, 132 Fig. 29. The examples from Ortaky (orum) are not publbut exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in orum. For Kuakl: Mller-Karpe 2003

29 The front wall of Poternenmauer in Boazky is 3 m thick, the back wall 2.7 m. The distance of these walls is 2.1 m. In total the wall is 7.8 m wide. Puc1984, 86

30 The Kastenmauer should not be confused with the casemate wall, which is a different type of wall. The term casemate indicates a function rather than a butype. The difference between casemate and Kastenmauer is that the cabinets of the casemate walls were used as habitation areas or workshops. The cabinets oKastenmauer were not used as habitation areas, and most of the time they were filled with rubble stones.

ATHANASIA


12/20

Fig. 1: Fragment of a tower-vase from Boazky. Katalogueof the Anatolian Civilizations Museum Ankara, 130, fig. 207

Fig. 2: Kastenmauer with towers. Seeher 2007, 27, fig. 16

Fig. 3: A part of the Hittite fortification wall in Yerkap in Boazky, with toers in regular distances. Puchstein 1984, 51, fig. 38

Fig. 4: Reconstruction a part of a 65 m long part of the fortification wall in Boazky. Seeher 2007, 14 Fig. 6

Fig. 5a: Kingsgate in Boazky. Puchstein 1984, plate 17 Fig. 5b: Reconstruction of the Kings Gate. Puchstein 1984, fig. 46

IDEM MANER

58 ATHANAS


13/20


the parallel walls of the fortification wall and project out of the wall. The towers consist of two rectangular chambe

sometimes of four unequal sized chambers.31There is no indication of how high the towers were, but they must have b

at least one floor. Some towers had windows to observe the plain. Not all towers have accesses. Some have an entra

from the interior of the city. The reconstruction of a 65-meter-long part of the fortification wall in the lower town in Boa

gives a good idea how it could have been in the Hittite Empire period (Fig. 4).32

To control the traffic in and out of the city, the fortification walls were equipped with gates flanked by towers. The Hit

were building chamber gates. The chambers are formed by walls, which jut out of the side walls of the gate. The gateshave up to three chambers. There are variations in the covering, and some of them were decorated with sculptures.

There are three types of gate covering: (1) the paraboloid-like corbelled vault; (2) a horizontal stone slab placed on

vertical door pillars and (3) gates covered with timber. The one-chamber gates known from Boazky (Lion, Sphinx

Kings Gate) and Alaca Hyk (Sphinx Gate) are covered at the entrance and exit with a paraboloid-like corbelled vault

5). The heavy, big boulders are bonded with bronze dowel pins.33These gates are also decorated with reliefs or sculptu

Another specific unit of the Hittite defense architecture is the postern gate (Fig. 6). The postern gate is a tunnel which g

under the rampart and is covered with a corbelled vault. The entrance is from the inner part of the town, whereas the e

on the exterior of the city. The longest known postern is 72 m long, which is in Boazky at Yerkap. So far, postern gates h

been discovered in Boazky, Oymaaa, Alaca Hyk, Aliar and Ugarit in Syria. The function of these gates is not

clear. The common idea is that it had a military function.34It was a quick and easy way to get out of the city and face

enemy in the time of war. Other than that, it was certainly a gate into the city. In order to build a postern, first the postern

to be built, then it was covered with earth. On top of that a rampart was made and on top of the rampart the fortificawas built.35Postern gates were started to be built at the end of the MBA (Aliar). The postern gates at the Poternenma

in Boazky were dated through radiokarbon dating into the 16th century, which is the Old Hittite period.36But it is not c

when the others (for example on Bykkale or in Alaca Hyk) were built. The postern gate in Ugarit is constructed like

one in Boazky. Yon is dating the postern into the 15th-14th century BC.37

2.4 Dating Hittite Fortifications

The construction date of most of the Hittite fortifications is not known for sure. The reason for that is the lack of dateable f

ceramics or organic materials such as burnt wood, burnt mudbrick or burnt seeds which could help to arrive at a rela

date for the fortification wall. Most of the time the fortification walls are not excavated to the foundation level, where pos

some dateable material could be found. However, the excavated gates in Kuakl are dated through dendrochronolog

analysis. According to Kuniholm, the NW-Gate of Kuakl dates into the second half of the 16th century BC and the SE-G

31 For example in Boazky, Kuakl, Alaca Hyk.

32 Seeher 2007

33 Seeher 2005, 30 Fig. 13

34 Miglus 2005, 605

35 Naumann 1971, 125 Fig. 124 b

36 Seeher 2006, 74-75 Abb. 38

37 Yon 2006, 33 Abb. 18a-2

Fig. 6: Intersection through the rampart and thepostern gate in Yerkap Boazky. Puchstein 1984,37 Abb. Fig.26

ATHANASIA


14/20


15/20

Fig. 8: Tiryns Plan. Maran 2004, 262 Fig. 1

Fig. 9: Gla S-gate. Iakovidis 2001, 19 Plan 5

Fig. 10: Lion gate in Mycenae. Photograph of the author

Fig. 7: Sawtooth wall in Gla. Iakovidis 2001, Plate 2.3

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HITTITE AND MYCENAEAN FORTIFICATION ARCHITEC

ATHANASIA


16/20

3.2 Construction of the Fortification Wall

The walls are massive: there are no cabinets in between the walls.53The fortification walls in Gla and Tiryns are built in

staggered manner, which gives the wall a zigzag look. In some cases, the offsets are on the outer wall as well as on the inn

side of the wall. This type of wall construction is called sawtooth wall (Fig. 7). This feature doesnt occur in Midea, Mycen

or Teichos Dymaion. Here the fortification wall has an even surface.

The construction of this staggered system is so far not investigated in detail. It is not clear whether the joints go through t

whole thickness of the wall or not. In Gla, for example, Noack postulated that the joints go through the whole wall, b

Iakovidis argues that this has to be investigated in detail, because there might be a connection with the cabinets in th

base.54

The chambers inside the fortification wall of the Unterstadt in Tiryns are unique. They were built into the wall, during the tim

the wall was built.55The function of these cabinets is not clear. They might have a storage function as well as military. All

them have loopholes, which might have been used by archers.

3.3 Building Units

The building units of the Myceanean fortifications are towers, gates, sally ports and cisterns.56There are not many examp

where the fortification wall is enforced with towers. The constructions, which could be considered towers, are the towe

at the SW-corner and the NW-corner of the West bastion of the Oberstadt in Tiryns (Fig. 8). These towers are rectanguland have empty cabinets.57 The so-called SE-tower in Mycenae is more like a projection (bastion) of the wall. It is n

an independent tower construction like the ones in Tiryns. Iakovidis writes that, in Gla, the gates are flanked with towe

However these towers are massive, and they dont have empty cabinets. The towers are actually extended parts of t

fortification wall and they are more like a bastion.

Three types of gates can be observed. The first type is a direct access gate, without chambers, like for example the Ea

gate of Tiryns (3rd building phase) (Fig. 8), the East-gate of Midea 58or the Southwest-Gate in Athens59. Also the access

the Northeast part of the citadel in Mycenae and the North-gate of Tiryns60belongs to this type. Chamber gates are know

from Tirnys (Unterstadt Northgate), Midea61(Fig. 9) and Gla (N-Gate; SE-Gate).62The third type are the gates with a projecti

bastion to the right side of the gate entrance. The Lion Gate and the North (Water) Gate in Mycenae63, the West-gate

the Mycenaean citadel in Athens (Fig. 10) and the SE-gate in Gla64belong to this group. The access to the gates sometim

includes ramps and sometimes steps. Every settlement has a gate with a ramp for the chariots. The gates with steps we

convenient for pedestrian and animal traffic. The Westgate in Tiryns is unique in form and represents the third type. It is not

direct acess gate, it has a swinning form. Steps lead up to the citadel and the gateway is covered with a corbelled vault

was only convenient for pedestrian and animal traffic.

Sally ports were gates which were used as an exit and entrance. They are leading through the fortification wall and a

covered with a corbeled vault. They were found in Mycenae and Tiryns. 65Underground cisterns were found in Athen

53 There is no standard thickness of the walls. For Example in Tiryns the thickness is 5-7 m. In Mycenae: 5,5-7,25 m.

54 Noack 1894; Iakovidis 2001, 12

55 Schnuchel 1980; 1983

56 The galleries in Tiryns are not considered building units of a Mycenaean fortification. They were probably used for storage; however, they also had a protectiaspect. They have loopholes at the ends, which could have been used by archers to protect the city in war times.

57 Mller 1930, 2 Fig. 2. The one on the SW-corner of the Oberstadt has two cabinets.

58 Persson 1942, 359 Welter 1939, 1-10 Abb. 2-5; Iakovidis 2006, 117-8 Plan 17

60 Grossmann 1980, 477-484, Abb. 2, 7

61 West-gate. Demakopoulou & Divari-Valakou 1999, 208 Pl. 40

62 Iakovidis 2001, 11-21

63 Mylonas 1957, 29

64 Iakovidis 2001, 12

65 Mycenae: Tiryns: Maran 2008, 41-42 Fig. 9-11; Marzolff 2008

66 Kavvadias 1897, 26-32; Broneer 1939

IDEM MANER

62 ATHANAS


17/20


Mycenae67and Tiryns68. Aisles with steps are leading down to the water. The aisles are covered with a corbelled vault.

3.4 Dating Mycenaean Fortifications

The construction date of the Mycenean fortifications started in LH IIIA2, in the first half of the 14th century BC. Accordin

Iakovidis, Tiryns (1. Burg) is the first settlement which was fortified. Then in LH IIIB Mycenae, Midea, Athens, Gla and TirynBurg) were embraced by a fortification wall.69

4. Comparison of Hittite and Mycenaean Fortification Architecture

The construction techniques of the fortification walls of the Hittites and the Mycenaeans are fairly different. They u

different materials as well as different building techniques. The Hittite fortification wall had a stone base and a superstruc

of mudbrick and timber. The wall was plastered and the battlement was most likely decorated with pinnacles.

Mycenaeans were building massive cyclopean fortification walls out of big stone boulders, and the gaps between

boulders were filled with small stones. The cyclopean masonry is similar in both civilizations, however, the Mycenae

used much bigger boulders for their fortifications. The cyclopean masonry with huge boulders seems to be an indigin

development of the LH III period in mainland Greece. The Mycenaean fortification wall was not plastered, but often

gaps were plastered with a yellowish clay. There is no indication of how the battlement was built. The Hittites were buil

their walls on ramparts, whereas the Mycenaean fortification walls are embedded in the natural stone ground. Also,

construction of the walls is different, as is the masonry of the walls. As already explained, the Kastenmauer is a diffe

construction from the sawtooth wall.

The Mycenaean and Hittite workmen used the same tools such as the stone hammer to finish the stones. The hollow

was used to drill dowel holes on stone boulders.70Stones used in the Hittite fortification walls have dowel holes to mortise

timber. There are several indications of drill holes in stones in Boazky and Alaca Hyk at the gates and in the sculpt

of the gates. However, drill holes on boulders of cyclopean fortification walls are not found yet. In fact they didnt nee

because they didnt have a superstructure made of mudbrick and timber. In connection with the fortification it was use

drill holes on the lion relief, to cut off edges and also to drill holes in door jambs.

Parallels in the gate architecture can be observed. The Hittites were building chamber gates; the Mycenaeans mostly d

acess gates. However, in Gla, Tiryns and Midea there are also chamber gates, although they were constructed in diffe

manners as it was explained in the previous parts. Especially the North and the South gates in Gla recall the one-chamgates from Boazky.71Also the construction of the little gate outside of Yerkap in Boazky and the North Gate in Myce

is similar. The lintel is carried by rectangular slabs. In addition, both civilizations were building ramps to reach the gate.

Three of the gates in Boazky and one in Alaca Hyk are decorated with reliefs or sculptures. The Lion-Gate in Boa

is flanked on the outside with lion sculptures. The Lion-Gate in Mycenae is not flanked with sculptures, but has a reliev

triangle on top of the gate, which is decorated with standing lions. Here, it is not the construction which is similar, but

decoration topic. As explained in the first part of this paper, some scholars think, that this topic is an influence from Anat

However from Hittite Anatolia there is no similar depiction known. The column between the lions on the lion relief in Myce

seem to be a Minoan influence. Looking at Minoan art one can find similar depictions of this composition.72

An interesting commonality is that the Mycenaeans and the Hittites were using conglomerate stone for the huge bl

at the gates. The Kings Gate in Boazky has reddish conglomerate blocks and the Lion Gate and the North-Gat

Mycenae as well as the inner East-Gate in Tiryns. It seems that these gates were meant to be emphasized. Maran has sh

67 Karo 1934

68 Verdelis 1965 and 1966

69 Iakovidis 1983, 108; Kilian 1988

70 Kpper 1996, 10-11 Fig. 101, 104, 105; Seeher 2005

71 However, the construction is different.

72 Evans has supposed that the theme of the lion relief is influenced by Minoan art, which is known from LM IB-LM II. Evans 1964, 612-614

ATHANASIA


18/20

IDEM MANER

for Tiryns, that conglomerat stone was used at liminal points to emphasize its importance.73Presumably the Hittites used it

the same reason.

Covering wide spaces with a corbelled vault is a construction technique which the Hittites and the Mycenaean have

common. In the Hittite defensive architecture, the corbelled vault was used to cover the tunnels under the ramparts, t

posterns. The Mycenaeans expanded the repertoire and also covered the staircase to the cisterns, gate shrines, gallerie

the monumental West Gate in Tiryns and sally ports with a corbelled vault. There are small differences in the constructiobut as a feature they are the same. The postern gates in the Poternenmauer in Boazky date into the 16th. century B

However corbelled vaults occur only in the Argolid in LH IIIB. Although there are many LH IIIB fortifications also in the Kop

in Boetia, the corbelled vault wasnt applied here.

In conclusion the cyclopean masonry, the corbelled vault and the usage of conglomerate stones at gates can be observ

in both civilizations. The cyclopean masonry with smaller stones was applied to fortification walls also before the Late Hellad

period. It can be deducted that building cyclopean fortification walls with big boulders is an indiginous development of t

LH III period. The Hittites were building corbelled vaults already in the 16th. century BC, which is around 300 years earlier tha

in the Argolid. Assuming that there was a technology or idea transfer, one has to think about how this transfer has take

place.

5. Traveling ideas and techniques

Near Eastern and Egyptian texts are mentioning travelling craftsmen. 74Zaccagnini pointed out, that the emergence an

spread of specialised crafts in the ancient Near East were strictly bound to the temple and economic structure of th

palace. From accounts in cuneiform texts he is able to distinguish between three groups of craftsmen: (1) redistributive,

reciprocative and (3) commercial. The second group is including also the gift exchange between great kings. 75It can b

assumed that the Hittite system was organized in the same way. Craftsmen are tightly bound to the palace and specializ

workers were send abroad to other great kings.

There are no written documents which tell us that Hittite craftsmen went from Boazky or other Hittite cities to Mycena

settlements.76From a cuneiform text from the time of Hattushili III it is known that the Hittite king was sending craftsmen

gifts to Egypt. Hattushili, who was hypochondra, didnt believe much in Hittite doctors. He wrote to the Pharao in Egy

asking for the best doctors they have and to send them over to Hattua.77As a present for this gesture he had send his be

sculptors to Egypt. An assumption could be, that Hittite craftsmen were sent to Mycenaean settlements as a gift on

kingly basis. This would support Zaccagninis reciprocative group of craftsmen. However there are no written evidenc

for that kind of action.

Another assumption could be, that technologies and constructions were seen in other cultures (in this case Hittite Anatol

and then applied to their own architecture. Iakovidis assumed that the Achaeans of Mycecaean Greece let themselves b

taught by the world around them and that they had adapted elements and applied them to their own culture.78

Brysbaerts recent analyze of wall paintings in Crete, mainland Greece, Hittite Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt has show

that the technological transfer seems to go from West to East.79The wall paintings from Temple 9 in Boazky are made

the al frescotechnique and belong to the same group of wall paintings as the Mycenaen mainland sites. This is considere

as an indication that Mycenaean craftsmen were in Boazky painting the walls of important, monumental building

However, in the case of the corbelled vaults, there is certainly a transfer from East to West.

73 Maran 2006

74 Zaccagnini 198375 In this group also doctors and diviners were included.

76 The majority of researchers postulate, that the Hittite term Ahhiyawa is indicating Mycenaean Greece. A discussion is going on, if Ahhiyawa is a specifMycenaean settlement or the whole Mycenaean region. See for a summary of the Ahhiyawa research history and question: Niemeier 2002 and lastly Niemeier 20Porko 2010

77 Edel 1976

78 Iakovidis 1983, 108

79 Brysbaert 2008, 155

80 So far wall paintings in Boazky have been found only in Temple 9 in the Oberstadt. Probably there will be found more in the future.

64 ATHANAS


19/20

Ahrens, A., E. Kozal, C. Kmmel, I. Laube, M. Novak 2008. SirkeliHyk Kulturkontakte in Kilikien. Vorbericht ber die Kampagnen2006 und 2007 der deutsch-trkischen Mission.IstMitt 58:67-107.

Ark, R. O. 1937. Les Fouilles dAlaca Hyk. Ankara: Trk TarihKurumu Yaynlar.

Bittel, K. 1960. B.Ausgewhlte Kleinfunde aus J-K/20.MDOG 92:21-35.

Bittel, K. 1984. Denkmler eines hethitischen Groknigs des 13.Jahrhunderts vor Christus. Gerda henkel Vorlesung. Opladen.

Broneer, O. 1939. A Mycenaen Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis.Hesperia 8, No. 4: 317-433.

Brysbaert, A 2008. The Power of Technology in the Bronze AgeEastern Mediterranean. The Case of Painted Plaster. London: EquinoxPublishing.

Czichon, R. M. 2008, Die hethitische Kultur im Schwarzmeergebietunter besonderer bercksichtigung der Umgebung von Vezirkpr. In:G. Wilhelm,Hattua Boazky. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfelddes Alten Orients, 265-276. Wiesbaden: Harrssowitz

Demakopoulou, K., N. Divari-Valakou 1999. The fortifications of theMycenaean acropolis of Midea. In: R. Laffineur,Polemos. Le contexteguerrier en ge lge du Bronze, Actes de la 7e Rencontre genneinternationale, Universit de Lige, 14-17 avril 1998, 205-212.Lige: Universit de Lige, Histoire de lart et archologie de la Grceantique.

Dinol, B. 2006. ber die Probleme der absoluten Datierung derHerrschaftsperioden der hethitischen Knige nach den philologischenund glyptischen Belegen. In: D.-P. Mielke, J. Seeher, U.-D.Schoop (eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischenArchologie: Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Anstze; InternationalerWorkshop Istanbul, 26-27. November 2004 , Byzas 4, 19-32.Istanbul:Ege Yaynlar.

Edel, E. 1976. gyptische rzte und pyptische Medizin am hethitischenKnigshof. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Evans, A. 1964. The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Volume IV Part II.London: Macmillan and Co.

Gorny, R. L., G. McMahon, S. Paley and L. Kealhofer 1995. The AliarRegional Project 1994.Anatolica 21:65-100.

Gorny, R. L., G. McMahon, S. Paley, S. Steadman and B. Verhaaren2002. The 2000 and 2001 Seasons at adr Hyk in Central Turkey: APreliminary Report.Anatolica 28: 109-136.

Gorny, R. L. 2006. The 2002-2005 Excavation Seasons at adr Hyk.The Second Millenium Settlements.Anatolica32:29-54.

Karo, G. 1934. Die Perseia von Mykenai.AJA 38: 123-127.

Kavvadias, P. 1897.AE1897

Kilian, K. 1988. Mycenaeans up to date, trends and changes in recentresearch. In: E. B. French - K.A. Wardle, Problems in Greek Prehistory,115-152, Bristol: Classical Press

Klinger, J. 2006. Der Beitrag der Textfunde zur Archologiegeschichteder hethitischen Haupstadt. In: D.-P. Mielke, J. Seeher, U.-D.Schoop (eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischenArchologie: Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Anstze; InternationalerWorkshop Istanbul, 26-27. November 2004 , Byzas 4:5-17.Istanbul: EgeYaynlar.

Koay, H. Z. 1938. Trk Tarih Kurumu tarafndan yaplan Alaca HykHafriyat, 1936daki almalara ve keiflere ait ilk rapor. Ankara: Trk

Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar.

Koay, H. Z. 1951. Trk Tarih Kurumu tarafndan yaplan Alaca HKazs, 1937-1939 daki almalara ve keiflere ait ilk rapor. AnTrk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar.

Koay, H. Z. and M. Akok 1966. Trk Tarih Kurumu tarafndan yaAlaca Hyk Kazs, 1940-1948 deki almalara ve keiflere arapor. Ankara: TrkTarih Kurumu Yaynlar.

Kuniholm, P. I., M. Newton, N. Riche 2004, DendrochronoloResults from the 2002 Collection at Kuakl.MDOG136:162-63.

Kpper, M. 1996.Mykenische Architektur. Material, BearbeitungstecKonstruktion und Erscheinungsbild. Espelkamp: Verlag Marie LeGmbH.

Iakovidis, S. E. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland GrLeiden: E. J. Brill.

Iakovidis, S. E. 2001. Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens.

Iakovidis, S. E. 2006. The Mycenaean Acropolis of Athens. Athens

Archaeological Society at Athens.Ik, F. 2006. Mimaride Hitit Akha-likileri. In: A. Erkanal-tk Hayat Erkanala Armaan. Kltrlerin Yansmas, 440-450. IstaHomer Kitapevi.

Lloyd, S. 1940. Architectural Features of Levels I-VIII. LAAA VoNos 3-4:93-97.

Maran, J. 2004.Architektonische Innovation im sptmykenischen T Lokale Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflsse.In: AlthellenTechnologie und Technik von der prhistorischen bis zur hellenistiZeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prhistorischen Epoche, 261-93.

Maran, J. 2006. Mycenaean Citadels as Performative Space. IMaran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel, U. Thaler (ed.) Constructing PoArchitecture, Ideology and Social Practice, 75-88 Taf. 11-13.

Maran, J. 2008. Forschungen in der Unterburg von Tiryns 2000-2AA 1. Halbband 2008: 35-112.

Marzolff, P. 2008. Ein neu entdeckter Gang an der Nordsder Unterburgsmauer von Tiryns. AA 2008 1. Halbband, 97Mastrokostas, E 1962. . .Ergon 1962: 171-17

Mastrokostas, E 1965. . .Ergon 1965: 94-101

Mastrokostas, E. 1966. . 1127-133.

Mastrokoastas, E. 1967. .Ergon 1966: 156-165.

Mielke, D. P. 2009. Alte Paradigmen und neue Erkenntnissehethitischen Holz-Lehmziegel Architektur. In: M. Bachmann Bautechnik im antiken und vorantiken Kleinasien. Byzas 9, 81Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.

Miglus, P. Poterne. In:Reallexikon der Assyrologie. Berlin: de Gru

Mller, K. 1930, Tiryns. Augsburg: Dr. Benno Filsner Verlag G.M.

Mller-Karpe, A. 1995, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 1992-94. M127:5-36, Berlin.

Mller-Karpe, A. 1996, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 1995.MDOG69-94.

Mller-Karpe, Kuakl. Ausgrabungen in einer hethitischen Stadt.AWelt27/4:305-12.

Mller-Karpe, A. 1997, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 1996. MDOG


B I B L I O G R A P H Y

ATHANASIA


20/20

103-142.

Mller-Karpe, A. 1998, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 1997.MDOG130:93-174.

Mller-Karpe, A. 1999, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 1998.MDOG131:57-114.

Mller-Karpe 2001, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 2000.MDOG133: 225-250.

Mller-Karpe A. 2002, Kuakl-Sarissa, Kultort im Oberen Land. In:DieHethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Gtter, AusstellungskatalogBonn, 176-189, Bonn.

Mller-Karpe, A. 2003a. Eine Kultvase aus Kuakl-Sarissa. In: M.zdoan, H. Hauptmann and N. Bagelen (eds.), From Villages toTowns. Studies Presented toUfuk Esin, 307-312. Istanbul: Arkeoloji veSanat.

Mller-Marpe, A. 2003b. Remarks on Central Anatolian Chronology ofthe Middle Hittite Period. In: M. Bietak (ed.) The synchronosation ofcivilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second Millenium BC.383-394. Wien:

Mller-Karpe, A 2004a, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 2002.MDOG136:103-135.

Mller-Karpe, A. 2004b, Untersuchungen in Kuakl 2003.MDOG136:137-172.

Mylonas, G. E. 1957. Ancient Mycenae. The Capital City of Agamemnon.Princeton: Universiy Press.

Mylonas, G. E. 1966. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton:Princeton Univeristy Press.

Naumann, R. 1971. Architektur Kleinasiens. Tbingen: Verlag ErnstWasmuth.

Neve, P. 1991. Hethitischer Gewlbebau, In: A. Hoffmann, E. - L.Schwandner, W. Hoepfner, Bautechnik der Antike, 161-165. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern.

Niemeier, W. D. 2002.Hattua und Ahhiyawa im Konflikt um Milawanda/Milet. In: Die Hethiter und ihr Reich, Ausstellungskatalog, 294-299.Stuttgart: Theiss, 2002.

Niemeier, W.-D. 2008. Hattusas Beziehungen zum westlichen Kleinasienund dem mykenischen Griechenland nach den neuesten Forschungen. In:G. Wilhelm, Hattua Boazky. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfelddes Alten Orients, 291-421. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Neve, P. 1992.Hattua Stadt der Gtter und Tempel. Neue Ausgrabungenin der Haupstadt der Hethiter.Antike Welt 23, Sondernummer. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern.

Newton, M. W. and P. I. Kuniholm 2004, A DendrochronologicalFramework for the Assyrian Colony Period in Asia Minor. Tba-Ar7:165-176.

kse, T. 2000. Neue hethitische Siedlungen zwischen Maat Hyk undKuakl.IstMitt 50, 87-111.

Pelon, O. 1970. Rapport prliminaire sur la campagne de fouilles aPorsuk-Ulukula (Turquie). Syria47: 279-286.

Pelon, O. 1992. Quatre Campagnes Porsuk (Cappadoce Meridioniale)de 1986 1989. Syria 69: 305-347.

Persson, A. 1942. New Tombs at Dendra Near Midea. Lund, London,Oxford, Leipzig.

Popko, M. 2010. Hethiter und Ahhiyawa: Feinde? In: Y. Cohen - A. Gilan- J. L. Miller, Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighborsin Honor of Itamar Singer, 284-289, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

Puchstein, O. 1984. Boghaski, die Bauwerke. Leipzig Osnabrck:

Verlag J. C. Hinrichs.

Schachner, A. 2008. Die Ausgrabungen in Boazky-Hattua 2007.1. Halbband, 113-161.

Schachner, A. 2009. Zeitwende im hethitischen Zentralanatolien.IstM2009, 9-34.

Schnuchel, W 1980. Beobachtungen an der Unterburgmauer

Tiryns. Bericht ber die 31. Tagung fr Ausgrabungswissenschaft uBauforschung vom 14.-18. Mai 1980 in Osnabrck, 15-21.

Schnuchel, W. 1983. Zur KO 4 Einer Kammer in der Unterburgsmavon Tiryns.AA 1983: 402-412.

Scoufopoulos, N. C. 1971. Mycenaean Citadels. Gteborg: Paul strFrlag.

Seeher, J. 2005. Bohren wie die Hethiter: Rekonstruktion vBohrmschinen der Sptbronzezeit und Beispiele ihrer VerwendunIstMitt 55: 17-36.

Seeher, J. (ed.) 2006. Ergebnisse der Grabungen an den Ostteichund am mittleren Bykkale-Nordwesthang in den Jahren 1996-20Boazky Berichte 8. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

Seeher, J. 2007.Die Lehmziegel-Stadtmauer von Hattua. Bericht beine Rekonstruktion. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.

Seeher, J. 2008. Innovation im Bauwesen als Indikator fr Kulturkont Hethiter und Mykener als Fallbeispiel. In: F. Pirson U. Wulf-RheAustausch und Inspiration: Kulturkontakt als Impuls architektoniscInnovation, 1-15. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern

Summers, G. D. Tille Hyk 4. The Late Bronze Age and the Iron ATransition, BIAA No. 15. London: British Institute of ArchaeologyAnkara.

Verdelis, N. 1965. .Deltion 18 (1963): 66-73.

Verdelis, N. 1966. .Deltion 19 (1964): 108-118.

Von der Osten, H.H. 1929.Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1927-Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.

Von der Osten, H. H. 1930. The Alishar Hyk Season of 1927, OIP Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.

Von der Osten, H. H. and Schmidt, E. F. 1932. The Alishar Hyk Seasof 1927, OIP VII. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.

Von der Osten, H. H. 1937. The Alishar Hyk Seasons of 1930-32, PII, OIP Vol29. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.

Wace, A. J. B. 1949. Mycenae. An archeological history and guiPrinceton: Princeton University Press.

Welter, G. 1939. Vom Nikepyrgos.AA Beiblatt I/II: 1-22.

Woolley, C. L. and T. E. Lawrence 1914. Carchemish. Report on Excavations at Djerabis on Behalf of the British Museum, PartIntroductory. London; printed by order of the trustees.

Woolley, C. L. 1921. Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djeraon Behalf, Part II. The Town Defences of the British Museum. Lond

printed by order of the trustees.

Woolley, C. L. and R. D. Barnett 1952. Carchemish Part III. TExcavations in the Inner Town. London; printed by order of the truste

Yon, M. 2006. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona LakEisenbrauns.

Zaccagnini, C. 1983. Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near EastCraftsmen.JNES 42/4: 245-264.

IDEM MANER

66 ATHANAS

maner - a comparative study of hittite and mycenaean fortification architecture,in the earthly,...

Documents

comparative study of

d ephorate ofprehistoric

university of athens

classical antiquities

university of cretedepartment

c o n t r i b u t o

universitt salzburg

prehistoric archaeology