Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments

CHAPTER TWENTY O O PR Ömür Harmanşah FS Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments Introduction U N C O R R EC TE D Fieldwork at rock reliefs and the study of stone monuments date to the earliest episodes of the archaeology of the Near East as a discipline. Throughout the early modern period, travelers and antiquarians who visited the lands of the Ottoman Empire and Iran frequently engaged with rock monuments as the most conspicuous material remains of remote antiquity. Among these ruins firmly embedded in the landscape, I consider both monuments that are carved onto bedrock—rock reliefs and inscriptions— and other kinds of “landscape monuments” (Glatz and Plourde 2011) constructed in the countryside, such as the Hittite sacred pool complexes at Eflatunpınar and Yalburt. These monuments often incorporate hieroglyphic and cuneiform inscriptions, and myriad pictorial representations, carved into the living rock. Such durable documents of ancient landscapes constituted windows into the archaeology of the region for the earliest modernist engagements with the countryside and its rich heritage ripe for the wildest scholarly imagination. The study of rock monuments was thus foundational for the field of ancient Near Eastern studies. Rock monuments have been abundantly documented in drawings and photographs, and were extensively described in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by enthusiastic travelers trained in classical literature and historical geography (Seeher 2002). Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810–1895), a British A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Art, First Edition. Edited by Ann C. Gunter. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 0003634125.INDD 483 05/16/2018 7:07:42 AM 484 Ömür Harmanşah U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS political resident and military officer in Baghdad, for instance, was stationed in 1835 in Kermanshah, in western Iran. He soon traveled to the nearby rock monument of Bisotun (Behistun) and began to copy its trilingual cuneiform inscription in Akkadian, Old Persian, and Elamite commissioned by the Achaemenid king Darius I (522–486 BCE). Rawlinson’s repeated visits over the next few years culminated in his contribution toward deciphering the cuneiform script (Larsen 1996: 79–87). The Armenian‐Iranian photographer Antoin Sevruguin (l840–1933) likewise took a deep interest in Iran’s ancient rock monuments while photographing Iranian landscapes and documenting the country’s cultural heritage (Figure 20.1) (Bohrer 1999). In his remarkable photographs of places such as Bisotun, Naqsh‐e Rustam, Taq‐e Bustan, Rayy, and Hajiabad, Achaemenid and Sasanian rock monuments testify to the long cultural history of the Iranian landscape. At the same time, the Orientalist visual cliché of idling locals as contemporary witnesses renders the monuments in such representations appropriately distanced in the remote past. Figure 20.1 Naqsh‐e Rustam, Sasanian reliefs depicting the investiture of Ardashir I (224–240 CE). Print from photograph by Antoin Sevruguin, 1898–1902. Myron Bement Smith Collection, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Gift of Katharine Dennis Smith, 1973–1985. FS‐FSA_ A. 4_ 2.12. Sm. 14. 0003634125.INDD 484 05/16/2018 7:07:42 AM 485 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS The well‐known rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya located outside the Hittite capital Hattusa (modern Boğazköy) (Figure 20.2) was visited and documented by many nineteenth‐century travelers, including French historian Charles Texier (in 1834); Scottish geologist William J. Hamilton (in 1836); a German explorer of Africa, Heinrich Barth (in 1858); French travelers Georges Perrot, Edmond Guillaume, and Jules Delbet (in 1861); American missionary Rev. Henry J. van Lennep (in 1864); German engineer Carl Humann (in 1882), whose plaster casts of the reliefs are now displayed in Berlin’s Vorderasiatisches Museum; and British politician Henry Algernon George Percy, Earl Percy (Lord Warkworth) (in 1897).1 Given that many of these travelers remained for extended periods, and drew and photographed the site, one may suggest that Yazılıkaya persisted as an active site of memory and continued to host image‐making practices. Texier (1839) extensively documented the site through a series of extraordinary illustrations, interpreting the carved figures as a meeting of Amazons and Paphlagonians in two processions—surely a consequence of his classical education. Yet these engagements of travelers and antiquarians with rock reliefs have a deeper history in the Middle East.2 The seventeenth‐century Turkish traveler and geographer Kâtip Çelebi visited the rock relief of King Warpalawas Figure 20.2 Yazılıkaya, view of main chamber (A). Near Boğazköy (ancient Hattusa); thirteenth century BCE. Photograph courtesy of Ann C. Gunter. 0003634125.INDD 485 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 486 Ömür Harmanşah U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS (ca. 740–705 BCE) at Ivriz in the northern foothills of the Taurus Mountains; he later described it in his Kitâb‐ı Cihânnümâ and discussed the healing qualities of the nearby spring and its mud. He referred to the site as “Peygamber Pınarı,” literally the “Spring of the Prophet,” which in his time had become a pilgrimage site.3 Jean Otter, a Swedish‐French traveler, seems to have visited Ivriz in January 1737 and later published a detailed account of his impressions of the relief, identifying the image of Tarhunzas as “Abris,” as the figure was locally known (Jean 2001: 151). These early modern accounts of rock monuments furnish an excellent cross section of Orientalist, local, national, and other imaginations of ruins in the landscape, while also providing reflections on the relationship of rock monuments to their immediate landscapes and to broader networked territories. These visits have also been intimately linked to the construction of historical geographies in the minds of classically educated travelers and antiquarians. The spring site of Ivriz and its associated rock monuments furnish a remarkable example of a place where human engagement with a geologically special locale results in a complex series of image‐making events over the long term. These images and their evocative geological context of bedrock, mountainous scenery, and ice‐cold water gushing from the rock through multiple mouths invite new forms of storytelling and cultural practice. While scholars have most often treated Warpalawas’s famous relief as an isolated monument, recent archaeological work at and near Ivriz has shown that a series of rock reliefs and other monuments were set up at the site, including a second, identical relief in the Ambarderesi gorge; a Phoenician‐Luwian bilingual stele; a rock‐cut altar; a Late Iron Age fortress; and Byzantine monastic structures (Harmanşah 2014b, with bibliography). The archaeological evidence demonstrates that rock relief sites are never really created through a single moment or act, or a state‐sponsored inscription of a previously untouched place. Instead, they are almost always sites of long‐term cultural practice and particular engagements with the remote past. In this chapter I reconsider the widespread view that Near Eastern rock reliefs represent propagandistic fabrications of the political elite or geopolitical instruments mapping territorial power installed on the edges of imperial territories to define, and therefore survey and control, those territories. This traditional assumption takes inspiration from and breeds the colonial terra nullius discourse: the politically charged claim by imperial agents of the emptiness or uncultivated state of conquered landscapes, a prominent rhetoric in Western colonialist discourse of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries (Zukas 2005). In this context, significantly, the monumental inscriptions or annalistic texts of Near Eastern rulers in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages employ a similar rhetoric when describing their urban foundations. 0003634125.INDD 486 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 487 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments O O FS For Assyrian and Urartian rulers, for example, their new cities were built in “uncultivated wilderness” or at sites where “the rock was untouched.”4 Carving the natural rock surface could itself be associated with such colonial gestures of taking over landscapes and places; yet the terra nullius discourse takes its place in the colonial discourse precisely to erase or silence what previously existed in the colonized territories and to legitimize the colonial gesture itself. I suggest that a critical understanding of this rhetoric is crucial to investigating rock monuments of Near Eastern antiquity as places of continuous cultural engagement and memory, which often preceded their monumental inscription by imperial agents. I also advocate an archaeological approach to these sites in order to trace the genealogy of such places in earlier periods of history and evaluate the palimpsest of material engagements they represent. PR Inscribing and Reinscribing Place U N C O R R EC TE D As a distinctive genre of ancient Near Eastern art and epigraphy, rock monuments of Iran, Anatolia, Syro‐Mesopotamia, and the Levant have been surveyed and studied in great detail in a series of catalogue‐like treatments.5 They are traditionally interpreted as visual and verbal statements of imperial power at state frontiers combined with ritual or divine imagery, and consequently serve as tangible evidence to anchor historically known geographies to real and authentic places.6 Both approaches link the making of the rock monuments and the significance of their location to networks of state control and territorial power, and the mapping of those networked geographies (Canby 1989). These interpretations often rightly point out the monuments’ association with political power. Jürgen Seeher (2009: 119), for example, saw Hittite rock reliefs “as a demonstration of power, a kind of territorial claim by the royal family,” while Dominik Bonatz (2007) viewed them as an extraordinary amalgamation of royal ideology and religious visual rhetoric. Claudia Glatz and Aimeé Plourde (2011: 33) recently applied a “costly signaling theory” model to Late Bronze Age Anatolian rock monuments, arguing that the reliefs were “a medium through which ongoing territorial contests are moderated.” Reviewing the complexity of a corpus of monuments within the broader sphere of the Hittite Empire, the authors went beyond understanding rock monuments simply as manifestations of power and insisted on the active role of image‐ and monument‐making as a technology of domination in the negotiation of imperial landscapes (see also Glatz 2009). Yet network model‐based and macro‐scale perspectives on rock monuments also have the effect of removing rock‐cut images and inscriptions from the specific context of the cultural landscapes that surround them. 0003634125.INDD 487 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 488 Ömür Harmanşah U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS Art historical approaches focusing on the stylistic and iconographic aspects of rock reliefs have been fundamental to identifying common visual idioms and sorting out the chaotic heterogeneity of the monuments as pictorial imagery (Kohlmeyer 1983; Bonatz 2007). The extraordinary mixing of deeply religious iconography with a powerful rhetoric of kingship has been extensively studied, especially for the Hittite, Neo‐Assyrian, and Achaemenid monuments (Shafer 1998, 2007; Bonatz 2007; Feldman 2007; Root 2013). The Hittite Great Kings, and various rulers and princes of such Anatolian kingdoms as Tarhuntassa, Kizzuwatna, or Mira, for example, are often depicted in ceremonial garb interacting with the divine. We can compare the relief of Muwatalli II at Sirkeli in the Ceyhan River valley or of Tudhaliya IV at Yazılıkaya near Hattusa with representations of Neo‐Assyrian kings, who are most often shown in a prayer gesture. Yet further study suggests that the visual vocabulary of each rock relief can be intimately linked to the monument’s specific historical circumstances and location. Thus rock monuments are more than isolated expressions of power in the open landscape, and we should consider them as politically charged sites of image‐ making practices, where ideologies may have been contested. When closely studied, the archaeological context of rock monuments provides a wealth of information about their production and meaning. My own fieldwork has demonstrated that monuments with pictorial representations and monumental inscriptions are carved into the living rock at geologically spectacular locations: at the mouths of springs, caves, and sinkholes; on the vertical precipices along river gorges; at important mountain passes; at unusual rock formations or imperial “taskscapes” such as quarries or quarried water canals; and above all in watery landscapes and along waterways (Harmanşah 2014b, 2015). As several examples discussed in this chapter illustrate, many are image‐making interventions and acts of inscription by political agents that explicitly co‐opt local places of power that are already sites of significance and long‐term human engagement (Harmanşah 2007). These are “places of power”: symbolically charged, wondrous places such as sacred caves, particularly abundant springs, places of healing, apparitions or other miraculous events, or liminal sites where humans, dead ancestors and divinities are believed to interact. Writing about contemporary Serbia, the anthropologist Marko Živkovic ́ explained “places of power” as 0003634125.INDD 488 places that have become widely shared symbolic tokens in a particular polity because they accumulated many and varied layers of meaning. For instance, such places of renown or “power” tend to act as “pegs” or “anchors” not only in the “national geography of the mind,” but also in the “social frameworks of memory” on very intimate, personal and familial scales. In short, we need 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 489 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments places to hang our life memories on, and the powers that be always seek to insert their ideology through these locations on which we drape our memories. (Živkovic ́ 2010: 169) U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS The memory of such cultural significance is often lost with the construction of the monument or the reinscription of place. An intriguing example from another cultural sphere is the case of the Mount Rushmore rock monument commemorating presidents of the United States with a strong visual link to the landscape. The heads of four presidents were carved in relief on a mountain sacred to Native Americans in the Black Hills of South Dakota (Doss 2010: 55). Beyond its overt propagandistic rhetoric of permanence and visual spectacle, the commemorative monument in a way derives its power and agency on a local or regional scale through the incorporation or “eating up” of the power of the place, in the sense of simultaneously destroying it and being nourished by it.7 More fundamentally, rock relief sites are often places of multiple acts of inscription and reinscription, rather than constituted by a single act of monument‐making, as is often assumed. At the Elamite pastoral landscape of Izeh/Malamir, in southwestern Iran, twelve rock reliefs and cuneiform inscriptions cluster around the upland basin of Izeh with two major lakes fed by those springs. Located at prominent springs or caves and along streams, they are distributed among the sites of Kul‐e Farah (6), Shekaft‐e Salman (4), Shah Savar (1), and Xong‐e Azda (1) (Álvarez‐Mon 2013). These sites apparently witnessed multiple events of image‐carving during the Middle Bronze and Early and Late Iron Ages. Noting the remarkable geological context of the Izeh basin rock monuments at natural springs and caves and their iconographic repertoire, Álvarez‐Mon (2013: 229) proposes that “Elamite highland religious practices included ritual processions and the enactment of ceremonies in natural open‐air sanctuaries … and experience of [the] supernatural developed out of an association with landscapes of extraordinary natural properties.” Assyrian rulers also revisited, re‐carved, and reinscribed sites with which their ancestors engaged, such as the Source of the Tigris caves north of Diyarbakır in southeastern Turkey and the lesser‐known site of Karabur near Antakya (Harmanşah 2007). At sites such as Sirkeli in the Ceyhan River valley and Karabel on the pass between Manisa and Izmir (Figure 20.3), Hittite and other Late Bronze Age rulers of Anatolia commissioned carved reliefs and inscriptions on multiple occasions. In his recent studies of Iranian rock reliefs, Matthew Canepa (2010, 2014) has analyzed how Sasanian reliefs were carved at sites inscribed by Achaemenid kings—and how such new carving activities at 750‐year‐old sites constituted performative engagements 0003634125.INDD 489 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 490 D PR O O FS Ömür Harmanşah TE Figure 20.3 Karabel rock relief of “Tarkasnawa, King of Mira.” Near Manisa, Turkey; late thirteenth century BCE. Photograph courtesy of Ann C. Gunter. U N C O R R EC with local manifestations of the Persian past. Rock reliefs are sites where rather complex temporal relationships are observed, since they simultaneously fabricate futuristic utopias that project themselves into an anticipated future by adhering to the geological time of the bedrock, while engaging with the deeply historical topographies of power and acting as “a technology of memory.” An extraordinary example of such practices of reinscription is the site of Nahr el‐Kalb in western Lebanon, twelve kilometers north of Beirut, situated at an impressive watery landscape of a river gorge, where the Kalb River valley meets the Mediterranean coast near the prehistoric Jeita caves and spring (Kreppner 2002: 372–73; Volk 2008). In 1909, the German archaeologist Hugo Winckler wrote that Nahr el‐Kalb “is a site suited, like few others, to contemplate the past and the interlinking of the fates of human beings.”8 At least twenty‐two separate rock‐carved monuments are attested, from several reliefs of the Dynasty 19 pharaoh Ramesses II to Neo‐Assyrian and Neo‐ Babylonian rulers such as Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar II; the Roman emperor Caracalla; Napoleon III; and the Lebanese president Bechara El Khoury in 1946. The site is a living and breathing place of state performance and landscape memory, where each inscription simultaneously establishes a particular relationship with local histories and imperial ideologies. 0003634125.INDD 490 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 491 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments FS The archaeological evidence from rock relief sites reveals a great deal about their making as significant places through local practice, political intervention, events of image‐making, and colonial monument building, all at once. This fact urges us to reconsider rock reliefs not as stand‐alone monuments but as complex archaeological places or sites of memory and heritage with deep genealogies (Nora 1989). I now turn to a cross‐cultural perspective on the political entanglements of rock monuments, from the earliest examples to later iterations. O O Rock‐Carving as Colonization of Landscapes and Places U N C O R R EC TE D PR Carving reliefs and inscriptions on the living rock is a practice attested across a wide geographical area in the ancient Near East in distinct episodes during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the late third and early second millennium BCE, Elamite and Akkadian rulers carved an important cluster of rock monuments in the western foothills of the Zagros Mountains in Fars province, southwestern Iran. Among the earliest is the Kurangun rock relief in the Mamasani region of western Fars close to Fahliyan, near the northern tip of the Persian Gulf.9 At an impressive site of a mountain pass overlooking the Fahliyan River gorge and the alluvial plain of Rustam Yek, the rock face atop an outcrop of the Kuh‐e Pataweh is carved into a throne or deep niche, representing multiple episodes of carving in antiquity (Figure 20.4). In the central panel are two seated divinities; the male figure sits on a serpent throne and holds a pot from which spring waters emerge. The entire scene is raised on a representation of a flowing stream filled with fish, possibly alluding to a spring or river. To judge by iconographic parallels, the oldest part of the relief dates to the first half of the second millennium (perhaps seventeenth century BCE). In the Iron Age (eighth–seventh centuries BCE) a new section was added on either side of the main panel, with a strong visual relationship that acknowledges and highlights the centrality of the (by then) ancient pictorial composition (Potts 1999: 182). According to D. T. Potts (2013: 133), the Kurangun relief was apparently incorporated into a substantial Sasanian and early Islamic fortress‐like settlement, although Wolfram Kleiss (1993) had argued for a possibly earlier date for the monumental structures with stone walls visible on the surface. Potts thus suggests that this “late” settlement (of presumably military character) has little to do with the rock reliefs, whose function he considered to be “religious”—even though the reliefs occupy the most prominent and monumental position in the fortress’s upper terrace.10 Yet it seems likely that the 0003634125.INDD 491 05/16/2018 7:07:43 AM 492 PR O O FS Ömür Harmanşah TE D Figure 20.4 Kurangun rock relief. Western Fars province, Iran; early second millennium BCE. Photograph courtesy of Archives, Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels. U N C O R R EC site of the rock reliefs relates intimately to bodies of sacred water such as the river or a nearby spring, enduring as a site of pilgrimage and cult practice in the Iron Age and revived in the late antique‐early Islamic periods. Three additional rock reliefs are situated in western Iran in the borderlands between Iraq and Iran: at Darband‐i Gawr, Sarpol‐e Zohab, and Shaikhan in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Diyala River valley (Postgate and Roaf 1997; Glatz 2014). These monuments were carved along the dramatic river gorges that connected to the Diyala Valley, and are located precisely in a landscape contested between local Elamite communities and conquering Akkadian forces from southern Mesopotamia. This political contestation materialized into the visual rhetoric of the rock monuments that speak closely to the Akkadian ruler Naram‐Sin’s stele depicting victory over the Lullubi, as the close affinity between the monument’s iconography and style and the contemporaneous Darband‐i Gawr relief demonstrates (Glatz 2014: fig. 6.4) (see Figure 14.4 in Downes, this volume). Is it possible to think of Naram‐Sin’s victory monuments both as raised in the urban context of southern Mesopotamia in the form of a stele, and in the mountainous locale of the contested region in the form of a relief carved into the living rock (Bahrani 2008: 101–14)? Or is it a relief carved 0003634125.INDD 492 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 493 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS by the craftsmen of a local ruler who inspired Naram‐Sin, or by a later ruler, as others have suggested (Glatz 2014: 119–20)? Within the same contested region, the rock reliefs of local rulers participate in the same visual idiom. At Shaikhan, a rock relief with a similar image was carved in the Abbasan valley near a burial ground of local Sunni saints; it celebrates the victory of a local ruler possibly dating to the early to mid‐second millennium BCE (Postgate and Roaf 1997: 149; Glatz 2014: 124–26). At Sarpol‐e Zohab, located in Luristan near Qasr‐e Shirin, are four different rock reliefs and inscriptions. One well‐known relief depicts Anubanini, king of the Lullubi, both victorious (stepping on an enemy, holding a bow and arrow in likeness of the Naram‐Sin posture, and accompanied by prisoners of war) and being invested with kingship by a female goddess, possibly Ishtar, who presents him with a ring (Postgate and Roaf 1997; Potts 1999: 318–19 and fig. 9.3; Glatz 2014: 123–24). In the mountains dividing the Iranian plateau from the Mesopotamian plains was thus an active contesting and negotiating of borderlands between different polities. Remarkably, competing political entities adhered to a common visual rhetoric of kingship: representations of military victory, sovereignty, and violent subjugation of enemies; and legitimation through the appearance of the divine (in anthropomorphic form or as abstract symbols). In the absence of thorough archaeological investigation, a cursory comparison suggests that the choice of sites among these reliefs is also comparable, consistently linking themselves to springs, river gorges, and other watery landscapes. In south central Turkey is another contested region where the carving of rock reliefs became a technology of negotiating frontiers during the Late Bronze Age: the Zamantı Su valley, which connected and separated the Land of Hatti from the Mediterranean coastal state of Kizzuwatna. In the modern province of Kayseri, the Zamantı Su flows eastward through a semi‐volcanic limestone‐ignimbrite gorge walled in by lofty precipices, linking the fertile Develi plain at the foothills of Mount Erciyes with the Mediterranean coast. In the last two centuries of the Hittite Empire, four major rock reliefs were carved along this gorge: Fıraktın, Imamkulu, Taşçı, and Hanyeri. Fıraktın is the northernmost rock monument in the valley system, carved on a volcanic bedrock façade overlooking a tributary of Zamantı Su and a lush river basin (Figure 20.5). Several cup marks and circular basins, perhaps connected with specific practices relating to the monument, appear on the ignimbrite pumice‐flow platform immediately above the relief. One and a half kilometers west‐northwest of the relief, in the floodplain of Kara Su, is an impressive settlement mound known locally as Fıraktın Höyük (Ehringhaus 2005: 59–65; Stokkel 2005: 172; Ullmann 2010: 220–21; 2014). Excavations 0003634125.INDD 493 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 494 PR O O FS Ömür Harmanşah D Figure 20.5 Fıraktın rock relief with Hattušili III and Queen Puduhepa. Near Develi, Kayseri, Turkey; thirteenth century BCE. Photograph courtesy of Ann C. Gunter. U N C O R R EC TE conducted here in 1947 and 1954 revealed Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Roman levels (Özgüç 1948). In the later phases of the Late Bronze occupation was a burnt building with cyclopean andesite walls, which the excavators dated to the Hittite Imperial period on the basis of associated ceramics and metal finds (Özgüç 1955). The Fıraktın relief itself depicts the royal couple, the Hittite Great King Hattusili III (1267–1237 BCE) and Puduhepa, pouring a libation in front of the Storm God Tarhunzas and the seated Hepat respectively, who are identified in the accompanying hieroglyphic Luwian inscription. The text refers to Puduhepa as “great queen, daughter of Kizzuwatna, having become god” (Ehringhaus 2005: 64; Bonatz 2007: 112–14). At least some of the Hittite rock relief monuments should probably be associated with the “Divine Stone House” (É NA4) or hekur (NA4.hekur. SAG.UŠ) monuments that are frequently mentioned in the texts. As Theo van den Hout (2002: 91) has argued, NA4.hekur. SAG.UŠ must have been a funerary monument to deceased royal ancestors. More than isolated monuments, he observes, they were also “large self‐supporting institutions employing cultic, administrative, and other personnel, and mostly enjoying some kind of tax exemption.” The topographical settings of the other rock relief sites in the region differ considerably from one another, despite their chronological and functional interrelationship. Two sets of Taşçı carvings (referred to as Taşçı A and Taşçı B, 0003634125.INDD 494 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 495 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS about one hundred meters apart) occupy a modest, non‐monumental setting in a narrow river gorge (Şamaz Dere) on a rather low surface on the rock. Based on the style of carving, they can be more precisely described as graffiti. J. D. Hawkins has translated a short inscription on one relief as “Manazi, daughter of Lupaki the Army‐Scribe (son of ?) Zida the MEŠEDI‐man, servant of Hattušili” (cited in Ehringhaus 2005: 68; Glatz and Plourde 2011: 47). Numerous caves and caverns are attested nearby. About ten kilometers east of the Taşçı reliefs is Imamkulu, carved on a freestanding, boulder‐like rock near an abundant spring; its location overlooks a spectacular plain, in front of a bedrock cliff façade like Fıraktın and Taşçı (Ehringhaus 2005: 70–76). Atop the cliff above Imamkulu are numerous circular cuttings associated with this relief, again reminiscent of Fıraktın’s setting. The Luwian hieroglyphs identify the monument’s sponsor as “Prince Ku(wa)lanamuwa” or “Ku(wa)lamuwa” (Ehringhaus 2005: 73). The pictorial scene features and honors the Weather God. Finally, Hanyeri is located on the southern side of the Gezbel pass over the Bey Dăı range, along a route now infrequently used; the relief, near a spring, overlooks yet another river gorge (Ehringhaus 2005: 70–80). It is carved relatively high on the rock (approximately four meters above ground level) and, unlike the other three monuments, was clearly intended to be visible from a distance. The iconography is familiar: a warrior figure holds a bow and spear, as at other Hittite rock monuments such as Karabel near Manisa (see Figure 20.3) and Hatip near Konya. As at Imamkulu, the Luwian inscription at Hanyeri identifies the figure as “Prince Ku(wa)lanamuwa”; here he encounters a mountain god identified as Sarruma. Very likely, Fıraktın, Taşçı (A and B), and Imamkulu are associated with the specific geological context of the Zamantı Su valley and were carved in close association with the spectacular rock façades of the gorge or near it. The reliefs belong to an assemblage of rock cuttings, building and settlement remains, and other archaeological features, which suggest long‐term ritual use and repeated visits. While not all the monuments seem to have been directly sponsored by Hittite Great Kings who resided at the capital Hattusa, local rulers and elites must have been responsible for making and maintaining them. In their iconographic details and more discursively in the hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, they lay claim to imperial Hittite iconographies and titles and connect themselves with the central power in the empire. Perhaps equally significantly, these monuments constitute and appropriate sites where ritual practices are housed with a special geological context associated with the underworld, ancestor cult, and divinities. Finally, as discussed earlier, Hittite craftsmen created an extramural open‐ air rock‐cut sanctuary at Yazılıkaya outside their capital city, Hattusa (see Figure 20.2) (Seeher 2011). This unique complex of multiple natural rock 0003634125.INDD 495 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 496 Ömür Harmanşah Apparitions on the Living Rock U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS galleries not only brings together the “Thousand Gods of Hatti” from across the Hittite countryside and the empire’s frontiers, but also constitutes a site of burial and ancestor veneration for a prominent Hittite king, Tudhaliya IV. Here a series of relatively flimsy stone structures encloses a prominent rock shelter, probably a natural spring in antiquity. Jürgen Seeher (2011: 19) describes evidence for two large artificial water basins just downslope from Yazılıkaya, which strengthens the possibility that the rock formation lay where spring waters emerged (see Marsh and Jones 2014). The rock chambers were in regular use long before the Hittite state was established, particularly during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages (Seeher 2011: 142). The reliefs on the sanctuary walls depict multiple deities in linear processions and a central scene of meeting, where the Storm God and the Sun Goddess of the Earth appear together. The gods of the underworld, mountain deities, seem to dominate the processions, conforming with the Hittite association of springs, caves, and sinkholes as orifices of the earth and thus points of contact and communication with the underworld, the world of ancestors (Gordon 1967). The entire program points to a “great assembly” of the divinities of the land on the occasion of Hattusa’s urban festivals such as the AN.TAH.ŠUM. With its geological and architectural setting, the Yazılıkaya rock sanctuary suggests that such rocky landscape features coupled with a spring may have been considered as sites where divinities presented themselves in miraculous episodes of divine epiphany. Hittite mythological texts frequently mention divinities who disappear and reappear (Gordon 1967). Like the modern pilgrimage sites of Marian apparitions often located at prominent springs and functioning as places of healing, Hittite rock reliefs may have related to stories of such miraculous pronouncements of the divine; the image‐making that marks such spots may have commemorated such a memorable event. That many rock relief sites were later associated with saints and other holy individuals, and with miraculous healing, supports this hypothesis. Elamite and Hittite practices involved carving the living rock with divine and royal images, and pictorial scenes that mixed historical actors with divinities in acts of ritual or veneration. Complex designs that incorporate monumental inscriptions continued during the Iron Age across Near Eastern landscapes with much enthusiasm by Syro‐Hittite (especially Luwian‐speaking Anatolian), Assyrian, Urartian, Phrygian, and Babylonian elites. The Neo‐Assyrian practice of raising commemorative monuments along their empire’s frontiers is 0003634125.INDD 496 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 497 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS well attested through textual, visual, and archaeological evidence (Morandi Bonacossi 1988; Shafer 1998, 2007). The narû monuments were commonly fashioned as steles at the conquered city gates or public spaces and in the form of rock reliefs at symbolically charged locales in the countryside, as at the Source of the Tigris River at Birkleyn caves (Harmanşah 2007; Schachner 2009); the Source of the Subnat River (Shafer 1998: 139–42; Yamada 2000: 274); at sites along rivers and canal systems, such as the Gomel River north of Khinnis (Shafer 1998: 284–89); or at the previously marked site of the mouth of Nahr el‐Kalb in Lebanon (Roche 2009). In analyzing the construction of the Neo‐Assyrian imperial periphery, Ann Shafer (1998, 2007) has shown that such monuments were more than political statements of domination and power: they negotiated the discourse of appropriation and conquest while simultaneously constituting sites of ritual practice and appropriating places of local and trans‐local significance. These monuments received offerings and sacrifices, but they also presented a gesturing image of the king in constant communication with the divinities of the place. Assyrian texts describe such monuments as featuring an “image [ṣalmu] of kingship,” where ṣalmu is not a mimetic but a performative form of representation that enables the king’s presence (Bahrani 2003: 121–48; Nadali 2012). These monuments therefore ceremonially anchor the cult of the traveling Assyrian king at well‐known holy places and link them to local topographies of ritual and power. The making of images, carving of inscriptions, and other commemorative events during Assyrian military expeditions therefore can be considered moments of negotiation between the wandering king and the subjugated locality, where the Assyrian images and inscriptions are brought out to perform a colonial gesture of co‐opting. The Iranian and southeast Anatolian interest in rock monuments continued with the Achaemenid dynasty, the Orontid Commagenean kings of the late Hellenistic period, and the Sasanian dynasty. These rock reliefs provide good examples of sites where multiple carving events are attested, sometimes hundreds of years apart, but perhaps more importantly continued the commemoration of ancestral lineages and deep histories of place. As continuously revisited sites of commemoration, rock reliefs are not isolated images and inscriptions out in the landscape; they are durable, long‐term sites of inscription, public ceremony, and social engagement. Matthew Canepa (2010) has recently discussed the carving of Sasanian reliefs at sites of Achaemenid heritage, demonstrating that such new carving events at already ancient sites constituted performative engagements with local manifestations of the Persian past. The site of Naqsh‐e Rustam offers an intriguing example. Located eight kilometers north of the Achaemenid royal center of Persepolis, the site housed one of the oldest Elamite rock reliefs, 0003634125.INDD 497 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 498 Ömür Harmanşah R R EC TE D PR O O FS dating from the early second millennium BCE, and a series of Achaemenid rock‐cut tombs beginning with Darius I (522–486 BCE) (Canepa 2010: 574). Remarkably, in the third and early fourth centuries CE the Sasanian kings added eight new rock relief monuments, each ruler directly linking his own genealogy to the Achaemenid past (Canepa 2013, 2014). In many of the geographically widespread and diverse cultural contexts thus far discussed, rock reliefs tended to be placed at sacred or hydro‐ geologically significant spots where the rock image provides a liminal representational medium that established a performative engagement with the divinities of the place, its ancestral past, and its local storytelling practices. Across different cultural contexts, an interest in returning to previously carved places or landscapes for new episodes of inscription and image‐ making prevails. Sasanian rulers placed their rock monuments alongside those of Achaemenid kings. Assyrian rulers returned for new episodes of carving to symbolically charged sites such as the Source of the Tigris, Karabur, or Nahr el‐Kalb. The Luwian‐speaking rulers of Tabal returned to the watery landscapes of Ivriz to re‐carve the scene that brought together Tarhunzas and Warpalawas. The famous mountain pass between Torbalı and Manisa at Karabel (see Figure 20.3) was marked with multiple reliefs and inscriptions over a lengthy period. Such persistent and reiterative practices at rock relief sites further emphasize that these monuments had little to do with a macro‐ regional ideology of surveillance and control of specific landscapes or marking networks of territorial governance. Instead, they chiefly concerned the continued articulation and animation of places of power or the co‐option of site‐specific practices of local communities. Conclusions U N C O In the year 2000, Annaliese Peschlow‐Bindokat (2002) and her team discovered rock‐carved hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions at Suratkaya, the site of a remote rock shelter on the Latmos (Beşparmak) Mountain near Bafa in western Turkey. The inscriptions, which celebrate a ruler of the local kingdom of Mira (Peschlow‐Bindokat and Herbordt 2001), generated considerable excitement and were immediately incorporated into research on the historical geography of the Hittite Empire and its western expansion. Yet the rock inscription only makes sense in the extraordinary context of its micro‐landscape with a deep prehistory of serving as a holy mountain and a site of image‐making practices. The rock shelter is situated in one of the most intensively inscribed holy mountains of the prehistoric Near East dedicated to the Anatolian weather god, where the German Archaeological 0003634125.INDD 498 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 499 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS Institute surveyed literally hundreds of rock paintings and carvings. I suggest that the Suratkaya rock inscriptions speak directly to this enduring tradition of landscape veneration. The cultural history of landscapes in which rock monuments are placed continues to furnish a complex set of local relationships and long‐term, place‐based histories, whether they involve territorial contestation, acts of commemoration, or practices of storytelling or pilgrimage. Rock monuments are carved into the living rock at geologically unusual places, especially ones associated with bodies of water and karstic formations: springs, deep river gorges, lakes, mouths of caves and sinkholes, but also mountain peaks, mountain passes, and “taskscapes” such as quarries. In this way, they are almost always located at sites of long‐term human interaction with the mineral world, where bodies are exposed to the elements of local geologies. It comes as no surprise that several Anatolian rock monuments, such as Ivriz and Eflatunpınar, were associated in medieval times with saints, healing pilgrimages, and miracles. Rock reliefs are most significantly provocative because of their complex temporalities: they evoke the heritage of place in the deep past while attempting to reach future generations through the durability of stone, adhering to the temporality not of social time, but of geological time, which serves as a metaphor for eternity. When one looks at their cultural biographies, the rock monuments are heritage places, where creative engagements with the past and new forms of storytelling take place. The existing literature on rock monuments largely understands them as isolated, single‐event monuments in the landscape. I have sought to emphasize instead that these sites are complex assemblages of human practice, places constituted since antiquity by multiple visits, multiple carving events, commemorations, and pilgrimages. Their cultural biographies can be accounted for continuously, from their fashioning to their celebration today as sites of heritage. They can be characterized as an assemblage of site‐specific performances, theaters of state spectacles, and durable acts of inscription. Finally, when rock monuments are explained in the official discourse of political elites who sponsor them, they are portrayed in the context of terra nullius: a blank slate that legitimizes the colonial takeover. Carving the living rock is conveniently associated with a previously untouched place, although archaeology usually offers abundant evidence to the contrary. Carving the rock, then, is associated with coloniality and colonial violence, where constructed notions of “nature” appear in the colonial discourse. Here we can speak about rock relief sites as political ecologies, where local cultural practices and imperialist interventions clash. 0003634125.INDD 499 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 500 Ömür Harmanşah NOTES U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS 1. Seeher (2011: 173–88) offers a detailed recent overview of the early exploration of Yazılıkaya. For beginnings of broader Hittite archaeology, see also Jean 2001. 2. A frequently mentioned early example of such an interaction is Herodotus’s (Histories 2.106.1–15) account of the Hittite rock relief at Karabel near Manisa (see Figure 20.3), which he considered the work of the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris. See also Jean 2001: 149. Many early travelers who saw the Karabel relief, such as Charles Texier, followed Herodotus’s interpretation. According to David Hawkins’s (1998) recent reading of its inscription, the relief represents Tarkasnawa, king of Mira. 3. See Rojas and Sergueenkova 2014: 155. Hasan Bahar, who discovered the rock relief of Kurunta, king of Tarhuntassa (thirteenth century BCE) at Hatip Springs outside Konya, reports that prior to the archaeological identification, local inhabitants referred to the carved figure’s feet as “the feet of the prophet” (personal communication). See also Bahar 1996. 4. Examples include the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Tukulti‐Ninurta I (1243–1207 BCE) on his founding of Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta (Tulul Al ‘Aqar), and the Urartian king Rusa II (ca. 685–651 BCE) on the founding of Rusahinili Eiduru‐kai (Ayanis) (Harmanşah 2013: 25–28). 5. Hittite rock reliefs have been studied by Kohlmeyer (1988) and Ehringhaus (2005), although these surveys address only the Late Bronze Age monuments of the Anatolian peninsula. Shafer’s (1998) dissertation on the peripheral monuments of the Neo‐Assyrian Empire and Börker‐Klähn’s (1982) monograph on stelae and rock monuments include a comprehensive overview of the rock reliefs. Rossner’s (1987, 1988) “archaeological guides” to Hittite and Neo‐Assyrian rock reliefs in Turkey should also be noted. Morandi Bonacossi (1988) and Emre (2002) have published survey articles on Assyrian and Hittite rock monuments respectively. No study to date has connected the Bronze and Iron Age rock monuments in a single analysis. For a long‐term history of Iranian rock reliefs, see Debevoise 1942. 6. See, for example, a recent discussion of the Hatip monument in relation to the Hittite border with Tarhuntassa (Simon 2012: 688–89). Thompson (2008: 299) discusses Sasanian rock reliefs as “individual capsules of information on the general political, religious, historical and artistic milieu of the time.” The carving of reliefs and inscriptions into living bedrock suggests that these monuments should be perceived as more authentic or real, as permanent records of locality. 7. I owe this “eating” and “nourishing” metaphor to my colleague Nick Shepherd. 8. Winckler 1909, quoted in Volk 2008: 291. A special issue of Baal: Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors‐serie V (2009) is devoted to the site. 9. See Debevoise 1942: 78–80; Vanden Berghe 1986; Seidl 1986; Kleiss 1993; Potts 1999: 182; 2013: 132–33. 10. In 2007, D. T. Potts and A. J. Zadeh opened a sounding in one of the monumental buildings near the Kurangun relief. While Potts (2013: 133) reported the presence of Elamite and Achaemenid material, he dated the building chiefly to “Sasanian and Islamic” periods. 0003634125.INDD 500 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 501 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments GUIDE TO FURTHER READING PR O O FS Catalogues providing detailed documentation of rock reliefs and landscape monuments in the Near East include Börker‐Klähn 1982 and the series Iranische Denkmäler (Berlin, 1932–). New perspectives on monuments from a wide geographical and chronological range are assembled in the volume Harmanşah 2014a. The Anatolian monuments of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages have been extensively reinvestigated in recent years. For the Hittite monuments, see in particular Ehringhaus 2005, Seeher 2011, and Harmanşah 2015 (with extensive bibliography). For the Iron Age, see Ehringhaus 2014 and Harmanşah 2015. Shafer 1998 provides a detailed investigation of Neo‐Assyrian rock reliefs; see also Harmanşah 2007, Shafer 2007, and Schachner 2009. Glatz 2014 explores concepts of landscape and monumentality, with special reference to late third‐millennium monuments in the western Zagros region. Recent studies of the Achaemenid and Sasanian rock monuments include Canepa 2013 and 2014 (both with further references). D REFERENCES U N C O R R EC TE Álvarez‐Mon, J. 2013. “Braids of Glory: Elamite Sculptural Reliefs from the Highlands: Kūl‐e Farah IV.” In Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives, eds. K. de Graef and J. Tavernier, 207–48. (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58.) Leiden. Bahar, H. 1996.“Konya‐Hatip’te Bulunan Yeni Bir Hitit Anıtı / Ein neues hethitisches Denkmal in Konya‐Hatip.” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 73: 2–8. Bahrani, Z. 2003. The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia. Bahrani, Z. 2008. Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia. New York. Bohrer, F. N., ed. 1999. Sevruguin and the Persian Image: Photographs of Iran, 1870–1930. Washington, DC and Seattle. Bonatz, D. 2007. “The Divine Image of the King: Religious Representation of Political Power in the Hittite Empire.” In Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, eds. M. Heinz and M. H. Feldman, 111–36. Winona Lake, IN. Börker‐Klähn, J. 1982. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. (Baghdader Forschungen 4.) 2 vols. Mainz. Canby, J. V. 1989. “Hittite Art.” Biblical Archaeologist 52: 109–29. Canepa, M. P. 2010. “Technologies of Memory in Early Sasanian Iran: Achaemenid Sites and Sasanian Identity.” American Journal of Archaeology 114: 563–96. Canepa, M. P. 2013. “Sasanian Rock Reliefs.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, ed. D. T. Potts, 856–77. Oxford. Canepa, M. P. 2014. “Topographies of Power: Visualizing the Visual, Spatial and Ritual Contexts of Rock Reliefs in Ancient Iran.” In Of Rocks and Water: Towards 0003634125.INDD 501 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 502 Ömür Harmanşah U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS an Archaeology of Place, ed. Ö. Harmanşah, 53–92. (Joukowsky Institute Publications 5.) Oxford. Debevoise, N. C. 1942. “The Rock Reliefs of Ancient Iran.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1: 76–105. Doss, E. 2010. Memorial Mania: Public Feeling in America. Chicago. Ehringhaus, H. 2005. Götter, Herrscher Inschriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei. Mainz. Ehringhaus, H. 2014. Das Ende, das ein Anfang war: Felsreliefs und Felsinschriften der luwischen Staaten Kleinasiens vom 12. bis 8./7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Mainz. Emre, K. 2002. “Felsreliefs, Stelen, Orthostaten: Großplastik als monumentale Form staatlicher und religiöser Repräsentation.” In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Götter, ed. J. Frings, 218–33. Stuttgart. Feldman, M. H. 2007. “Darius and the Heroes of Akkad: Affect and Agency in the Bisitun Relief.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, eds. J. Cheng and M. H. Feldman, 265–93. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26.) Leiden. Glatz, C. 2009. “Empire as Network: Spheres of Material Interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 127–41. Glatz, C. 2014. “Monuments and Landscape: Exploring Issues of Place, Distance, and Scale in Early Political Contest.” In Approaching Monumentality in Archaeology, ed. J. F. Osborne, 109–34. Albany, NY. Glatz, C., and A. M. Plourde. 2011. “Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An Investigation of Costly Signaling Theory.” Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 361: 33–66. Gordon, E. I. 1967. “The Meaning of the Ideogram dKASKAL.KUR = ‘Underground Water‐Course’ and its Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 70–88. Harmanşah, Ö. 2007. “Source of the Tigris: Event, Place and Performance in the Assyrian Landscapes of the Early Iron Age.” Archaeological Dialogues 14: 179–204. Harmanşah, Ö. 2013. Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge. Harmanşah, Ö., ed. 2014a. Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place. (Joukowsky Institute Publications 5.) Oxford. Harmanşah, Ö. 2014b. “Stone Worlds: Technologies of Rock‐Carving and Place‐ Making in Anatolian Landscapes.” In The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, eds. A. B. Knapp and P. van Dommelen, 379–93. Cambridge. Harmanşah, Ö. 2015. Place, Memory, and Healing: An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments. New York. Hawkins, J. D. 1998. “Tarkasnawa King of Mira, ‘Tarkondemos,’ Boğazköy Sealings and Karabel.” Anatolian Studies 48: 1–31. Jean, E. 2001. “Chronicle of a Renaissance: The Hittite Civilization.” In From Bog ̆azköy to Karatepe: Hittitology and the Discovery of the Hittite World, ed. F. Canpolat, 148–89. Istanbul. 0003634125.INDD 502 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 503 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS Kleiss, W. 1993. “Kurangun, die Burganlage am Elamischen Felsrelief in Sudwest‐Iran.” In Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, eds. M. J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüc, 357–60. Ankara. Kohlmeyer, K. 1983. “Felsbilder der hethitischen Großreichszeit.” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15: 7–153. Kreppner, F. J. 2002. “Public Space in Nature: The Case of Neo‐Assyrian Rock Reliefs.” Altorientalische Forschungen 29: 367–83. Larsen, M. T. 1996. The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land, 1840–1860. London. Marsh, B., and J. Jones. 2014. “Ruins within Ruins: Site Environmental History and Landscape Biography.” In Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place, ed. Ö. Harmanşah, 169–203. (Joukowsky Institute Publications 5.) Oxford. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 1988. “Stele e statue reali Assire: Localizzazione, diffusione e implicazioni ideologiche.” Mesopotamia 23: 105–55. Nadali, D. 2012. “Interpretation and Translations, Performativity and Embodied Simulation: Reflections on Assyrian Images.” In Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales, eds. G. B. Lanfranchi, D. Morandi Bonacossi, C. Pappi, and S. Ponchia, 583–95. Wiesbaden. Nora, P. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire.” Representations 26: 7–24. Özgüç, T. 1948. “Excavations at Fırakdın near Develi and Researches in Anti‐Taurus Region.” Belleten 12: 260–67. Özgüç, N. 1955. “Finds at Fırakdin.” Belleten 19: 301–7. Peschlow‐Bindokat, A. 2002. “Die Hethiter im Latmos: Eine hethitisch‐luwische Hieroglyphen‐Inschrift am Suratkaya.” Antike Welt 33: 211–15. Peschlow‐Bindokat, A., and S. Herbordt. 2001. “Eine hethitische Großprinzeninschrift aus dem Latmos.” Archäologischer Anzeiger: 363–78. Postgate, J. N., and M. Roaf. 1997. “The Shaikhan Relief.” Al‐Rafidan 18: 143–56. Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge. Potts, D. T. 2013. “In the Shadow of Kurangun: Cultural Developments in the Highlands between Khuzestan and Anšan.” In Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives, eds. K. de Graef and J. Tavernier, 129–37. (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58.) Leiden. Roche, C. 2009. “Les reliefs assyriens de Nahr el‐Kalb.” Baal: Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises Hors‐serie V: 241–54. Rojas, F., and V. Sergueenkova. 2014. “Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27: 135–60. Root, M. C. 2013. “Defining the Divine in Achaemenid Persian Kingship: The View from Behistun.” In Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, eds. L. Mitchell and C. Melville, 23–65. Leiden. 0003634125.INDD 503 05/16/2018 7:07:44 AM 504 Ömür Harmanşah U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS Rossner, P. P. 1987. Die neuassyrischen Felsreliefs in der Türkei: Ein archäologischer Führer. Munich. Rossner, P. P. 1988. Die hethitischen Felsreliefs in der Türkei: Ein archäologischer Führer. Munich. Schachner, A. 2009. Assyriens Könige an einer der Quellen des Tigris: Archäologische Forschungen im Höhlensystem von Birkleyn und am sogenannten Tigris‐Tunnel. With contributions by K. Radner, U. Doğan, Y. Helmholz, and B. Öğüt. (Istanbuler Forschungen 51.) Tübingen. Seeher, J. 2002. “Eine in Vergessenheit geratene Kultur gewinnt Profil: Die Erforschung der Hethiter bis 1950.” In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Götter, ed. J. Frings, 20–25. Stuttgart. Seeher, J. 2009. “Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrücken—hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des herrscherlichen Macht‐ und Territorialanspruchs.” Altorientalische Forschungen 36: 119–39. Seeher, J. 2011. Gods Carved in Stone: The Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya. Istanbul. Seidl, U. 1986. Die elamischen Felsreliefs von Kurangun und Naqš‐e Rustam. (Iranische Denkmäler 12/II/H.) Berlin. Shafer, A. T. 1998. “The Carving of an Empire: Neo‐Assyrian Monuments on the Periphery.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Shafer, A. T. 2007. “Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, eds. J. Cheng and M. H. Feldman, 133–59. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 26.) Leiden. Simon, Z. 2012. “Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht: Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen.” In Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm, 687–97. Winona Lake, IN. Stokkel, Peter J. 2005. “A New Perspective on Hittite Rock Reliefs.” Anatolica 31: 171–88. Texier, C. 1839. Description de l’Asie Mineure, faite par ordre du gouvernement français en 1833–1837; Beaux‐arts, monuments historiques, plans et topographie des cités antiques. Paris. Thompson, E. 2008. “Composition and Continuity in Sasanian Rock Reliefs.” Iranica Antiqua 43: 299–358. Ullmann, L. Z. 2010. “Movement and the Making of Place in the Hittite Landscape.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Ullmann, L. Z. 2014. “The Significance of Place: Rethinking Hittite Rock Reliefs in Relationship to the Topography of the Land of Hatti.” In Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place, ed. Ö. Harmanşah, 101–27. (Joukowsky Institute Publications 5.) Oxford. Vanden Berghe, L. 1986. “Données nouvelles concernant le relief rupestre élamite de Kurangun.” In Fragmenta historiae elamicae: Mélanges offerts à M. J. Steve, eds. L. de Meyer, H. Gasche, and F. Vallat, 157–73. Paris. 0003634125.INDD 504 05/16/2018 7:07:45 AM 505 Rock Reliefs and Landscape Monuments U N C O R R EC TE D PR O O FS van den Hout, T. 2002. “Tombs and Memorials: The (Divine) Stone House and Hegur Reconsidered.” In Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, eds. K. A. Yener and H. A. Hoffner Jr., 73–91. Winona Lake, IN. Volk, L. 2008. “When Memory Repeats Itself: The Politics of Heritage in Post Civil War Lebanon.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 40: 291–314. Winckler, H. 1909. Das Vorgebirge am Nahr‐el‐Kelb und seine Denkmäler. Leipzig. Yamada, S. 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3.) Leiden. Živkovic ,́ M. 2010. “Serbian Landscapes of Dreamtime and Healing: Clear Streams, Stones of Prophesy, St. Sava’s Ribs, and the Wooden City of Oz.” In Locating Health: Historical and Anthropological Investigations of Health and Place, eds. E. Dyck and C. Fletcher, 169–86. London. Zukas, A. 2005. “Terra Incognita/Terra Nullius: Modern Imperialism, Maps and Deception.” In Lived Topographies and Their Mediational Forces, eds. G. Backhaus and J. Murungi, 49–76. Lanham, MD. 0003634125.INDD 505 05/16/2018 7:07:45 AM FS O O PR D TE EC R R C O N U 0003634125.INDD 506 05/16/2018 7:07:45 AM