From the Four Corners of the Earth

Studies in Iconography and Cultures

of the Ancient Near East
in Honour of F. A. M. Wiggermann

Edited by David Kertai

and Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients
und des Alten Testaments

Band 441

Herausgeber
Manfried Dietrich • Ingo Kottsieper • Hans Neumann

Lektoren
Kai A. Metzler • Ellen Rehm

Beratergremium
Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider • Stefan Maul
Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger • Gebhard Selz
Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
From the Four Corners of the Earth

Studies in Iconography and Cultures

of the Ancient Near East
in Honour of F. A. M. Wiggermann

Edited by David Kertai

and Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

2017
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
From the Four Corners of the Earth. Studies in Iconography and Cultures
of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F. A. M. Wiggermann
Edited by David Kertai and Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

Alter Orient und Altes Testament 441

© 2017 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-86835-216-0
ISSN 0931-4296

Printed on acid-free paper

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 Content

David Kertai and Olivier Nieuwenhuyse

Frans Wiggermann: A Life Exploring Assyriology and Archaeology 7

Tzvi Abusch
A Paean and Petition to a God of Death:
Some Comments on a Šuilla to Nergal 15

Dominique Collon
Old Babylonian Whirlwinds and Sippar 29

Kim Duistermaat
What’s Cooking at the Dunnu? Thoughts on an Exotic,
Steatite-tempered Pottery Cauldron in the ‘Kitchen’ of
Grand Vizier Ili-pada at Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria 45

Bleda S. Düring
Reconsidering the Origins of Maps in the Near East 73

Markham Geller and Luděk Vacín

Fermenting Vat, Childbirth and Dreckapotheke: A School
Incantatory-Medical Tablet 83

Stefan Jakob
Die Kehrseite des Sieges 95

David Kertai
The Iconography of the Late Assyrian Crown Prince 111

Olivier Nieuwenhuyse
Civilized Men Drinking 135

Strahil V. Panayotov
The Second Seal of Kabti-ilī-Marduk/Suhaya on a New Egibi
Land Sale Contract 153

Irene Sibbing Plantholt

Black Dogs in Mesopotamia and Beyond 165

Dahlia Shehata
Naturgewalt und (Un)heilsmacht. Strukturelle und
inhaltliche Überlegungen zum akkadischen Anzû-Mythos 181

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
Ulrike Steinert
Cows, Women and Wombs:
Interrelations Between Texts and Images
From the Ancient Near East  205

Marten Stol
Ghosts at the Table 259

Lorenzo Verderame
On the Early History of the Seven Demons (Sebettu) 283

Willemijn Waal
Anatolian Hieroglyphs on Hittite Clay Tablets 297

Fred C. Woudhuizen
The Earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia 309

Index 319

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 THE EARLIEST INDO-EUROPEANS IN ANATOLIA

Fred C. Woudhuizen (Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society)

For Frans,
out of gratitude for the fact that he helped me out with the transliteration of the
Ugaritic texts during my work on the Sea Peoples.

Introduction

In my view there is evidence for an Indo-European substrate in Anatolia, which is not

of Indo-European Anatolian nature (typified by the reflex of Proto-Indo-European (=
PIE) laryngeal *[h2] as [ḫ]), but most adequately addressed as Old Indo-European.
In any case this substrate is characterized, amongst others, by toponyms lacking a
reflex of PIE laryngeal *[h2]. In the present paper I will discuss evidence from the
settlements which in my opinion may further underline the early presence of the
substrate in question.

Evidence from the settlements

According to Antonio Sagona and Paul Zimansky, the transition from Chalcolithic to
Early Bronze in Anatolia, which took place c. 3300-3000 BCE, is characterized by the
emergence of a settlement type often referred to as Anatolisches Siedlungsschema,
i.e., small circular settlements of adjoining rectangular houses arranged in a radial plan
centered on a large courtyard. This type of settlement is attested for Demircihöyük in
the west (Fig. 1), situated 25 km west of Eskişehir, and at Pulur (Sakyol) (Fig. 2),
located to the northeast of Arslantepe, Norşuntepe and Tepecik (Fig. 3; Arslantepe
= no. 46; Tepecik/Norşuntepe = no. 49) (Sagona and Zimansky: 192; 184). In terms
of the later Hittite Empire (1650-1190 BCE), Demircihöyük lies along the western
fringe of the province of Ḫapalla, which is encircled on three sides by the Saḫiriya or
classical Sangarios (= present-day Sakariya) and of which the center is formed by the
river land of the classical Tembris (= present-day Porsuk), whereas Pulur is most likely
to be considered within the confines of the country of Paḫḫuwa, one of the Hittite
allies along their northeastern frontier. In any case, Pulur is definitely located outside
the confines of Hittite territory proper whereas it is doubtful whether Demircihöyük
is situated within the confines of the original habitat of the Luwians and should not
rather be considered a part of the hinterland of Troy as it falls within the distribution
zone of Minyan ware (see Palmer 1965: 326, fig. 46).1
The plan of the so-called Anatolisches Siedlungsschema is strikingly paralleled
by that of Sintashta (Fig. 4) and Arkaim (Fig. 5) in the North Caspian steppe zone (see
Anthony 2007: 390, fig. 15.9). In so far as dating is concerned, “The radiocarbon dates
for both the cemeteries and the settlement at Sintashta were worryingly diverse, from
about 2800-2700 BCE (...), for wood from grave 11 in the SM cemetery, to about
1800-1600 BCE (...), for wood from grave 5 in the SII cemetery. (...) Wood from the

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
310 Fred C. Woudhuizen

Fig. 1. Plan of Demircihöyük (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 195, fig. 5.23, 1).

Fig. 2. Plan of Pulur Level X (Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 185, fig. 5.19, 1).

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 The Earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia 311

Fig. 3. Map of Early Bronze Age sites (Demircihuoyük = no. 6; Pulur = no. 52) (Sagona and Zimansky
2009: 177, fig. 5.15).

central grave of the large kurgan (SB) yielded consistent dates (...), or about 2100-
1800 BCE. The same age range was produced by radiocarbon dates from the similar
settlement at Arkaim (...).” (Anthony 2007: 374-375). It is of relevance to note in this
connection that the North Pontic and North Caspian steppe zone, according to the
majority view of the scholars in the field (at least until shortly), is considered to be the
homeland of the Indo-Europeans (from Schrader 1911 via Gimbutas [most recently
1992 and 1994] and Mallory 1989 to Anthony 2007).
Taking the earliest dates as our starting point, it might reasonably be argued
that Sintashta and Arkaim in the North Caspian steppe zone are later than their
equivalents in Anatolia, which, as we have seen, belong to the Chalcolithic/Early
Bronze Age transitional period c. 3300-3000 BCE, and that, if the similarity in plan
allows for a relationship of the inhabitants, a colonization from Anatolia to the North
Caspian steppe zone is more probable than vice versa.2
Against this latter option one argument of vital importance can be brought
into play: the distribution of horse bones. As indicated by Juris Zarins, bones of
equus caballus, i.e., a true horse, are attested for Demircihöyük3 in the west and for
Norşuntepe, Tepecik, Tülintepe and Arslantepe in the east (Zarins 1986: 180), the
latter three sites, as we have noted, being in the neighborhood of Pulur (Sakyol),
which lies to the northeast of them. Zarins leaves the question whether we are dealing
here with the remains of wild horses or domesticated ones undecided. This latter
question, however, is decisively addressed by Sándor Bökönyi, who presents as much
as eight arguments in favor of the identification of the horse remains in question as
representing domesticated horses (Bökönyi 1991). If Bökönyi is right in his analysis
this means, as he emphasizes himself, that the horses in question must have been
introduced from the early horse raising areas of eastern Europe and the adjacent part

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
312 Fred C. Woudhuizen

Fig. 4. Plan of Sintashta (Anthony 2007: 372, fig. 15.1).

of the North Pontic and North Caspian steppe zone, where the domestication of the
horse first took place around the middle of the 4th millennium BCE (Bökönyi 1991:
123).
The domesticated horse, then, are likely to have been introduced by
inhabitants of the North Pontic and North Caspian steppe zone into Anatolia during
the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transitional period c. 3300-3000 BCE. Against this
backdrop, it may reasonably be inferred that, notwithstanding the posteriority in date,
these particular inhabitants of the North Pontic and North Caspian steppe zone are
responsible for the foundation of the Anatolian settlements like Demircihöyük and
Pulur (Sakyol) after the pattern of those in their homeland like Sintashta and Arkaim
and not vice versa. As the inhabitants of the North Pontic and North Caspian steppe
zone are generally considered to be speakers of an Indo-European tongue, it may
safely be concluded that the settlements after the Anatolisches Siedlungsschema and
the remains of the domesticated horse directly or indirectly associated with them bear
testimony to the earliest phase in the Indo-Europanization of Anatolia.
In his argument, Bökönyi further draws our attention to the fact that, in
view of the small number of horse bones in Anatolia, the domesticated horse was
a prestigious animal and a status symbol for elite members of society (Bökönyi
1991: 130). The absence of genuine breeding programs go a long way to explain the

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 The Earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia 313

Fig. 5. Plan of Arkaim (Anthony 2007: 378, fig. 15.4).

discontinuity of the horse in Norşuntepe as observed already by Shan Winn (1981).

The priority of the evidence from the steppes in regard to the settlements is also
the opinion of the Russian scholar Elena Kuz’mina, who further underlines her point
of view by her explanation of the origin of circular settlements in circular military
camps. “Such an idea [i.e. circular military camps] could only arise on the steppes,
among people travelling with wagons.” as “shepherds migrating in wagons [are used
to] put [the wagons] in a circle every evening, forming a peculiar fortress on wheels,
with the cattle inside (...).” (Kuz’mina 2007: 34).
As to the nature of the earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia, it has been noted
above that these are not speakers of Indo-European Anatolian, which language group
is typified, amongst others, by the reflex of Proto-Indo-European laryngeal *[h2] as
[ḫ]. Now some hydronyms and toponyms in western Anatolia are positively assignable
to an Indo-European substrate owing to features foreign to Luwian, like the absence
of a reflex of Proto-Indo-European laryngeal *[h2] otherwise represented in Luwian
by [ḫ] (as in Apasa < PIE *h2eb(h)-) or the preservation of voiced velars otherwise lost
in Luwian (as in Parḫa < PIE *bhrĝh(i)-). This being so, the Indo-European substrate
in question may at least for a part perhaps be identified with the Pelasgians from
the Greek historical sources which are reported for the coastal regions of western
Anatolia.
If these results hold water, Colin Renfrew’s figure with the legend “The
Anatolian diagonal” west of which a pre-Luwian substrate cannot be detected among
place names” (Renfrew 2001: 52, fig. 5) must be attributed to the unfamiliarity of
the author with the Luwian language. Similarly, the suggestion by Robert Drews that
there was continuity in western Anatolia from the Neolithic onwards (Drews 2001:
259-260) and, based on this tenet, that the evolution of Proto-Indo-Hittite to Proto-
Anatolian occurred on the Anatolian plateau c. 5000-3000 BCE, and more in specific
in the habitat of the later Luwians (Drews 2001: 273), may safely be discarded. So

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
314 Fred C. Woudhuizen

much for the recently growing popularity of regarding Anatolia as the homeland of the
Indo-Europeans!
As for the hinterland of Troy, the type-site of the region in question is
Demircihöyük and hence this may, as we have seen in the above, reasonably be
assumed to have been subject to Indo-Europeanization from c. 3000 BCE onwards.
Therefore it come as no surprise that the nature of the language of the Trojans
themselves, in view of Wiluša < PIE *wel- “grass” and Tarwiša < PIE *dóru- “wood,
tree” (cf. Mallory and Adams 2007: 116, 157), definitely was of an Indo-European
nature at least already during the Late Bronze Age.4

Conclusions

The circular plan of Anatolian sites, dating from c. 3300-3000 BC, is paralleled for
sites in the North Caspian steppe zone of, as far as this is established, later date.
On the basis of direct association with horse bones which may reasonably be argued
to be indicative of the domestic horse, the plan of the Anatolian sites in question
is—notwithstanding their priority in date—likely to have been introduced from
the North Caspian steppe zone together with the domesticated horse because the
domestication of the horse definitely took place first in the latter zone. In sum, then,
these two archaeological features may be indicative of the earliest phase in the Indo-
Europeanization of Anatolia, presumably represented by an Indo-European substrate
of non-IE Anatolian type, perhaps most adequately addressed as Old Indo-European.

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 The Earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia 315

Bibliography

Anthony, D. W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language, How Bronze-Age Riders from
the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University
Press).
Bachhuber, C. 2013. James Mellaart and the Luwians: A Culture-(Pre)History. In A. Mouton,
I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich (eds.) Luwian Identities, Culture, Language and
Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean (Leiden / Boston: Brill): 279-304.
Bökönyi, S. 1991. Late Chalcolithic Horses in Anatolia. In R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann
(eds.) Equids in the Ancient World II. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients,
Beihefte, Reihe A (Naturwissenschaften) 19/2 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag): 123-131.
Drews, R. 2001. Greater Anatolia: Proto-Anatolian, Proto-Indo-Hittite, and Beyond. In R.
Drews (ed.) Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family, Papers
Presented at a Colloquium Hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18-19,
2000. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 38 (Washington: The
Institute for the Study of Man): 248-283.
Gimbutas, M. A. 1992. Die Ethnogenese der europäischen Indogermanen. Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und kleinere Schriften 54 (Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft).
——— 1994. Das Ende Alteuropas, Der Einfall von Steppennomaden aus Südrußland und
die Indogermanisierung Mitteleuropas. Archaeolingua, Series Minor 6 (Budapest:
Archaeolingua Alapítvány).
Grigoriev, S. A. 2002. Ancient Indo-Europeans (Chelyabinsk: Rifei).
Kuz’mina, E. E. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, edited by J. P. Mallory. Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary Series 3 (Leiden-Boston: Brill).
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans, Language, Archaeology and Myth
(London: Thames and Hudson).
Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams 2007. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo European and the
Proto-Indo-European World (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Mellaart, J. 1959. Notes on the Architectural Remains of Troy I and II., Anatolian Studies 9:
131-162.
——— 1981. Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans, Journal of Indo-European Studies 9: 135-
149.
Palmer, L. R. 1965. Mycenaeans and Minoans, Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B
Tablets (London: Faber and Faber Ltd).
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language, The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London:
Jonathan Cape).
——— 2001. The Anatolian Origins of Proto-Indo-European and the Autochthony of the
Hittites. In R. Drews (ed.) Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family,
Papers Presented at a Colloquium Hosted by the University of Richmond, March
18-19, 2000. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 38 (Washington:
The Institute for the Study of Man): 36-63.
Sagona, A. and P. Zimansky 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge World Archaeology (London:
Routledge).

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
316 Fred C. Woudhuizen

Schrader, O. 1911. Die Indogermanen (Leipzig: Verlag von Quelle und Meyer).
Teffeteller, A. 2013. Singers of Lazpa: reconstructing Identities on Bronze Age Lasbos. In
A. Mouton, I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich (eds.) Luwian Identities, Culture,
Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean (Leiden / Boston: Brill):
567-589.
Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon, Aspects of Indo-European Poetics (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Winn, S. 1981. Burial Evidence and the Kurgan Culture in Eastern Anatolia c. 3000 B.C.:
An Interpretation, Journal of Indo-European Studies 9: 113-118.
Woudhuizen, F. 2013. On the Identity of the Indo-European Substrate in Western Anatolia, Ziva
Antika 63: 5-11.
Yakubovich, I. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Brill’s Studies in Indo-European
Languages & Linguistics 2 (Leiden / Boston: Brill).
Zarins, J. 1986. Equids Associated with Human Burials in Third Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia:
Two Complementary Facets. In R. H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann (eds.) Equids
in the Ancient World II. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Beihefte, Reihe A
(Naturwissenschaften) 19/2 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag): 164-193.

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7
 The Earliest Indo-Europeans in Anatolia 317

Notes
1
The later province of Ḫapalla may initially have belonged to the original habitat of the
Luwians, but from about the end of the Old Hittite kingdom (c. 1500 BC) have been overrun
by Phrygian and Thracian tribes settling in the region of the Trojan hinterland. From the
absence of the typically Luwian place-names in -ss- and -nd- in the Saḫiriya riverland, it
may safely be deduced the latter population shift was so radical that all evidence of the
former Luwian presence was obliterated. Within the framework of this latter scenario, then,
Yakubovich 2010: 125 may well be right in his location of the Luwians responsible for
the Istanuwa songs within the bend of the Sangarios river. In any case, the Luwian dialect
of the Istanuwa songs, which, like Palaic, belongs to the Old Hittite kingdom period (see
Watkins 1995: 146) and after this period became a dead language, is directly associated
with the river Šaḫiriya and one of its testimonies consists, as shown by Watkins 1995:
146-149, of a “Wilusiad”, which suggests a habitat of the speakers of the Istanuwan dialect
in a region close to Wiluša “Troy” (cf. Teffeteller 2013: 583). As a consequence, however,
the association of the deity ḫurlaš dInar “Inar of the Ḫurrians” with the cult of Istanuwa
(Yakubovich 2010: 22) forces us to assume that Ḫurrian influence had already radiated to
western Anatolia in this early period.
2
Grigoriev 2002: 21-44, esp. 35, fig. 11.3-4, also notes the similarity between the plans of
Sintashta and Arkaim on the one hand and Demircihöyük and Pulur on the other hand,
but places the latter within a continuous architectural development in his view observable
for northern Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia from the Neolithic to Early Bronze Age.
Because in the later Early Bronze Age the settlement plans in central and western Anatolia
had developed different features Gregoriev concludes that “it is hardly possible to connect
the origin of Sintashta architecture with these regions” (p. 38). It must be admitted, though,
that in general this author is of the opinion that settlement plans in the Urals ultimately
originate from more southerly regions, including the north Aegean. My thanks are due to an
anonymous reviewer for this reference.
3
Also noted by James Mellaart (1981: 137) as referred to by Christoph Bachhuber (2013: 283,
n. 15)—the latter of whom considers the horse indigenous to Anatolia and not domesticated
during the Early Bronze Age (my thanks are due to Massimo Poetto for sending me the pdf-
version of the paper last mentioned).
4
Troy is probably already inhabited by Indo-Europeans from the first settlement onwards,
as deducible from the statue menhir as discovered at the southern gate in the context of a
sanctuary, see Mellaart 1959: 134.

© 2017, Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

ISBN Print: 978-3-86835-216-0 – ISBN E-Book: 978-3-86835-217-7