New ‘Excavations’ in the Pergamon-Museum and in the Gipsformerei of Berlin and New Elements for the Study of the Decorative Programme of Kammer B in Yazılıkaya

New ‘Excavations’ in the Pergamon-Museum and in the Gipsformerei of Berlin and New Elements for the Study of the Decorative Programme of Kammer B in Yazılıkaya1

Abstract: Based on the work conducted during winter 2017 both on casts of the Hittite reliefs exhibited at the Pergamon-Museum and the original matrices of the Humann casts (1892) kept at the Gipsformerei in Berlin/Charlottenburg, a series of results are presented regarding the sculptural decoration programme present in the Yazılıkaya rock sanctuary. In addition, the exhibition and publication of a series of casts of Hittite reliefs on the occasion of the exhibition Royaumes Oubliés, held in Paris in 2019, made it possible to provide some insights into the history of the casts made by E. Chantre on the occasion of his Mission en Cappadoce in 1893-94.

A German-Italian project for the three-dimensional survey of the monumental complexes found in Ḫattuša has been underway since 2014. Among its objectives – besides that of developing innovative techniques for conducting surveys and for the development of models – is the development of new procedures for analysis and treatment protocols in a virtual environment specifically for monumental inscriptions in hieroglyphic writing.2

As is well known, beginning with the reign of Tutḫaliya IV, a whole series of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a monumental nature appeared in the capital.3 Their appearance coincided with the new monumental layout of the northern area – the so-called Upper Town – and the transformations that brought the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya into the centre of a major initiative involving political-religious display.

Only two of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, the one on the wall of Kammer 2 in the Südburg area, and the one at Nişantaş, on the northeastern rocky wall of Nişantepe, are entirely preserved; they represent the consolidation of an innovation not only in terms of the use of the hieroglyphic writing system in Anatolia, but also from a ‘literary’ point of view.

Both inscriptions, attributable to the last Hittite dynast, Suppiluliuma II, confirm the process of ‘linearization’ of the writing system for the representation of syntactically ‘complex’ monumental texts that was inaugurated with the inscriptions of Yalburt and Emirgazi during the reign of Tutḫaliya IV and which is now firmly tied to a precise Luwian linguistic variant. At the same time, they also affirm the kind of composition that celebrates kingship wrapped in a religious framework that is already evident in the cuneiform texts with the so-called ‘Autobiography’ of Ḫattusili III.4

Different, but no less interesting, are the hieroglyphic inscriptions that accompany the sculptural decorations in the two natural chambers of the Yazılıkaya rock sanctuary. Like the hieroglyphic-sculptural rock compositions that began to appear between the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 13th century throughout the kingdom (such as those at Hanyeri or İmamkulu), they do not form an autonomous textual unit, but are closely linked in a compositional unit of an iconographic nature to the sculptural element they accompany.

In the case of Yazılıkaya, however, as has already been explained elsewhere,5 they participate in a ‘dynamic’ representation, a storytelling marked by the two divine sequences that meet on the back wall, which acts as a focus. While the ‘formal’ compositional level of the sculptural-geroglyphic narrative is marked by the sequence of the male and female divinities towards the point of conjunction, the political-religious level is characterised by the representation of the so-called ‘dynastisches Pantheon.’6

The interpretation of the narrative originally depicted in Kammer B of the sanctuary is more complex (on this see the discussion below, point 6).

The purpose of the work carried out at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin and the Gipsformerei in Charlottenburg in December 2017 was twofold: first, to acquire three-dimensional models of both the casts exhibited in Room 1 of the Vorderasiatische Sammlung and the original matrices made by C. Humann in 1882 in Yazılıkaya and housed in the Gipsformerei (see Tab. 1 and Fig. 2);7 and second, to reconstruct the history of the casts and matrices from their first exhibition in the Neues Museum in 1883 to their final placement in Room 1 of the Pergamon Museum after the Second World War.8

The importance of the Humann matrices and casts lies in the fact that at the time they were made, many sculptures and their hieroglyphic inscriptions were still in a much better state of preservation than they are today. In fact, in the course of Texier’s excavations in 1834 and Perrot’s excavations in 1861, many sculptures and their inscriptions were being brought to light for the first time in centuries and thus had not yet undergone any serious deterioration.9

Already a decade later, as can be seen from the graphic and photographic documentation collected by Chantre during his excavation and research campaign in 1893,10 the first processes of degradation are visible, especially on the surfaces of the sculptures in Kammer B unearthed by Perrot.

Paradigmatic examples of the changes that took place in the decades before and after the execution of the casts in both Kammer A and B are represented by the sculptural complex Y. 46a (Kammer A, procession of female deities), and by the relief Y. 81 (Kammer B, eastern wall).

In the first case (see Fig. 1) both the sculpture and the corresponding inscription Y. 46a were still in situ (although already partially damaged) at the time of Ch. Texier’s expedition in 1834, as evidenced by the drawing on Pl. 75 (although a little fanciful, but clear for the identification of the glyphs) of the wall immediately opposite the central scene, which houses sculptures 46a, 47 and 48 (here in Fig. 1, top left).

Already in the summer of 1861, when G. Perrot’s mission reached Ḫattuša, the wall in question appeared to be severely degraded. According to the description and sketch (here Fig. 1 in the second line) given by the French scholar,11 the upper part of the headdress of the female figure 46a was still barely visible, while the inscription was still completely preserved.

Just three years later, in 1864, H.J. Van Lennep, on the occasion of his visit to the site,12 commissioned a sketch of the same wall (here Fig. 1, top right) from which it is clear that sculpture 46a had by then disappeared entirely, so much so that in the drawing in question the inscription accompanying the disappeared sculpture is erroneously represented as being very close to the subsequent sculpture Y. 47, almost as if it were an integral part of it. From the sketch – albeit imprecise – provided by the American scholar, one can also see that the same portion of the wall containing the inscription is beginning to show signs of cracking.

Eighteen years after Van Lennep’s visit, C. Humann arrived at Yazılıkaya and executed 11 matrices of the reliefs found there (identified here in Tab. 1).13 Among these was the inscription of sculpture 46a, which has now definitively disappeared due to the subsidence of the rock face (see here Fig. 1 in the centre).

In the first systematic photographic survey carried out by K. Bittel and published in 1934, it can clearly be seen that in the decades following the Humann cast, a good half of the inscription was also definitively lost (see Fig. 1, below; the collapsed area of the inscription is marked by a black line).14

The cast Y. 46a, no longer exhibited at the beginning of the 1930s (cf. Fig. 2), when the Humann collection found its final home in the new Pergamon building, disappeared into oblivion.

Only E. Laroche, in his seminal contribution on the Yazılıkaya inscriptions, published in 1969, refers, not to the cast, but to the sketch presented by Humann in his 1890 publication, and to the drawing made by W. Ramsay (around the same time as Humann) and taken up and published by G. Perrot in 1887.15

H.G. Güterbock ignores the existence of the cast in the Gipsformerei in Berlin both in the 1975 edition of the inscriptions16 and in the 1982 revision,17 where he adds on p. 42, n. 35: ‘In Humann-Puchstein, Reisen, p. 64 with n. 2 [i.e. Humann, Puchstein 1890!] Puchstein speaks of a cast of this inscription … Does this cast still exist?.’

However, in 1962, the Gipsformerei catalogue had just been reissued in an updated form with the cast in question and all the references to its history.18 After the ‘rediscovery’ of the original cast in the Gipsformerei in 2017, three-dimensional scanning made it possible, through an interpolation procedure between the model of the cast and that of the wall surveyed in situ, to carry out an ‘electronic restoration’ and exactly relocate the lost part of the inscription (Fig. 4).

In the case of Y. 81 in Kammer B, the relief was still partially buried when it was identified and drawn by Ch. Texier’s expedition in 1834 (cf. here Fig. 4).19 In 1861 the mission headed by G. Perrot carried out a series of tests to lower the ground level of Kammer B and to expose the sculptures there.20 It was therefore possible for the first time to completely uncover Y. 81, as is clear from the photographic documentation of the time (here in Fig. 4).21

The sculpture was in excellent condition, with the faces and bodies of both King Tutḫaliya and the god Šarruma perfectly preserved. When C. Humann cast it two decades later, in 1882, it was possible to fix this state of preservation of the artefact (here, in Fig. 4, the 3D model of the cast on display at the Pergamon).22

In 1893-94, E. Chantre started excavating again in Kammer B in order to finally clear the soil that had accumulated along the walls, partly due to a partial covering for conservation purposes carried out by Perrot himself.23

This intervention led to a further exposure of the reliefs there to atmospheric agents, accelerating the process of degradation already indicated by Perrot.24 The sketch of Y. 81 published by Chantre (here in Fig. 4)25 and the slightly later photographic evidence of A. Boissier (here in Fig. 4)26 already show the beginning of the process of crumbling of the surface of the sculpture of both the incumbent leg of the god and the king’s face. The process of degradation of these two parts of the sculpture is clear from the subsequent photographic documentation published by both J. Garstang in 1910 and K. Bittel in 1934.27

Here too, the 3D models of both the Humann matrices and the casts (cf. the particular the casts of the two points of Y. 81 rendered by the 3D model in Fig. 5) will make it possible, as in the case of Inscription Y. 46a, to undertake a virtual restoration process.

Among the casts that were not exhibited in the Pergamon in 1939 is number 12.28 The history of its exhibition ends with the exhibition of the casts organised between 1883 and 1899 in the Neues Museum, in the so-called Babylonische Saal (Amtl. Berichte 1883):

H. 12 = VAG (6)67 = Gipsformerei 1194 (entry in 1893); in Verzeichnis 1: G.53; in Verzeichnis 2: Nr. 223; in Verzeichnis 3: no 234; in Verzeichnis 4: no 280.

Since then, as was the case with cast Y. 46a, it has remained ‘buried’ in the storerooms of the Gipsformerei, in whose last online catalogue it is inventoried as “Ädikula, bestehend aus Flügelsonne und Schriftzeichen; Standort: Kleinasien, wahrscheinlich Ḫattuša (heute Boğazkale), Yazılıkaya, Felsheiligtum.”

Yet a careful reading of the catalogue published at the time by C. Humann29 would have been sufficient to know that the cast comes from the Nişantaş inscription, to which the scholar not only makes direct reference, but even cites the photograph (perhaps the first in the history of Hittitological research) published at the time by Perrot (and reproduced here in Fig. 6).30

Fig. 6. Original photo of the Nişantaş inscription taken by G. Perrot in 1861.

This tragic inaccuracy has moved from publication to publication, until the very recent essay, which is also very well documented with regard to Humann casts, by E. Rehm (2018), which reads: ‘Yazılıkaya, Tempelchen,’ with n. 694 “Was hier abgeklatscht wurde ist mir unklar. Das Motiv lässt sich nicht identifizeren” (Rehm 2018: 151).31

Placed in its original context, as already clearly indicated by C. Humann, it is clear that this is the right-hand beginning of the first line and the underlying end of the second line; the ‘Tempelchen’ is none other than the aedicula with the name of Suppiluliuma II (here Fig. 7).

Also in this case the cast was essential for the correct restitution in autograph of the end of the second line.

4. The exhibition of Humann casts in Room 1 of the Vorderasiatisches Museum at Pergamon: One more cast?

The exhibition of Hittite casts in Room 1 of the Pergamon’s Vorderasiatisches Museum thus includes 10 of the original 12 casts/matrices made by C. Humann in Ḫattuša: 11 in Yazılıkaya, 1 in Nişantaş. However, there are 11 casts on display, since on the long wall in front of the entrance, in the upper part there is a cast of a famous rock relief from the time of Ḫattušili III: that of Fıraktin (here, at Fig. 8 a photo of Room 1 during the 2017 survey work: highlighted with black border is the cast of Fıraktin).

In contrast to the Humann casts, no information can be found for this specific cast: in the Gipsformerei the matrix and its cast have never been recorded (nor are they even present, at least on the basis of a thorough survey of the ancient Near Eastern reproductions conducted by the writer in 2017). The registers, beginning with that of 1889 and the detailed one of 1902, up to the 2018 edition and the current electronic one, contain no trace of them.32 In the various guides to the Museum prior to the Second World War (the 1937 guide is the most reliable)33 there is no trace of this artefact.

It appears, without any indication of its provenance, for the first time in R.G. Meyer’s guide of 1956, reprinted without particular updates in 1962; only in the last guide edited by S. Jakob-Rost in 1990 it is stated: ‘Bereits im Jahre 1882 besuchte C. Humann die Ruinenstatte Boğazköy und nahm von den Felsreliefs von Yazılıkaya und dem in der Nahe liegenden Fıraktin Formen ab. Diese wurden später in Berlin in Gips ausgegossen und sind jetzt in Raum 1 des Vorderasiatischen Museums ausgestellt’.34

Humann’s work at Boğazköy actually took place in 1882, while the Fıraktin inscription was first reported by W.G. Ramsay and D.G. Hogarth ten years later in 1893,35 based on a survey carried out in 1890. Three years later, in 1893, the site was visited by E. Chantre, who reported on it in his Mission en Cappadoce,36 where he stated: ‘Nous décidons à photographier en détail ces sculptures et surtout à les mouler, travail qui nous prit deux jours’ (Chantre 1898: 126). Later, in 1907, the site was visited by H. Grothe, who claims to have conducted a series of ‘sorgfältige Abklatschen’ (i.e. not Gipsformen), which he sent to Messerschmidt.37 In his CIH (1900) the latter takes up the story of the discovery, mentioning that the forms made by E. Chantre are supposed to be in the Guimet Museum in Paris.38

From what has been said so far, the cast of Fıraktin exhibited at the Pergamon is certainly not to be counted among the Humann casts (it is not even mentioned in Rehm’s recent work 2018), nor is it mentioned in the 1937 exhibition. Its appearance and location in Room 1 can undoubtedly be traced back to the restoration and reorganisation of the Pergamon building immediately after the war. It is therefore possible that the cast in question (a copy from the matrix made by E. Chantre and kept in a Parisian museum) arrived in Berlin during the war years, was stored in the storerooms, and was found and exhibited together with the Humann casts in the 1950s.

An unexpected confirmation came in 2019, on the occasion of the exhibition Royaumes oubliés. De l’empire hittite aux Araméens, held in Paris at the Musée du Louvre.39 On this occasion, Chantre’s casts made at Alaca Höyük and Fıraktin during his mission in 1893 were exhibited.40 In Fig. 9 we present an image of the 3D model of the cast exhibited at Pergamon together with the photo of the cast exhibited in 2019 in Paris.

With the publication of the exhibition catalogue, however, a second problem arises. On p. 78-79, next to the photo of the three parts that make up the Fıraktin cast (nos 30-32), a fourth cast is presented in no. 33, relating to the relief Y. 81, mentioned above. The photo does not appear to be that of a cast, but directly of the relief in situ; the catalogue comment reads: ‘Ce moulage, exécuté par Ernest Chantre lors de ses missions archéologiques en Cappadoce en 1893 et 1894, provient d’un relief de la chambre B du sanctuaire de Yazılıkaya, situé à côté de la capitale hittite.’ However, if one reads the text of Chantre 1898 carefully, one can see that the scholar, who always notes precisely the casts made, does not mention any casts made in Yazılıkaya at all. On the other hand, a careful analysis of the photo of the supposed cast shows that both the king’s face and the elbow of the god’s left arm (the photo is partial) show clear traces of strong deterioration (cf. here Fig. 10).

From the graphic documentation by Chantre and photographic documentation by Boissier (who accompanied Chantre during the Mission and took a number of interesting photos), we know with certainty that, at the time of the Chantre Mission, these two points of the sculpture were still in good condition (see comparison in Fig. 10).

Consequently, only two explanations are possible: either the image of the supposed moulage is wrong (in which case it should be checked whether indeed Louvre AOmg 42 corresponds to the cast in question, but in the photographic credits cat. no. 33 corresponds not to the Louvre, as is the case with the Alaca and Fıraktin casts, but to a London reference; cf. p. 449); or there is no Chantre cast of this Yazılıkaya relief and both the catalogue photo and the commentary are the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the editors.

As is well known, the layout, sculptural programme and function of the so-called Kammer B are not completely clear, especially in relation to the diachronic development of the buildings in front of its possible entrances.41

The analysis conducted in the first organic edition of the sanctuary in 194142 was subject to a series of revisions in the second edition of 1975, especially regarding the hypothesis of an original entrance to Kammer B from the south.43

It was suggested by R. Naumann in Yazılıkaya 1 that the entrance to Kammer B was originally represented by its southward extension, where there was an external entrance ramp. The shifting of a section of rock from the east wall would have obstructed this passage and led to the opening of the new passage from the west (still existing today) along the north wall of Kammer B. The existence of an original entrance from the south was confirmed by the sculptural decoration of the walls: the figures represented there are oriented from south to north, thus, like those in Kammer A, from the hypothetical entrance to the north end wall; this change also justified the new orientation of the building in front of it (Building Phase IV), adapted in this final phase as principal access to the new western entrance to Kammer B (Fig. 11 shows the graphic representation of the two hypothetical phases).

This diachronic reconstruction was discarded in the 1975 edition on the basis of new stratigraphic observations of the soil underneath the rock occluding the supposed southern entrance. According to the new reconstruction, the rock occluding the presumed southern entrance would have been present there since the beginning of the use of Kammer B and the western entrance would have always been the only entrance to the chamber.

In 1989, however, P. Neve returned to the problem;44 he underlined the inconsistency of the stratigraphic evidence exposed in Yazılıkaya 2, and proposed again a diachronic sequence of the entrances in accordance with the changes characterising the external buildings.45

A second question concerns the function and significance of the quadrangular base in front of the north wall: whether it is the base of a statue (and if so, whether it is related to the statue base found in the nearby village of Yekbas), or whether it is the base of an altar. Many scholars have linked this base with a presumed statue of King Tutḫaliya IV attested in KBo 12.38, according to which Šuppiluliuma II, his son, erected the statue in a sanctuary in honour of the deceased dynast (na4hé-gur SAG.UŠ). According to this hypothesis, the function of Kammer B would have been, at least in its final phase, that of the funerary sanctuary in honour of Tutḫaliya IV.

Although this hypothesis remains valid (especially on the basis of the subjects represented by the sculptural decorations and the accompanying inscriptions),46 the hypothesis of the presence of a statue of the deceased king remains very doubtful, especially in view of a recent revision of the cuneiform text.47

In any case, an overall view of the sculptural programme remains difficult. The series of 12 chthonic deities (Y. 69-80) running from the south to the north along the western wall is interrupted where one or more decorated blocks were originally placed – whether or not one accepts the hypothesis of a single entrance from the west (cf. the plans in Fig. 11). The same problem arises for the eastern wall, where the ‘window’ now present between reliefs Y. 82 (the so-called ‘Schwertgott’) and Y. 83 (the aedicula of Tutḫaliya IV, strangely placed at ‘relief height’) was certainly covered by one or two decorated orthostats, with which the aedicula of Tutḫaliya IV (Y. 83), placed high up, must have been connected.

Already during the petrographic investigations conducted in 2018 on the Yazılıkaya reliefs, anomalies were noted along a section of the east wall of Chamber B. The wall between the representation of the ‘sword god’ and the window due to a crack in the rock, to the left of which follows the aedicule of Tutḫaliya IV, appears to have been carefully prepared by polishing already in the Hittite period. This preparation corresponds to that of the backgrounds of the surfaces with sculptural decoration.

This surface is connected to that of the ‘sword god,’ but its lower part is about 30 cm higher than that of the ‘sword god’ itself, thus forming a sort of step (cf. here in Fig. 12 the situation of the east wall on the basis of the model generated by orthophotogrammetry).

On it, thus to the left of the relief of the ‘sword god,’ a sort of slight bulge can still be seen with the naked eye under particularly favourable light conditions. This bulge covers the entire prepared surface in height and is approximately 40 cm wide. Since this part of the eastern wall of Kammer B was the last to be excavated and its surface can only be observed in detail under special light conditions, it was only in 1941 that K. Bittel noticed the above-mentioned anomaly and postulated the possibility of traces of an ‘unfinished’ sculpture, perhaps to be connected with the (probably sculptured) blocks that must have covered the ‘gap/window’ between the ‘sword god’ and the aedicula of Tutḫaliya IV.48

K. Bittel himself returned to the subject of the possible ‘unfinished’ sculpture in his 1975 publication and, while not excluding the possibility of a figure oriented towards the left, he confirmed, by observing the traces of work on the wall at the two edges of the ‘window,’ that it must originally have been covered by one or more decorated orthostats that have now been lost (here in Fig. 13 the photograph presented in Yazılıkaya 2, Pl. 47, 1, taken in particularly favourable lighting conditions).49

A different interpretation is given by P. Neve in his already mentioned 1989 contribution. According to Neve, who does not consider the problem of the closure of the ‘window’ and therefore does not examine the hypothesis that the sculptural decoration originally present there could be linked to the strange presence of the aedicula of Tutḫaliya IV at the left edge of the ‘window,’ the apparent ‘unfinished’ sculpture is nothing more than an initial outline of the sculpture of the ‘sword god,’ later abandoned and relocated further to the right (where it is today) due to the poor state of the rock surface at that point.

In order to clarify whether the traces of a possible (unfinished?) sculpture could be compatible with an initial carving of the ‘Schwertgott,’ as postulated by P. Neve, or whether they were, on the contrary, attributable to a different sculptural representation, as suggested by K. Bittel, it was decided, during the 2019 campaign, to carry out both an accurate photogrammetric survey and a dynamic structured light scan of the entire portion of the east wall. The models generated in this way clearly show that the rock surface retains actual traces of a further relief.50

Although it is not possible to exclude with certainty that the ‘unfinished’ state of the relief was intentional (or, as the location of the wall would lead one to believe, that the state of severe deterioration was due to a long period of erosion of the wall at this point), the contours offered by the surveys carried out appear to indicate a female figure oriented towards the left, i.e. in the direction of the ‘window’ where, at the time, the sculptural decoration was to continue on the orthostats placed to close it, now unfortunately lost (Fig. 14 shows a series of images of the structured light scanning model visualised in a virtual environment under different light conditions, orientation and according to different degrees of ‘stretching’). This female figure, the traces of se polos appear to be discernible, shows, also on the basis of the shape of the dress, a close similarity to relief Y. 47 (comparison here in Fig. 15). Furthermore, the model of the wall shows, as already noted by K. Bittel, the points of insertion of the orthostat at the inner left and right margins of the ‘window.’

Finally, in relation to the problems of Kammer B in Yazılıkaya, a geo-structural and geo-static research programme began in 2021 in collaboration with the Department of Earth Sciences of the Federico II University in Naples. The project, which over time will involve two other sample areas, that of Nişantepe and that of the gorge between Ambarlıkaya and Büyükkaya, provides for the collection of data on the geomorphological and static peculiarities of the rock formations that will be mapped on special three-dimensional models generated by TOF laser scanner surveys conducted in parallel with the geological investigation.

This three-dimensional mapping will have a twofold purpose: on the one hand, to identify the critical situations that exist today (synchronic risk map); and on the other, to determine the changes that have characterised the degradation of the rock faces over time (diachronic map of variations). The latter, which is of particular interest to us here, will provide valuable information on the original appearance of the spaces and any natural or human-induced changes that may have altered their organisation – in the case of Yazılıkaya this applies also to the changes that appear to characterise the different phases of the built-up area in front of the entrance to the natural chambers (Fig. 16).

Amtl. Berichte 1883 = Königliche Museen in Berlin. B. Sammlungen der Skulpturen und Gipsabgüsse, Abt. der antiken Skulpturen, Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Kunstsammlungen 4, 1883, LV-LVI.

CIH = Messerschmidt L. 1900, Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 4, Berlin, Wolf Peiser Verlag.

Kat. 1962 = Katalog der Originalabgüsse, H. 3: Vorderasien, Freiplastiken und Reliefs, Berlin, Gipsformerei der Staatlichen Museen Preuß. Kulturbesitz, 1962.

Kat. 2007 = Katalog der Originalabgüsse, H. 3: Vorderasien, Freiplastiken und Reliefs, neue Auflage, Berlin, Gipsformerei der Staatlichen Museen Preuß. Kulturbesitz, 2007.

Royaumes = Blanchard V. (ed.) 2019, Royaumes Oubliés. De l’empire hittite aux Araméens, Paris, Musée du Louvre.

VAM 1937 = Führer durch die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Die Vorderasiatische Abteilung 1937, Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum.

VAM 1956 = Mayer G.R. (ed.) 1956, Durch vier Jahrtausende altvorderasiatischer Kultur, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum.

Verzeichnis 1 = Verzeichnis der Vorderasiatischen Altertümer und Gipsabgüsse, Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Generalverwaltung, Berlin, Spermann, 1889.

Verzeichnis 2 = Verzeichnis der in der Formerei der königlichen Museen käuflichen Gipsabgüsse, Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Generalverwaltung, Berlin, Spermann, 1902.

Verzeichnis 3 = Verzeichnis der in der Formerei der königlichen Museen käuflichen Gipsabgüsse, Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Generalverwaltung, Berlin, Spermann, 1906.

Verzeichnis 4 = Verzeichnis der in der Formerei der königlichen Museen käuflichen Gipsabgüsse, Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Generalverwaltung, Berlin, Spermann, 1914.

Y. + Number = Numbering of the reliefs and their accompanying inscriptions in Yazılıkaya, Chamber A and B (cf. Seeher 2011).

Yazılıkaya 1 = Bittel K., Naumann R., Otto H. 1941, Yazılıkaya. Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften und Kleinfunde, Leipzig – Berlin, J.C. Hinrichs.

Yazılıkaya 2 = Bittel K., Boesseneck J., Damm B., Güterbock H.G., Hauptmann H., Naumann R., Schirmer W. 1975, Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazılıkaya, Berlin, Gebr. Mann.

Bittel K. 1934, Die Felsbilder von Yazılıkaya. Neue Aufnahmen der Deutschen Boğazköy-Expedition 1931, Istanbuler Forschungen 5, Bamberg, Abteilung Istanbul des Archäologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches.

Bolatti Guzzo N., Marazzi M. 2004, Storiografia hittita e geroglifico anatolico: per una revisione di KBo 12.38, in D. Groddek, S. Rößle (eds), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 10, Dresden, Harrassowitz: 155-185.

Bolatti Guzzo N., Marazzi M. 2022, Some reflections on the Nişantaş inscription and related issues, in G. Bartolini, M.G. Biga, Not Only History. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza-Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20-21 April 2009, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 500-520.

Crüsemann N. 2000, Vom Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben. Vorgeschichte und Entstehungsjahre (1899-1918) der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Berliner Museen vor fach- und kulturpolitischen

Grothe H. 1911, Meine Vorderasienexpedition 1906 und 1907, I/1: Die fachwissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse, Leipzig, Hiersemann.

Güterbock H.G. 1982, Les hiéroglyphes de Yazılıkaya. À propos d’un travail récent, Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Humann C., Puchstein, O. 1890, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, ausgeführt im Auftrage der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie, Berlin, Reimer.

Hutter M. 2021, Religionsgeschichte Anatoliens: Vom Ende des dritten bis zum Beginn des ersten Jahrtausends, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer.

Jakob-Rost L. 1990, Das Vorderasiatische Museum, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.

Laroche E. 1969, Les dieux de Yazılıkaya, Revue Hittite et Asianique 84-85: 61-109.

Marazzi M. 2010, Scrittura, percezione e cultura: qualche riflessione sull’Anatolia in età hittita, KASKAL 7: 219-225.

Marazzi M. 2018, Il “Progetto Hattusa”: una cooperazione italo-tedesca per la sperimentazione di nuove tecnologie applicate all’archeologia e all’epigrafia anatolica, in M. Betrò, S. de Martino, G. Miniaci, F. Pinnock (eds), Egitto e Vicino Oriente antichi: tra passato e futuro. Studi e ricerche sull’Egitto e il Vicino Oriente in Italia, I convegno nazionale 2017, Pisa, Pisa University Press.

Marazzi M. 2019, Schriftlichkeit und königliche Zelebration in Hattusa gegen Ende des 13. Jh. v. Chr. Über die sogenannten „langen“ Hieroglypheninschriften, in N. Bolatti Guzzo, P. Taracha (eds), “And I Knew Twelve Languages”. A Tribute to Massimo Poetto on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Warsaw, Agade Bis: 332-355.

Marazzi M. 2020, Neue “Ausgrabungen” im Vorderasiatischen Museum und in der Gipsformerei zu Berlin, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 177-208.

Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L., Tilia S.S. 2018, Die Arbeiten im Pergamon-Museum und in der Gipsformerei in Berlin, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2018/1: 56-64.

Marazzi M., Pepe C., Schachner A. 2019, La cooperazione italo-tedesca a Hattusa: un progetto integrato per lo sviluppo di nuove tecnologie dedicate allo studio della storia culturale hittita/ Hattuşa’da Alman-italyan işbirliği. Hitit kültür tarihi araştırmasında yeni teknolojilerin geliştirilmesine dair tümleşik proje, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 160: 53-72.

Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L., Schachner A., Tilia S.S. 2019-2020, HATTUSA. German-Italian research in Hattusa, News from the Lands of the Hittites 3-4: 169-250.

Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L. 2020, 3D-Scanning im Großen Tempel, Yazılıkaya, Nişantaşı und dem Löwentor, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2020/1: 48-56.

Meyer G.R. 1956, Durch vier Jahrtausende altvorderasiatischer Kultur, Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum.

Neve P. 1989, Einige Bemerkungen zu der Kammer B in Yazılıkaya, in K. Emre, M. Mellink, N. Özgüç (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara, Anadolu Medeniyetlerini Araştırma ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları: 345-355.

Perrot G. 1872, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, Paris, Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères.

Ramsay M.W., Hogarth D.G. 1893, Prehellenic Monuments of Cappadocia, Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 14: 74-94.

Rehm E. 2018, Wertvolle Kopien. Gipsabgüsse altorientalischer Denkmäler in Deutschland, Münster, Zaphon.

Rehm E. 2020, Wertvolle Kopien. Gipsabgüsse altorientalischer Denkmäler in Deutschland. Supplement, Münster, Zaphon.

Schachner A. 2020, The 14th and 13th centuries BC in the Hittite Capital City Hattuša: A (Re-) Assessment, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 381-410.

Seeher J. 2011, Gods Carved in Stone. The Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.

Texier Ch. 1839, Description de l’Asie Mineure. Premier Volume, Paris, Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères.

Van Lennep H.J. 1870, Travels in Little-Known Parts of Asia Minor, London, John Murray.

1 This contribution follows from, and complements, two previous works on the same topic: Marazzi et al. 2018 and Marazzi 2020. It also illustrates a set of additional data acquired during the research campaigns of the Ḫattuša Mission from 2018 to 2021.

2 On the work carried out as part of the project, see the reports published in Archäologischer Anzeiger 2016: 24-42; 2018: 54-66; 2019: 97-107; 2020: 47-56. Cf. also Marazzi 2018, Marazzi et al. 2019; Marazzi et al. 2019-2020.

3 On this topic, see Marazzi 2019; more generally, on the urban structure of Ḫattuša in the second half of the 13th century, see the picture offered in Schachner 2020.

4 In this regard, we refer to what has already been discussed in Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2004, Marazzi 2010, and, recently, Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2022.

6 On the meaning of ‘dynastisches Pantheon’ see the recent discussion in Hutter 2021: 189-192.

9 On the Texier and Perrot missions to Yazılıkaya see Texier 1839: 209-233, Pls 72-81; Perrot 1872: 321-338, 352-359 (Explication des planches), Pls 34-52.

15 Cf. Laroche 1969, in particular 89-91 and Fig. 29; Perrot 1887: 704 f., where, however, the French scholar refers directly to the existence of the cast.

18 Cf. Kat. 1962, with subsequent reprints Kat. 2007 and Kat. 2018; today the catalogue can be consulted in its electronic version at <https://www.gipsformerei-katalog.de>.

22 Humann, Puchstein 1890: 67 ff. and Pl. IX, in the middle, where the cast is shown.

31 In Rehm 2020, thus subsequent to Marazzi et al. 2018, there is no further mention of the cast.

40 Royaumes: 76-79: Musée du Louvre AOmg 55: 66, 70; Chantre 1898: XII, 2-3 (casts of Alaca), 125-129 (relief of Fıraktin).

41 The subject was discussed by the author on the occasion of the ‘XII Archaeology Conference of the Italian Cultural Institute of Istanbul,’ November 2021, in the context of the communication ‘Le sculture di Yazılıkaya: nuove “letture” delle volumetrie sulla base delle recenti rilevazioni.’ A recent overview of the subject is offered in Seeher 2011: 117, 159-164.

45 In his new monograph on Yazılıkaya Seeher (2011) opts for the reconstruction proposed in Yazılıkaya 2.

46 Cf. Neve 1989; an interesting planimetric comparison is now suggested by Schachner 2016: 3 with n. 10-13 (with further bibliographical references), on the basis of the very recent excavations of the Kesikkaya complex.

References Bittel K. 1934, Die Felsbilder von Yazılıkaya. Neue Aufnahmen der Deutschen Boğazköy-Expedition 1931, Istanbuler Forschungen 5, Bamberg, Abteilung Istanbul des Archäologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches. Boissier A. 1897, En Cappadoce. Notes de voyage, Genéve, Rey et Malavallon. Bolatti Guzzo N., Marazzi M. 2004, Storiografia hittita e geroglifico anatolico: per una revisione di KBo 12.38, in D. Groddek, S. Rößle (eds), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 10, Dresden, Harrassowitz: 155-185. Bolatti Guzzo N., Marazzi M. 2022, Some reflections on the Nişantaş inscription and related issues, in G. Bartolini, M.G. Biga, Not Only History. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani Held in Sapienza-Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20-21 April 2009, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 500-520. Chantre E. 1898, Mission en Cappadoce 1893-1894, Paris, Ernest Lerou. Crüsemann N. 2000, Vom Zweistromland zum Kupfergraben. Vorgeschichte und Entstehungsjahre (1899-1918) der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der Berliner Museen vor fach- und kulturpolitischen Hintergründen, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 22, Berlin, Gebr. Mann Verlag. Garstang J. 1910, The Land of the Hittites, London, Constable. Grothe H. 1911, Meine Vorderasienexpedition 1906 und 1907, I/1: Die fachwissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse, Leipzig, Hiersemann. Güterbock H.G. 1982, Les hiéroglyphes de Yazılıkaya. À propos d’un travail récent, Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations. Humann C., Puchstein, O. 1890, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, ausgeführt im Auftrage der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie, Berlin, Reimer. Hutter M. 2021, Religionsgeschichte Anatoliens: vom Ende des dritten bis zum Beginn des ersten Jahrtausends, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer. Jakob-Rost L. 1990, Das Vorderasiatische Museum, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Laroche E. 1969, Les dieux de Yazılıkaya, Revue Hittite et Asianique 84-85: 61-109. Marazzi M. 2010, Scrittura, percezione e cultura: qualche riflessione sull’Anatolia in età hittita, KASKAL 7: 219-225. Marazzi M. 2018, Il “Progetto Hattusa”: una cooperazione italo-tedesca per la sperimentazione di nuove tecnologie applicate all’archeologia e all’epigrafia anatolica, in M. Betrò, S. de Martino, G. Miniaci, F. Pinnock (eds), Egitto e Vicino Oriente antichi: tra passato e futuro. Studi e ricerche sull’Egitto e il Vicino Oriente in Italia, I convegno nazionale 2017, Pisa, Pisa University Press. Marazzi M. 2019, Schriftlichkeit und königliche Zelebration in Hattusa gegen Ende des 13. Jh. v. Chr. Über die sogenannten „langen“ Hieroglypheninschriften, in N. Bolatti Guzzo, P. Taracha (eds), “And I Knew Twelve Languages”. A Tribute to Massimo Poetto on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Warsaw, Agade Bis: 332-355. Marazzi M. 2020, Neue “Ausgrabungen” im Vorderasiatischen Museum und in der Gipsformerei zu Berlin, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 177-208. Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L., Tilia S.S. 2018, Die Arbeiten im Pergamon-Museum und in der Gipsformerei in Berlin, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2018/1: 56-64. Marazzi M., Pepe C., Schachner A. 2019, La cooperazione italo-tedesca a Hattusa: un progetto integrate per lo sviluppo di nuove tecnologie dedicate allo studio della storia culturale hittita/ Hattuşa’da Alman-italyan işbirliği. Hitit kültür tarihi araştırmasında yeni teknolojilerin geliştirilmesine dair tümleşik proje, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 160: 53-72. Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L., Schachner A., Tilia S.S. 2019-2020, HATTUSA. German-Italian research in Hattusa, News from the Lands of the Hittites 3-4: 169-250. Marazzi M., Bolatti Guzzo N., Pepe C., Repola L. 2020, 3D-Scanning im Großen Tempel, Yazılıkaya, Nişantaşı und dem Löwentor, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2020/1: 48-56. Neve P. 1989, Einige Bemerkungen zu der Kammer B in Yazilikaya, in K. Emre, M. Mellink, N. Özgüç (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, Ankara, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Arastirma ve Tanitma Vakfi Yayinlari: 345-355. Meyer G.R. 1956, Durch vier Jahrtausende altvorderasiatischer Kultur, Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum. Perrot G. 1872, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, Paris, Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères. Ramsay M.W., Hogarth D.G. 1893, Prehellenic Monuments of Cappadocia, Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 14: 74-94. Rehm E. 2018, Wertvolle Kopien. Gipsabgüsse altorientalischer Denkmäler in Deutschland, Münster, Zaphon. Rehm E. 2020, Wertvolle Kopien. Gipsabgüsse altorientalischer Denkmäler in Deutschland. Supplement, Münster, Zaphon. Schachner A. 2020, The 14th and 13th centuries BC in the Hittite Capital City Hattuša: A (Re-) Assessment, in S. de Martino, E. Devecchi (eds), Anatolia Between the 13th and the 12th century BCE, Eothen 23, Firenze, LoGisma: 381-410. Seeher J. 2011, Gods Carved in Stone. The Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları. Texier Ch. 1839, Description de l’Asie Mineure. Premier Volume, Paris, Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères. Van Lennep H.J. 1870, Travels in Little-Known Parts of Asia Minor, London, John Murray.