Michele Massa and James F. Osborne On the Identity of Hartapu Textual, Historical and Archaeological Analysis of an Anatolian Iron Age Ruler https://doi.org/10.1515/aofo-2022-0006 Abstract: The recent discovery of the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription of TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1 in the Konya Plain (Turkey) has sparked a debate regarding its author, Great King Hartapu, the dates of his rule, and his role in the political geography of south-central Anatolia. Several authors now propose that two kings of the same name may have reigned at different times in the same region. This paper proposes a textual analysis of all the Hartapu inscriptions, together with an assessment of the archaeological and historical contexts in which they were found. In light of this, we argue that only one individual called Hartapu was responsible for the whole corpus and that he reigned during the Middle Iron Age, likely in the 8 th century BCE. Keywords: Hartapu, TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1, Iron Age Anatolia, political geography Introduction In 2019 our team discovered a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription now referred to as TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1 (TKH1 henceforth). We provided a transliteration and translation of the new text and dated it to the 8 th cen- tury BCE on palaeographic grounds (Goedegebuure et al. 2020). We further suggested that all other inscrip- tions by Hartapu were likely contemporaneous with TKH1 and thus should be down dated to the 8 th century BCE (Goedegebuure et al. 2020). In addition, we suggested that Türkmen-Karahöyük, which during the Mid- dle Iron Age (ca 10 th –7 th centuries BCE) possibly reached a size of 120ha+, is in all likelihood the capital of Hartapu’s kingdom (Osborne et al. 2020). This hitherto unknown kingdom probably spanned the Konya-Kara- man Plains and seems to have been contemporary, and possibly in conflict, with the Tabalian polities men- tioned in Neo-Assyrian sources (Massa et al. 2020). Following the original publication and analysis of TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1, several studies have ap- peared that propose alternative understandings of the inscription (Adiego 2021; d’Alfonso 2020; d’Alfonso/ Pedrinazzi 2021; Hawkins/Weeden 2021; Oreshko 2020; Peker 2020; Summers in press a, b). One feature com- mon to these studies is a reluctance to modify the traditional chronological understandings of all or some of the related Hartapu inscriptions at Kızıldağ and Karadağ. In particular, it has been suggested that TKH1 may have been partly rewritten at a later stage (Adiego 2021: 21); or that while TKH1 and KIZILDAĞ 1 (KzD1 hence- forth) are 9 th century, KIZILDAĞ 2–4 (KzD2–4 henceforth), KARADAĞ 1–2 (KrD1–2 henceforth) and BURUN- KAYA are 13 th –12 th centuries (d’Alfonso 2020: 184, note 4; d’Alfonso/Pedrinazzi 2021: 136–137); or that the whole of Hartapu’s corpus should be dated to the 12 th –early 11 th centuries BCE (Oreshko 2020: 78–86). The most comprehensive and rigorous re-evaluation to date is that by Hawkins and Weeden (2021), who propose the existence of two different Great Kings named Hartapu in the Konya Plain in the 12 th and 8 th centuries respectively. In this paper, we employ a textual, historical and archaeological analysis of Hartapu’s corpus to evaluate critically these new proposals, accepting some of their arguments, and also providing additional justification Michele Massa, Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation, 1155 East 60 th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, E-Mail: mmassa@uchicago.edu James F. Osborne, Oriental Institute, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago, 1155 East 58 th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, E-Mail: jamesosborne@uchicago.edu Altorientalische Forschungen 2022; 49(1): 85–103