Ḫartapus or Kartapus was an Anatolian king who in the early 8th century BCE ruled a state in what is presently the region of Konya in modern Turkey.
Name The name of this king was variously written as: Ḫartapus:
and Kartapus:
Etymology The name Ḫartapus/Kartapus is not attested outside of this king's inscriptions and it does not correspond to Hittite or Luwian naming conventions, and was thus a non-Luwian name. It has therefore been interpreted as a Luwian pronunciation of a non-Luwian name.
Alternative reading An alternative reading of this king's name could be or , which might be composed of the Anatolian suffix , and whose root might also be found in the toponyms () and ().
Sources Neo-Assyrian sources do not mention Ḫartapus's kingdom, due to which there is little information about it.
Dating The monuments of Ḫartapus show a discrepancy between their art style, which show Neo-Assyrian influence, and their palaeography, which reflects a style from the 13th century BCE. Additionally, Ḫartapus himself is not known outside of his own monuments and is not mentioned in Neo-Assyrian sources, which has led to significant debate regarding how to date Ḫartapus since the discovery of this king in the early 20th century AD.
Early dating Due to the archaising features of the inscriptions of Ḫartapus which show significant similarities with the Hieroglyphic Luwian writing traditions of the Hittite Empire, as well as the typically Hittite name of his father Mursilis, his reign had previously been dated to the late 2nd millennium BCE: according to Trevor Bryce, Ḫartapus lived in the 13th century BCE during the final years of the Hittite Empire; according to Mark Weeden, Ḫartapus lived in the early 12th century BCE, in the period immediately following the collapse of the Hittite Empire.
According to proponents of an earlier dating of Ḫartapus, the designation for a people defeated by him referred to a population with a specific lifestyle rather than to an ethnic group, and was identical with the Eastern Muški of the Assyrian records.
Several proposals for the identity of Ḫartapus were proposed within the earlier dating scheme: had identified him as the son of the Hittite king Muršili II, thus making Ḫartapus a brother of Muwatalli II and Ḫattušili III. the earlier identification prevalent among Hittitologists considered him to be the son of the Hittite king Urḫi-Teššub, who had assumed the throne name of Mursili III before being dethroned by Ḫattušili III, after which his descendants formed their own rival kingdom in Tarḫuntašša; according to this proposal, the Kızıldağ relief was instead carved at least four centuries after Ḫartapus, by either Wasusarmas of Tabal or Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš. Bryce hypothesised that Ḫartapus had ruled from Tarḫuntašša and attempted to claim the Hittite throne following the ouster of his father, with his victories mentioned in his inscriptions referring to his wars against the authority in Ḫattusa, which were alluded to by the ruling Hittite king Tudḫaliya IV as rebellions that he had to deal with.
Rostyslav Oreshko dated the inscriptions of Ḫartapus to the 12th or early 11th century BCE and identified him as a king of Maša in northwestern Anatolia, which he identified with Muska, that is early Phrygia. Oreshko hypothesised that the inscriptions of Ḫartapus referred to an attempt by him to expand Masa up to the eastern and southeastern mountain boundaries of the Central Anatolian Plains after the collapse of the Hittite Empire.
12th century BCE Jorrit Kelder has noted that Assyrian sculptural traditions prior to Ashurnasirpal II are still scarcely known about, while the early 8th century BCE inscriptions from Karkamiš mentioning Anatolia do not mention Ḫartapus either.
Kelder also pointed out that an early 8th century BCE date is inconsistent for Ḫartapus, since Phrygia was already an ascending power by the late 9th century BCE, and therefore Ḫartapus's victory over it, even if it amounted to a successful raid, would have been unfeasible. Furthermore, the thirteen kings whom Ḫartapus defeated must have been involved in his campaign against the Muska, meaning that the Muska were ruled by thirteen leaders rather than a single king as in the 8th century BCE.
Kelder therefore situated Ḫartapus in an earlier period dominated by mobile tribal leaders and petty kings, and hence dated him to the 12th century BCE, in the period immediately following the collapse of the Hittite Empire, with the powerful early Iron Age polity centred at Türkmen-Karahöyük declining in the middle Iron Age.
Double Ḫartapus hypothesis According to Weeden and , most of the inscriptions by Ḫartapus, especially the 4th Kızıldağ and 1st Karadağ inscriptions, had been written in the 12th century BCE, while the 1st Kızıldağ, Burunkaya, 1st Türkmen-Karahöyük, and his relief were from the 8th century BCE. Their conclusion, which was also shared by Lorenzo D'Alfonso and Matteo Pedrinazzi, was therefore that two Ḫartapus had reigned: a Ḫartapus I, son of Mursilis, who had reigned in the 12th century BCE, and who had defeated the Muska; and a Ḫartapus II, who was not the son of Mursilis and who reigned in the early 8th century BCE.
Proponents of this double king hypothesis have identified Ḫartapus I as a descendant of the king Kuruntiya of Tarḫuntašša.
Later datings Early 8th century BCE Based on the shape of the hieroglyphs in the inscriptions of Ḫartapus, Petra Goedegebuure and Theo van den Hout dated them to the 8th century BCE. Therefore, James Osborne and Michele Massa have contested the interpretations of Weeden and Hawkins because the various monuments of the alleged Ḫartapus II portrayed him in ways that did not distinguish him from the purported Ḫartapus I: this practice did not follow the known reuse of the monuments of earlier similarly named rulers, and instead conflated the two Ḫartapus while diminishing the achievements of Ḫartapus II in his own inscriptions by contrasting him unfavourably with the Ḫartapus I despite reusing his monuments, wordings and titles.
Furthermore, the relief of Ḫartapus at Kızıldağ depicted him in an Assyrianising artistic style, such as his body's proportions, his beard and hairstyle as well as his dress, his hat with folded earmuffs, his upwards pointed shoes, the shape of the bowl and the way he holds it, while the imagery of the enthroned king used in the relief was common throughout the Iron Age Syro-Anatolian region, including the Katumuwa stele of Zincirli Höyük and a relief from the South Gate of Karatepe-Aslantaş; this imagery was related to the depictions of seated royalty from the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which include the image of the queen Libbāli-šarrat in the gardens of Nineveh.
The art style of the relief, such as Ḫartapus's tripartite beard, him holding the bowl with the tips of this fingers, and his hairstyle, reflected influence from Neo-Assyrian royal depictions from the reigns of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III, which was also visible in the reliefs of the king Kilamuwa of Samʾal.
Moreover, Ḫartapus is not mentioned in any of the records of the Neo-Assyrian Empire which started mentioning the Tabalian region during the reign of its king Tiglath-pileser III. Meanwhile, Ḫartapus claimed to have conquered Phrygia, which would have been impossible during the time of its expansion under its king Midas during late the 8th century BCE.
Therefore, Osborne and Massa have concluded that the various inscriptions refer to a single Ḫartapus, son of Mursilis, who reigned during the early 8th century BCE, before Midas had become the king of Phrygia.
Moreover, the hieroglyphic signs used by Ḫartapus in his Türkmen-Karahöyük inscription exhibit features from the 9th th 8th centuries BCE, suggesting that he lived in the 9th to 8th centuries BCE and used archaising signs in his other inscriptions as a symbol of legitimacy.
Defending the 8th century BCE dating for Ḫartapus from the 12th to 9th century BCE dates, Petra Goedegebuure argues that the Muska were either Phrygia itself, or an alliance of the western Muški with Phrygia.
According to Goedegebuure, the inscriptions of Ḫartapus show features not used in Hieroglyphic Luwian before the late 10th to early 9th centuries BCE, while also exhibiting features from the late 9th to early 7th centuries BCE.
9th century BCE Peter James in 2022 has meanwhile argued that the Muški whom Ḫartapus fought were located to the east and south-east of the Tabalian region, rather than in Phrygia, and were therefore not yet associated with the Phrygian kingdom. According to James's hypothesis, the Muska had seized power in the Tabalian region before attacking Ḫartapus, who defeated them and secured the territories he recovered with ten fortresses.
Drawing on iconographic analysis, James noted the similarity between the relief of Ḫartapus and the imagery on the White Obelisk of Ashurnasirpal II and the Balawat Gates. Basing himself on an earlier study by D'Alfonso and Pedrinazzi according to which the imagery of Ḫartapus was modelled on a scene on the Balawat Gates where the king is depicted holding a staff in a ritual scene on a mountain top while celebrating a military victory at the sources of the Tigris, as well as referring to a depiction of Ashurnasirpal II from Kalḫu where his beard, hair and hand pose holding a shallow bowl by the fingertips are similar to those of Ḫartapus, James suggested that the iconography of Ḫartapus was from the 9th century BCE.
Additionally, it was unlikely that any ruler in Anatolia would have used the title of "Great King" in the late 8th century BCE, when the region was dominated by Phrygia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, James concluded that a 9th-century BCE date was adequate with respect to location of the Muški near Tabal and the Assyrianising iconography of Ḫartapus's reliefs.
Life Ḫartapus was the son of one Mursilis.
Reign The inscriptions of Ḫartapus were largely concentrated in the Konya-Karaman Plain, suggesting that this area was the core territory of his kingdom, which appears to have been centred around the site corresponding to present-day Türkmen-Karahöyük, where was located Ḫartapus's royal residence.
The Konya-Karaman Plain within which the kingdom of Ḫartapus was located formed the western part of the group of kingdoms referred by the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the Tabalian region, although it was unlikely but not impossible that the Neo-Assyrians had any specific knowledge of the region of Ḫartapus's kingdom.
Unlike the later part of his reign, the earliest monuments of Ḫartapus did not contain the titles of "Great King" and "Hero."
Monuments Several Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions by Ḫartapus are recorded: five are recorded from Mount Kızıldağ; two are recorded from Mount Karadağ; one is recorded from Türkmen-Karahöyük; one is recorded from Burunkaya. The inscriptions of Ḫartapus are characterised by archaic orthography and palaeography and the use of similar to imperial Hittite ones from the 13th century BCE, which is a feature that they shared with the Topada inscription of Wasusarmas of Tabal.
Ḫartapus had built a step monument at Kızıldağ, where inscriptions celebrate his foundation of a settlement at that site. Ḫartapus had also built a monument on mount Karadağ, which might have been meant to parallel the one at Kızıldağ, and where his inscriptions were dedicated to the storm-god Tarḫunzas of Heaven and to the Divine Great Mountain, which was likely Mount Karadağ itself.
The capital city of Ḫartapus, corresponding to present-day Türkmen-Karahöyük, was located close to the mounts Karadağ and Kızıldağ, which were likely peak sanctuaries where Ḫartapus conducted rituals, that is sacred sites connected to that capital city, and these three sites were mutually visible with each other.