Passage:
For over half a century, historiographical consensus regarding late Hittite administrative organization posited a rigid, centralized bureaucracy operating from Hattusa, relying almost exclusively on cuneiform tablets to dictate provincial policy. However, recent epigraphic discoveries at peripheral sites in southern Anatolia have prompted historian Elena Rostova to challenge this monolithic model. Rostova contends that Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions on monumental stone reliefs reflect a decentralized, semi-autonomous network of regional rulers whose governance was largely independent of imperial oversight.
While Rostova's framework offers a welcome corrective to earlier top-down narratives by highlighting the agency of provincial elites, her assertion that central authority was virtually non-existent outside the capital overstates the evidence. The presence of standardized imperial seal impressions alongside local Luwian texts suggests a far more dynamic interplay between imperial administration and regional authority than Rostova admits. Moreover, her analysis tends to treat Luwian epigraphy as inherently subversive, overlooking how provincial rulers frequently deployed imperial iconography to legitimize their own positions within the broader Hittite hegemony. Consequently, while Rostova successfully demonstrates that Anatolian political structure was far more heterogeneous than previously recognized, her model ultimately substitutes one simplistic dichotomy for another.
Statement: Based on the passage, the author's attitude toward Elena Rostova's historical framework is best characterized as measured appreciation for its dismantling of traditional views, combined with critical skepticism regarding its overstated conclusions.
Cevap: Cevap