BIAA
&WT15H INSTITUTE AT ANKARA
lr Sen
Tarkasnawa King of Mira 'Tarkondemos', Bogazkoy Sealings and Karabel Author(s): J\ D. Hawkins
Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 48 (1998), pp. 1-31 Published by: British Institute at Ankara Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3643046 Accessed: 30/06/2010 05:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
	
9	
STOR	
British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
Tarkasnawa King of Mira 'Tarkondemos', Bogazkoy sealings and Karabel
J. D. Hawkins
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Summary
The historical geography of Anatolia in the period sourced by the Bogazkoy texts (Middle-Late Bronze Age) has proved an on-going problem since they first became available, and nowhere was this more acutely felt than in southern and western Anatolia, generally acknowledged as the site of the Arzawa lands, also probably the Lukka lands. A major advance has been registered since the mid-1980s, with the publication and interpretation of the Hieroglyphic inscription of Tudhaliya IV from Yalburt, and the Cuneiform treaty on the Bronze Tablet of the same king. These two documents have established that the later territory of Rough Cilicia constituted the Late Bronze Age kingdom of Tarhuntassa with its western border at Perge in Pamphylia, and that the Lukka lands did indeed occupy all of (or more than) classical Lycia in the south-west. These recognitions, by establishing the geography of the south and south-west, correspondingly reduced the areas of uncertainty in the west.
In 19971 was fortunately able to establish the reading of the Hieroglyphic inscription attached to the long-known Karabel relief, which lies inland from Izmir in a pass across the Tmolos range between Ephesos and
This article follows a lecture 'The Hittites on the Aegean Coast: new evidence', given to the Mycenaean Seminar at a joint event with Dr Penelope Mountjoy on 14 January 1998. A version of her communication is also included in the present volume. The article has benefited immensely from discussions with many friends and colleagues, above all Professors H. G. Guterbock and O. R. Gurney and Dr David French, to all of whom I am most grateful. Among the photographs I would like to single out that of KARABEL A, here fig 3 a-b, which was taken by Dr Hatice Gonnet and on which I first read 'Tarkasnawa king of Mira'. I would also like to thank Professors Guterbock and Kohlmeyer for permission to reproduce their photographs and drawings, and the Hirmer-Archiv, Munich, for the photograph fig 3 c-d. The abbreviations used in this article follow as far as possible those of the Chicago Hittite Dictionary (vol.3/1 (1980), pp.xxi-xxxi; P/3 (1997), pp.vii-xxix).
Sardis. This can be shown to give the name of Tarkasnawa, King of Mira, and those of his father and grandfather, also kings of Mira but with names of uncertain reading. This is the same king known from his silver seal (referred to as 'Tarkondemos' from an early and incorrect identification), and impressions of other seals of his have more recently been found at Bogazkoy. Clearly he was an important historical figure.
Three generations of kings of Mira, spanning the period from Mursili II to Tudhaliya IV (late 14th to later 13th centuries B.C.), were already known from the Bogazkoy texts. It is likely that Tarkasnawa was the son of the last of these, Alantalli, and a contemporary of the later reign of Tudhaliya IV (late 13th century). As such he is likely to have been the recipient of the 'Milawata letter', written by Tudhaliya to an important western ally whose name is lost from the text.
Mira has been recognized as the most prominent Arzawa kingdom, probably incorporating the rump of Arzawa itself after Mursili's defeat and dissolution of that kingdom. The reading of the Karabel inscription confirms at a stroke the location of Mira in its vicinity and disproves all other proposed locations. Mira itself is known to have had a common inland frontier with Hatti on the western edge of the Anatolian plateau in the neighbourhood of Afyon. Karabel, being placed on the route northwards from the territory of Ephesos in the Cayster valley to the Hermos valley, shows by its reading that Mira extended this far west, in effect to the coast. The probability is that this western extension of Mira represents the rump of the Arzawan state with its capital at Apasa, which is thereby doubtless confirmed in its identification with Ephesos. It is also likely that such a large political entity could only be kept together by good control of communications, so one might postulate that the spine of this kingdom of Mira-Arzawa must have been the Meander valley, the main highway from the plateau to the west.
Thus the size and importance of Mira is clearly revealed. Its neighbours too may be more precisely located by reference to its established location. In
1
Anatolian Studies 1998
particular the Seha River land, known to have shared a frontier with Mira, is confirmed in its identification with the Hermos valley, entered from the south by the Karabel pass. The attested interest of the state in the land of Lazpa (=Lesbos) may be understood by the recognition that its sway included the Caicos valley too, and its connections with the Arzawa land Wilusa, which lay beyond but was reached through its territory, push the latter kingdom back into its home in the Troad, in the past so hotly contested.
Mira controlling the Meander valley would have had Late Bronze Age Miletos lying to its immediate south across the Latmic gulf (now silted up), and the LBA remains currently under investigation here, which show a Minoan followed by two Mycenean levels, make its identification with the city Millawanda / Milawata virtually certain. The environs of Millawanda as known from the 'Tawagalawa letter' include a cluster of toponyms, many with good classical correspondences, which may be located on the great highway running south-east out of the Meander valley, up the pass of the river Marsyas, through inland Caria to Lycia.
Thus it may be argued that the recognition of the Karabel inscription as the work of a king of Mira provides the key to the historical geography of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age. The web of interlocking locations arising from this cannot but bear on the vexed question of the land of Ahhiyawa. Now it may be argued more strongly than ever both that there remains no place for this country on the Anatolian mainland, and that Ahhiyawa lying 'across the sea' impinges mainly on the Anatolian west coast, above all at Millawanda-Miletos. This therefore remits the problem of the character and extent of the land of Ahhiyawa under its sometime Great King to the field of Aegean island or perhaps mainland Greek archaeology. See map, fig 11.
I. The Epigraphic Evidence
(1) The Seals
1.1. In an article in Studies Calvert Watkins, Anna Morpurgo Davies and I took up again the reading of the name of the King of Mira on the Tarkondemos seal.1 We based ourselves on the recent work of Giiterbock2 and Nowicki,3 who read the name Tarkasna-tiwa and Tarkasna-muwa respectively, emending the Cuneiform legend to this effect. Following them we read the Hieroglyphs tarkasna- (HH no. 101, with Guterbock) and -wall {HHno.320, Empire form of no.165, BONUS//wa/f, with Nowicki), but we emerged simply with the name Tarkasnawa. We were satisfied that this was correct, since it matched up exactly with the Cuneiform read virtually without emendation4 kar-kas-sa-na-wa* In so reading we accepted without further problem the identity of the King of Mira on the Tarkondemos seal with the King of Mira on the Bogazkoy sealings Bo.388/z, 385/z etc.,6 reading TARKASNA-wa/i REX m[i+ra/i]-a [REGIO]. Naturally both Guterbock and Nowicki had seen the attraction of the identification, but Guterbock was hampered by his reading of the Tarkondemos seal, while Nowicki proposed a reading and interpretation which would fit both but was not convincing.
1.2. In our article we gave further consideration to the analysis of the resulting name Tarkasnawa and to the
1 J. D. Hawkins and A. Morpurgo Davies, Of Donkeys, Mules and Tarkondemos {Mir Curad. Studies Calvert Watkins [Innsbruck, 1998], pp.243-260).
' H. G. Guterbock, The Hittite seals in the Walters Art Gallery, no.4, the 'Tarkondemos' seal {Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 36 [1977], pp.11-16).
3 H. Nowicki, Zum Herrschernamen auf dem sogenannten 'Tarkondemos'-Siegel {Serta Indogermanica. Fs Giinter Neumann [Innsbruck, 1982], pp.227-232).
4 The necessity to emend the Cuneiform writing of Mira seems to have led to the assumption that the uncertainly read Cuneiform of the name could also be emended at will. But in fact our reading required virtually no emendation, just a small internal vertical in -sa- (not strictly necessary), and a small second diagonal for -na-.
' Proposed new readings in bold type. The element tarkasna-is attested in the PN Tarkasnalli (Laroche, Noms, no. 1283), and the same word is apparently a common noun in Cun. Luwian texts (Starke, StBoT 30, p.249 [iii 1], also KUB XXXI, 71 iii 14). The noun is spelled -ga-as-sa-na- , while the PN is normally -ga-as-na-, once -ga-as-sa-na-. 6 The bullae Bo.388/z, 385/z, 386/z, 387/z, 1004/z were excavated in 1967 (i.e. /z) in a group with other bullae in the fill fallen into Magazine 32 in the Great Temple precinct. They were published by Guterbock in Bittel et al., Bogazkoy V [Berlin, 1975], pp.51-53; also Boehmer — Guterbock, BoHa XIV, nos. 263-4. Guterbock at once saw their importance to the Tarkondemos problem and also adduced his reading of KARABEL CI published in 1967 (see below 1.3.2 and n.16).
2
Hawkins
Anatolian Studies 1998
etymology and usage of the element tarkasna-1 and of the suffix -wa.s We did not, within the limits of our interest there, discuss the date or historical position of this King of Mira, now known from impressions of two different seals at Bogazkoy as well as from his own original silver seal.9 Nor did we consider Guterbock's reading and remarks on the rock inscription KARABEL CI,10 since the inscription is peculiar, the reading uncertain, and we could not see how it could be brought into harmony with the solution to Tarkondemos which we offered.
(2) The inscription KARABEL A
2.1. After submission of our article I was again pondering the reading of KARABEL and examining some good photographs also of the main Karabel inscription,11 KARABEL A, which accompanies the relief figure with bow and spear.12 With my mind very much on our reading of Tarkasnawa, I suddenly saw that this is exactly what is on KARABEL A, line 1:
REX TARKASNA-wa/i REX mi+ra/i-a 'Tarkasnawa, King of <the land> Mira'.
I was also able to see on the dextroverse line 2 AVISX REX mi+ra/i-a REGIO, and on line 3 a sinistroverse 'hand', which I took for INFANS, 'son'. Thus I supposed that 11.2+3 read 'son of BIRD, king of the land Mira', giving Tarkasnawa's paternity.
loc. cit., pp.249-255. The problem is tied up with the Late Hieroglyphic writings tarkasna- and tarkasni- .
8 loc. cit., pp.248ff.
9 Actual surviving royal seals of the Hittite kingdom are almost non-existent. The Ugarit seal of Mursili II is somewhat suspect (Salvini, Syria 67 (1990), pp.423-426, defending the piece, with bibliography of the doubts). The Louvre seal AO 29722 is an obvious forgery: published by Salvini, Syria 67 (1990), pp.257-268; repudiated by Hawkins, Syria 67 (1990), pp.735-741; cf. Salvini, Syria 67 (1990), pp.743-747; Amiet, ibid., p.749 ff.; Salvini, SMEA 29 (1992), pp.149-154.
10 KARABEL CI-2 inscriptions found by Guterbock in 1940, revisited in 1952, and again in 1966, when they were cleared photographed and squeezed, for publication in 1967: Guterbock, 1st. Mitt. 17 [1967], pp.68-71, with pis. 1.2, 2. For KARABEL B and C in general see Kohlmeyer, op.cit. (n.12), pp.19-25; he saw them in 1977 but reports (p.19, 3.2) that by 1982 they had been destroyed by road-building.
11 The best kindly supplied by Dr. Hatice Gonnet, taken in April 1994.
12 For previous attempts, bibliography, and a recent reconsideration, see K. Kohlmeyer, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15 [1983], pp.12-28, 113-117 Taf. 1-15. Cf. also E.P. Rossner, Die hethitischen Felsreliefs in der Tiirkei [2nd ed., 1988], pp.46-52.
2.2. With a view to confirming these readings, I visited Karabel in September 1997 (see figs 1-2).13 Close examination of the rock suggests the following readings:
1. (sinistroverse) REX TARKASNA-wa/i REX mi+ra/i-a
2. (dextroverse) AVISx-/;? REX mi+ra/i-a REGIO [INFANS]
3. (sinistroverse) [... ]x REX mi+ra/i-a REGIO NEPOS
'(1) (King) Tarkasnawa, king of <the land> Mira, (2) [son] of BIRD-li(?), king of the land Mira, (3) grandson of [... ], king of the land Mira.'
2.3. Thus the inscription gives not only the father's name as I first thought, but also that of the grandfather, though I have not been able to identify any meaningful traces of the latter. It is indeed ironical that two of the longest known Hieroglyphic monuments, KARABEL and Tarkondemos,14 should both be the work of the same ruler though this should only now be recognized. Before the important historical and geographical implications of these readings are considered, some detailed comment on the readings themselves should be offered. In support of my readings I offer prints of the two clearest photographs of KARABEL A beside duplicates on which I have inked what I could see (fig 3a-d). I also offer Kohlmeyer's recent sketch of what he saw alongside a duplicate on which I have again inked in my readings (fig 4a, b): this shows that Kohlmeyer was able broadly speaking to see the indeterminate shapes which I have been able to identify as Hieroglyphs. A drawing of what I could see set beside a drawing reconstructing the inscription is offered as fig 5 a, b.
2.4. Comments on readings
Line 1. REX ... REX: shapes generally perceived by most previous commentators, and recognized by some, e.g. Bossert (with additional, incorrect volute, - 'great'), Meriggi; accepted by Kohlmeyer.
TARKASNA: general shape best perceived by Bittel and especially Kohlmeyer, but never before correctly identified.
11 Visits on two successive days, 11 and 12 September 1997, from l-3p.m. and 8-11.30a.m. respectively. The sun does not reach the inscription until after 11a.m., being kept off latterly by the trees, which cast a dappled shadow between 10 and 1 la.m. After that the light is fair but becomes flat in the early afternoon.
14 KARABEL A was discovered in 1839 by Renouard and published by Kiepert in 1843: see Messerschmidt, C1H (1900), p.37 (correct the date from 1859 to 1839 from Wright, EHi, p. 156). The Tarkondemos seal is said to have been bought in Izmir by an Istanbul merchant. It was first published by Mordtmann in 1863: see Messerschmidt, CIH, p.42.
4
Hawkins
Hawkins
Anatolian Studies 1998
-wa/i : perceived and correctly identified by Kohlmeyer.
mi+ra/i-a : general shape fairly perceived by Messer-schmidt, Bittel and Kohlmeyer, but no correct identifications.
<REGIO>: neither examination of the rock nor of photographs suggests the presence of this expected sign.
Line 2. AVISX : bird-like shape (clearest sign of inscription) generally apparent to commentators, expressly so identified by Bossert, Steinherr and Kohlmeyer (Bittel and Meriggi on the contrary identified as a sinistroverse 'gazelle head', sa). Laroche HH nos.128-135 lists various birds, mostly distinguished by the presence of the wing at various angles or its absence. The bird here does seem to represent a specific type of bird, perhaps a partridge. In the context as now recognized it can be seen to represent the father's name. The possibility of reading it is discussed further below (III.2).
-If: a further sign appears to exist below the bird's feet, a long, flattish shape with a small hole in the rock in the middle of it. This was signalled most clearly by Bean and Steinherr. In my opinion it most resembles {HH no.278) which could be phonetic complement to the name written logographically BIRD. For the possible reading of the father's name and his identification as Alantalli, see below, III.2.
REX: shape generally perceived by commentators e.g. Sayce, Messerschmidt, Garstang, Bittel; identified as 'king' by Kohlmeyer.
mi+ra/i-a: general shape quite well perceived by Sayce, Messerschmidt and Kohlmeyer; no positive identification before.
REGIO: shape perceived by Kohlmeyer.
[INFANS]: the context of 11.2-3 as now recognizable renders the presence of this sign (hand + 'crampon', HH no.45) practically certain, and indeed inspecting both the rock and photographs I could see where it should be without definitely being able to see it. On the photographs (fig 3b, d) I felt able to draw a line representing the upper edge.
Line 3 (discussed from end back to beginning)
NEPOS: shape perceived most clearly by Steinherr, also Kohlmeyer, identified as td (hand + dagger, HH no.29). My readings from photographs suggested INFANS, 'son' (hand + 'crampon', HH no.45), but examination of the rock immediately showed NEPOS, 'grandson' (hand + HH no.300).
REX mi+ra/i-a REGIO: recognition of 'grandson' on the rock led me to look for the repetition of this group. The five constituent signs are all reasonable assured: REX least clear, mi+ra/i-a most clear, REGIO present
but damaged by a small hole. Note that the shape recorded by Kohlmeyer here does in fact analyse readily into the separate elements of this reading (fig 4a, b).
[grandfather's name]: the reading of the signs and context of line 3 led me to seek hard for the grandfather's name demanded in the angle between the figure's hand and spear. Unfortunately I was not able to suggest any positive recognitions, but the lower left part does show a relatively clear oblique line, as it might be ra/i. Further inspection of the rock might produce more. In the meantime the possible identification of the grandfather is discussed below, 1.3.4.2, and III.2b.
(3) Inscriptions on KARABEL B and CI-2 Something also needs to be said about these now destroyed inscriptions, in order to assess their relevance or otherwise to the reading of KARABEL A and its implications.
3.1. KARABEL B. Kohlmeyer in 1977 seems to have been the last to see, photograph and draw15 this poorly preserved monument before its destruction. His drawing shows probably as much as can be said of the relief, namely that it was a figure with spear and presumably bow, similar to that on the main relief, with traces of a Hieroglyphic inscription including a probable sign REX 'king' in the same position between spear and face of the figure.
3.2. KARABEL CI-2. In his publication of these inscriptions in 1967, Guterbock proposed with reservations to identify the author of CI as Tarkasnalli,16 the king of Hapalla installed by Mursili, and of C2 as BIRD (or animal head)17 which had been identified by Bossert as the father's name on KARABEL A,18 correctly as I believe. For him then KARABEL A was the work of the grandson of Tarkasnalli of Hapalla, and Karabel was the pass from Arzawa proper, with its capital at Apasa -Ephesos in the valley of the Cayster, to Hapalla in the Hermos valley. With this positioning Millawanda would be at Miletos and the Seha River land the Meander valley.
3.3. The very year of this publication, 1967, a group of sealed bullae were excavated at Bogazkoy in the debris from the northern magazines of the Great Temple, among which were found a single impression of one seal 388/z and four impressions of a different but closely similar seal 385-387/z and  1004/z. Guterbock,
15 op.cit. (n.12), pp.19-21 with fig.5, 118f. Taf. 6, 7.3. 16op.cit. (n.10), p.67f. 17 ibid., p.68f.
]sAsia [Istanbul, 1946], p.72.
8
Hawkins
publishing these in 1975,19 identified them from the incomplete Hieroglyphic inscriptions as coming from two different seals of a king of Mira, and noted the close similarity with the Tarkondemos seal, which the first element of the king's name was written with the same distinctive donkey-head, which he had read tarkasna. The second element of the name on the new bullae was the sign wa/i (HH no.439), so Giiterbock returned to KARABEL CI, which he re-read Tarkasna-wa-ti, accepting him as a king of Mira, thus discarding the Tarkasnalli-Hapalla hypothesis. The discrepancies between the names on Tarkondemos, KARABEL CI, and the new bullae he reserved for later consideration, but though he returned to Tarkondemos in 1977,20 he did not again address in print the Bogazkoy bullae and KARABEL CI.
Following Giiterbock, attempts on KARABEL CI-2 were made by Meriggi (1975)21 and Kohlmeyer (1982).22 I can only offer the following remarks:
3.4.1. KARABEL CI: our surviving evidence for this following its destruction remains Giiterbock's photograph and drawing of 1967 (drawing revised 1975; see fig 6a, b), and Kohlmeyer's drawing of 1977 based on independent autopsy (published 1982; see fig 6c).
Sign 1 (rectangular block, two incised diagonal lines, two horizontal bisected by one vertical): uncertainly identified. Giiterbock suggested title 'palace-scribe' (////nos.254 + 326); Meriggi 'stone (of)' ('Pietra [del]'); Kohlmeyer 'Bauwerk/Ort'.
Sign 2 (animal head): Giiterbock from the start identified as the special donkey-head, HH no. 101, as seen on Tarkondemos and later the Bogazkoy bullae; this gave him his reading tarkasna. Meriggi with reason questioned this and preferred the sheep-head ma, while Kohlmeyer preferred a horse-head {HH no.99) with hypothetical reading asuwa.
Signs 3-5: Giiterbock's revised readings of these as -wa/i-ti REX were followed by Meriggi and Kohlmeyer, agreeing that they represented phonetic complement and title to a royal name.
If we line up Giiterbock's 'King Tarkasnawati', Meriggi's 'King Mu(?)wati' and Kohlmeyer's 'King Asuwati' with the 'Tarkasnawa king of Mira' now established for KARABEL A, it is difficult to reconcile any of them, even Giiterbock's. To a large extent this is no longer relevant, since the important information about Karabel is now provided by the reading of KARABEL
See above, n.6.
20 See above, n.2.
21 Manuale U/3, no.4-5, pp.261-263, Tav.I.
22 op.cit. (n.12), pp.21-25 with figs. 6,7.
A. Nevertheless one must admit that it remains a vexing if minor problem.
3.4.2. KARABEL C2: again our surviving evidence consists of Giiterbock's and Kohlmeyer's photographs and drawings (see fig 7a-d, fig 8a, b). Giiterbock, Meriggi and Kohlmeyer are agreed on the presence of the king sign REX three times in the top line and also that the second sign from the right is identical with the first sign of KARABEL A 1.2; though for Giiterbock and Kohlmeyer it is a sinistroverse bird, for Meriggi a dextro-verse gazelle-head. Following the second REX sign Giiterbock saw a dextroverse donkey-head ta, in which he was followed by Meriggi, while Kohlmeyer split this up into the giving hand pi and the antler CERVUS2 (sinistroverse).
Judging from the surviving evidence, I would agree that we have a sinistroverse inscription beginning REX AVISX REX, thus the work of the father of Tarkasnawa of KARABEL A. Proceeding from that I would propose for the shape to the left of the second REX, i.e. Kohlmeyer's pi, the reading mi+ra/i-a but with no sign of REGIO, thus gaining 'King BIRD, king of <the land> Mira ...'. For the remaining signs before the third REX, looking at the published photographs as well as the drawings, I am strongly inclined to agree with Kohlmeyer's CERVUS2- For my reconstruction of line 1 of this inscription, see fig 8c, d. This possible reading, made on purely epigraphic grounds, could be of considerable significance in the context as it would seem to be emerging: the signs here followed by the third king sign might well be the name and title of Mr. BIRD's father as appeared also in KARABEL A 1.3. Reasons will be given below under the discussion of the historical implications of the reading of KARABEL A (see III.2b), for the speculative suggestion that the father of Mr. BIRD (and grandfather of Tarkasnawa) might possibly have been Kupanta-DKAL, king of Mira, contemporary of Mursili II, Muwatalli II and Hattusili III. His name has not been found written in Hieroglyphic, but we would expect a writing *ku-pa-ta/td/ta-CEKVUS2(-ti), as for e.g. the now well known Sauska-DKAL.23   Such a
23 Laroche,Noms, no. 1144, equating the Cun. PNIDLIS-DKAL with Hier. sa+US-ka-CERVVS2-ti attested on KOYLUTOLU YAYLA 1.3 and SBo II, nos. 8, 30, 67. Many new attestations of the name have appeared among the 1990/91 bullae from the Bogazkoy Nisantepe archive (see e.g. Neve, Antike Welt 23, Sondernummer 1992, p.60 Abb.162, upper right). Note how the first element of the name is arranged in the angle formed by CERVUS2 and Other such writings with the second element CERVUS2-ft' placed with CERVUS2 standing in front of the first element include the names Sarpa-CERVUS2, Huwa-CERVUS2 and Halpa-CERVUS2.
9
Anatolian Studies 1998
reading would require the recognition or restoration here of [ku-pa-ta/td/ta]-CEKVUS2(-ti) REX [mi+ra/i-a (REGIO) INFANS], '[son of Kupanta]-KAL king of [(the land) Mira].' Professor Kay Kohlmeyer has kindly sent me prints of his photographs of KARABEL C2, and while restoration of [Kupanta]-CERy\JS2[-ti] looks possible, I can see no traces which might support [mi+ra/i-a (REGIO) INFANS]. Thus evidence for the presence of Kupanta-DKAL in the genealogy is frail but not entirely absent. All the more reason to regret that the destruction of this inscription has placed it beyond further examination.
II. Hatti and Arzavva: the background
1. The land of Mira is attested in the historical inscriptions of Hittite kings from Suppiluliuma I to Tudhaliya IV, thus over four generations.24 It is most fully documented in the reign of Mursili II in the context of his defeat of Arzawa and the establishment of the three vassal states in its place, Mira with Kuwaliya, the Seha River land with Appawiya, and Hapalla, the sources being his own Annals25 and his three Arzawa treaties.26 The three states reappear with the addition of a fourth, Wilusa, in Muwatalli's treaty with Alaksandu.2' The apparent disappearance of a separate and independent Arzawa has been plausibly explained by the supposition that the rump of the Arzawan state, its core territory, was included in the state of Mira-Kuwaliya.28 The links between Mira and Arzawa were clearly close.
2.1. Relations between Hatti and Arzawa can be followed from the time of Tudhaliya I/II onwards. The names of a number of rulers of Arzawa are preserved though not necessarily all of them, nor are their relationships to each other known. The Arzawan opponent of Tudhaliya I/II and Arnuwanda I was Kupanta-DKAL, entitled simply the 'man of Arzawa', who was involved
Sources and bibliography recently summarized by S. Heinhold-Krahmer, RIA VIII/3-4 (1994), s.v. Mira; attestations listed in del Monte and Tischler, RGTC VI (1978), and VI/2 (Supplement, 1992), s.v.; fullest discussion in S. Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa (THeth 8; Heidelberg, 1977), pp.179-219.
25 A.Goetze, Die Annalen des Mursiiis (Leipzig, 1933), years 3-4 and 12. Ten-Year Annals, years 3-4: see now Grelois, Hethitica IX (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988), pp.58-66, 677-83; Extended Annals, year 12, Houwink ten Cate, Fs Meriggi 2 (Pavia, 1979), pp.267-292.
26 J.Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches I-II (Leipzig, 1926, 1930), nos. 2, 3, 4 (Targ., Kup., Man.); recent translations with updated items of bibliography, G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Georgia, 1996), nos. 10-12.
27 Friedrich, SV II, no.5 (Alaks.); Beckman, HDT, no. 13.
28 Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.136-147, 211-219.
in the tortuous affairs of Madduwatta,29 first as his enemy, later as prospective son-in-law. Madduwatta and Kupanta-DKAL appear to be competing Arzawan princes acting out patterns of behaviour which recur in later periods. The activities of Madduwatta in western Anatolia seem to have been very wide-ranging.10
2.2. The reign of Arnuwanda's son and successor, Tudhaliya III, the father of Suppiluliuma I, was notable for its disasters, as remembered by his great-grandson Hattusili III: among other invasions, the Arzawan enemy overran the Lower Land as far as Tuwanuwa and Uda.31 Although precise chronology is not available, it is likely that these events approximately coincided with the exchange of the Arzawa letters between Nimuwariya king of Egypt (Amenophis III) and Tarhundaradu, king of Arzawa, on the subject of a marriage alliance between an Arzawan princess and the Pharaoh.32 There has been much discussion of the implications of the line now translated 'the land of Hattusa was frozen',31 but it still seems likely to refer to the weakened condition of Hatti during this reign, which would account for the prominence of Arzawa and its king, addressed in terms of greeting normally reserved for acknowledged 'Great Kings'.34
29 Sources: A. Goetze, Madduwattas (MVAeG 32/1; Leipzig, 1928); H. Otten, StBoT 11 (Wiesbaden, 1969); recent translation, Beckman, HDT, no.27. Kupanta-DKAL is mentioned obv. 30, 45, 49, 55-57, 75-83, rev. 2, 43. His participation in the same events is reported in the annals of Arnuwanda I, where he is entitled LU ^ar-za-u-wa (KUB XXIII, 21 ii 16 —iii 1). See also below, nn.149, 151.
30 For the geographical range, see below, V.5.2 and nn.153-156.
31 e-di-iz-ma IS-TU KUR URU SAP-LI-TI LU KUR ^ar-za-u-wa-as u-it nu a-pa-a-as-sa KUR.KURMES ha-at-ti har-ga-nu-ut nu-z[a VRV]tu-u-wa-nu-an ^vu-da-an-na ZAG-an i-ia-at, 'But from this side, from the Lower Land the Arzawan enemy came, and he too ravaged the Hatti lands and made Tuwanuwa and Uda his frontier' (Decree for the hekur of Pirwa, KBo VI, 28 obv. 8-9).
32 VBoT nos. 1-2. See recently W. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Johns Hopkins U.P., 1992), nos.31, 32 (translations and notes by V. Haas).
33 nu ha-ad-du-sa-as-sa KUR-e i-ga-it (VBoT 1, obv. 27); for egai-ligai-, 'freeze, become paralysed', see Puhvel, HED 2 (1984), s.v. eka- ; Friedrich-Kammenhuber, HWft (II/9-10) (1988), s.v. egai-, igai-, rejecting the interpretation of Starke, ZA 71 (1981), pp.221-231, esp. p.225, igait<ta>, 'is at peace'; also Haas (loc.cit., preceding n.) points out, this is likely to be quite inappropriate to the contemporary political situation.
34 The full greetings formula in 11.3-10 is normally found only in letters between Great Kings who are acknowledged equals: Hagenbuchner (THeth 15, pp.49-55), who terms it the 'extended Amarna-formula', states that Hittite scribes employed it exclusively in correspondence between equals, yet the only examples which she lists (p.51 f.) in letters other than those written by Ramesses II are the present letter, one from Hattusili III to Kadasman-Enlil, and one from a Hittite king to Mashuitta, for which see below, IV.4.1 and nn.100, 101.
10
Hawkins
(O
Fig 6. Karabel CI (a-b) drawing, photograph (Giiterbock), (c) drawing (Kohlmeyer)
11
Anatolian Studies 1998
Hawkins
Fig 8. Karabel C2 (a-b) drawings (Giiterbock, Kohlmeyer), (c-d) with proposed emendations inked in
13
Anatolian Studies 1998
2.3. The position of Tuwanuwa in Arzawan hands connects with the Deeds of Suppiluliuma, where that prince, still fighting on behalf of his father, was sent against the Arzawans in that area and presumably recovered the city.35 Later fragments of the Deeds give a very broken account of his own campaign into Arzawa after his assumption of the kingship.36 As far as can be determined, initial hostilities involved the cities of Pedassa and Mahuirassa, and as opponents Anzapah-haddu, Alantalli (Alaltalli) and Zapalli are named without being further identified. Mira and Hapalla are also mentioned (the earliest attestation of the former). Either during this war or later, Suppiluliuma received the fugitive prince of Mira, Mashuiluwa, and gave him his daughter in marriage but was unable to reinstate him because of other more pressing commitments.37 Also now or later Suppiluliuma seems to have handed over the city Puranda to Uhhaziti, king of Arzawa, who here appears for the first time.38 The land of Hapalla was conquered by the general Hannutti at this time.39
3.1. The sources for the reign of Mursili40 present the most detailed evidence for Arzawa, especially as regards its geography. The account opens year 3 with an unfortunately fragmentary passage concerning the king of Arzawa, the city of Millawanda, and the king of Ahhiyawa, and what was apparently a raid on the city conducted by Hittite generals.41 The war proper began later in the season after a campaign conducted by Mursili against the Gasga. The actual casus belli appears to have been the refusal of Uhhaziti king of Arzawa to surrender Hittite subjects who had fled to him from the cities of
DS frag. 15. The fragments of the Deeds relating to Arzawa are thoroughly reviewed by Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, Kap.IV; see there, pp.62-64.
36 DS frags. 18-20, reviewed with additional material by Heinhold-Krahmer, op.cit., pp.64-72.
37 ibid., pp.79-81.
38 ibid., pp.72-74, with circumstantial references implying the existence of a treaty between Suppiluliuma and Uhhaziti.
35 Evidenced by two fragments brought together by Houwink ten Cate as discussed by Heinhold-Krahmer, ibid., pp.76-79. That Hapalla was attacked from the Lower Land is important for its localization, for which inner Pisidia is indicated. A position south of the angle formed by the Karakus and Sultan Daglari would explain Hapalla's proximity to but separation from Kuwaliya and Pedassa: see below, V.5.2 and nn.153, 155.
40 Basically still Goetze, AM (1933), comprehensively reviewed by Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, Kap. VA. The present summary is based on Heinhold-Krahmer's presentation of the evidence.
41 KUB XIV, 15 i 23-26 = AM, pp.36-39; for the various interpretations of these fragmentary lines see Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.97-100, prudently preferring that of Goetze.
Attarimma, Hu(wa)rsanassa and Suruta.42 Mursili's route of approach to Arzawa is important: the stages according to the Extended Annals43 were the river Sehiriya, where he witnessed the Storm-God's unleashing of a celestial missile against Apasa the capital of Arzawa; the city Sallapa where he was joined by his brother, the king of Karkamis with reinforcements; and Aura, where he was met by his protege from Mira, Mashuiluwa, with news of developments in Arzawa. After defeating the Arzawan king's son, Piyama-DKAL, at Walma on the river Astarpa, Mursili advanced into Arzawa and arrived at Apasa whence Uhhaziti fled across the sea to the islands.44 The population of Arzawa also fled, some up Mount Arinnanda, some into the city Puranda, and some across the sea with their king. Mursili starved out the fugitives from Mount Arinnanda, vividly described,45 before being forced by the onset of winter into quarters on the river Astarpa.
3.2. The following spring (year 4), after the death of Uhhaziti 'in the sea', Mursili returned and mopped up the fugitives in Puranda.46 He then turned against the Seha River land, whose ruler Manapatarhunda, though owing his position to Hittite support, had sided with Uhhaziti. Manapatarhunda prudently sent an embassy consisting of his mother and the old men and women who met the Hittite king at the frontier and begged for mercy, which was granted.47   Mursili returned to Mira which he
Introducing year 3 in the Ten-Year Annals, preserved only in exemplar B, KBo XVI, 1 ii 29-40 = AM, pp.38-41 (old line numbering). The passage is fragmentary but reference to these refugees recurs: Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 ii 10-12 = AM, p.464; Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iii 27-33 = AM, p.52f. The group of refugee Hittite subjects Attarimma, Hu(wa)rsanassa and Suruta is of geographical significance: see further below, V.5.3.
43 KUB XIV, 15 ii 1-14 = AM, pp.44-49. The Ten-Year Annals which do not detail the itinerary replace the river Sehiriya with Mount Lawasa. For the significance of the itinerary, see below, VI.
44 Ten-Year Annals only: KBo III, 4 ii 22-32 = AM, p.50f. The historically very important recognition of gursauwananza as 'islands' (dat.plur.) is relatively recent: Starke, KZ 95 (1981), pp.142-152.
45 KBo III, 4 ii 33-40 = AM, p.57f. ; Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iii 34-50 = AM, pp.54-57 (description of Mount Arinnanda, 11.39-45 — for the significance for identification, see below, V.2.4 and n.130).
46 Principally Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 ii 47-82 = AM, pp.60-65.
47 Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 iii 10-21, parallel to more detailed Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iv 14-33 =AM, pp.66-73. A parallel but damaged account in the Manapatarhunda treaty is restored from the Annals account. For the location of this event at the north end of the Karabel pass, see below, V.4.3.
14
Hawkins
organized, fortifying three cities and garrisoning them and another.48 At this conclusion of his Arzawa campaign, he made his final dispensation, giving Mira with Kuwaliya to Mashuiluwa, the Seha River land with Appawiya to Manapatarhunda, and Hapalla to Targas-nalli.49 Two of the three treaties which he drew up then, those with Manapatarhunda and Targasnalli, are extant, at least partially.50
3.3. Mursili's political settlement of the West proved comparatively durable, lasting down into the reign of his grandson Tudhaliya IV as far as can be judged. One failure however was the rebellion of Mashuiluwa of Mira and his consequent removal in year 12.51 Being childless in his marriage to Suppiluliuma's daughter, Mashuiluwa had adopted with Mursili's approval his nephew Kupanta-DKAL.52 Later, in spite of his obligations, he instigated anti-Hittite intrigues in the land of Pedassa, as had Madduwatta before him.53 Summoned to Sallapa by Mursili, he fled to the land of Masa, where Mursili
followed him and ravaged the land until the men of Masa surrendered him.54 Mursili removed him to Hattusa and installed Kupanta-DKAL in his place, granting to him Mira-Kuwaliya within undiminished frontiers.55 The extant treaty with Kupanta-DKAL must date from this period.56
3.4. S. Heinhold-Krahmer has argued that in this political settlement, the rump of the Arzawan state, 'Arzawa in engeren Sinn', was incorporated into the state of Mira-Kuwaliya.57 She bases her arguments on the complete disappearance from the records of Arzawa as an independent political unit after Mursili's settlement,58 and also on the close links between Arzawa and Mira observable or deducible from the sources.59 Convincing in itself, this argument is effectively confirmed by the new evidence from Karabel, as will be shown below.60 She further emphasizes that Mursili established Mashuiluwa and Kupanta-DKAL in Mira, as well as Manapatarhunda in the Seha River land and Targasnalli in Hapalla, as lords not kings: the phrase always used is
48 Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iv 34-49 = AM, pp.72-75.
49 Summarized in Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 iii 23-26, more detail but broken in Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iv 50-54 = AM, pp.72-75; latter passage supplemented by join of KBo XVI, 104, Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, p.l23f.
50 See above n.26, nos.2 (Targ.), 4 (Man.); no.3 (Kup.) dates to the installation of Kupanta-DKAL in Mira in year 12 and accounts for the absence of a Mashuiluwa treaty (annulled). For these treaties see Heinhold-Krahmer Arzawa pp.88-91, 130-135. The treaties also have useful reference to Mursili's settlement: e.g. Targ. §9 (Beckman, HDT— §8), \nam-ma-z\a-kán ka-a-aš-ma ŠÁ-B7 KUR-77-/A 3 ltjmeš EL-LU-TIM zi-ik har-ga-aš-na-al-li-iš lmaš-hu-i-lu-w[a-aš...], '[Now] behold in my land there are three 'free men', you Targasnalli, Mashuiluw[a and Manapatarhunda]'; Kup. §3, exactly parallel to the Ten-Year Annals statement except for Mashuiluwa, KUR URUmi-ra-a-ma KUR VRVku-wa-li-ia A-NA lmaš-hu-u-i-lu-wa EGlIR-pa] AD-DIN nu-uš-ši É A-BI-ŠU gišgu.ZA A-BI-ŠU-ia [EGÍR-pa] AD-DIN, 'and the lands of Mira and Kuwaliya I gave [back ] to Mashuiluwa, and his father's house and his father's throne I gave [back] to him' (Starke emphasizes the evidence of this passage that Mashuiluwa's claim was to the throne of Arzawa itself and that Uhhaziti was one of the usurping brothers — see below, n.57). Cf. also Man. §10 (Beckman, HDT— §7).
51 Account in Kup. §§4-6, more detailed but broken in Extended Annals: see the reconstruction and comparison of texts by Houwink ten Cate, Fs Meriggi 2 (1979), pp.267-292.
52 Kup. §4. Alakš. §17 (Beckman, HDT— §14) explicitly states that Kupanta-DKAL, thus also his father and uncle who adopted him, was of the Arzawan royal line: nu lku-pa-an-ta-DKAL-aš MÁŠ LÚ ŠA LUGAL KUR ^ar-za-u-wa IŠ-TU MÁŠ MUNUS-77-ma-aí ŠA LUGAL KUR ^ha-at-ti, 'Kupanta-DKAL (is) (from) the male line of the King of Arzawa, and he (is) from the female line of the King of Hatti'.
53 See below, V.2.2. and n.124, on the proximity of Mira and Pedassa.
" For the bearing on the location of Masa, see below, V.8.6-7.
55 Kup. §8, esp. 11.C27-28, ZAG™^-us-ma A-NA PA-NI PE$.TUR-wa ma-ah-ha-an e-sir ki-nu-na-ia-at tu-uk QA-TAM-MA a-sa-an-du, 'as the frontiers were in the time of Mashuiluwa, so now let them be for you'.
56 See above, n.50.
57 See above, n.28. Starke now puts a somewhat different slant on the same evidence, arguing that Mira itself was really the core of the state: Studia Troica 7 (1997), p.452 with nn.44-46.
58 To establish this she has to discard some restorations, which have been taken to show that Mursili established rump Arzawa as another 'Arzawa land' under Piyama-DKAL, son of Uhhaziti. In Alaks. §4, Friedrich, SVII, p.52 f. 1.A30, followed Forrer's restoration KUR VRVar-za-u-w[a A-NA iSUM-wia-DKAL ID-DIN...], 'the land Arzawa [to Piyama-DKAL he gave...]', followed by '[Mira]-Kuwaliya [to Mashuiluwa, the Seha River land and] Abbawiya [to Manapatarhunda] and Hapalla [to Targasnalli].' But Heinhold-Krahmer convincingly restored the alternative [nu-za ma-ah-ha-an] KUR VRUar-za-u-w[a hu-u-ma-an tar-ah-ta...], '[When he had conquered the entire] land Arzawa'. Similarly another passage of Alaks. (§17: Beckman, HDT— §14) was also restored with the name of [Piyama]-DKAL, but this too is now to be rejected: see below, II.4.2 and n.68.
59 Principally the relationship of Kupanta-DKAL and Mashuiluwa to the royal line of Arzawa (above, n.52); the way in which Mira already seems to be part of Arzawa at the beginning of Mursili's campaign; and the greater importance accorded in the Arzawa treaties to the king of Mira over the other rulers. Mashuiluwa is actually described as 'man of Arzawa' (AM, p. 140 1.56).
60 By establishing that Mira, known to adjoin Hatti in the neighbourhood of Pedassa, Aura and the Astarpa river, extended under Tarkasnawa as far as the Cayster valley and Ephesos, which may be recognized as the core of Arzawa and its capital Apasa: see below, V.4.1-2.
15
Anatolian Studies 1998
'install in lordship', and their status in relation to the Hittite king was one of 'servants' .61 Similarly there is no indication that before Mursili either Mira, the Seha River land or Hapalla were kingdoms, the seats of kings. They seem rather to have been 'dukedoms' controlled by families torn between the competing pulls of Hatti and Arzawa. Thus both Mashuiluwa of Mira and Manapa-tarhunda of the Seha River land had been driven out by their brothers, the former having sought refuge with Suppiluliuma,62 the latter with the men of Karkisa.63 Mursili claimed that both owed their restoration to Hittite patronage especially his own, yet the loyalty of neither was dependable.
4.1. Mursili's Arzawan settlement left his son Muwatalli in a position to establish control over an apparently more remote and inaccessible western country, Wilusa. His treaty with its king Alaksandu is an important further source for Hittite relations with the West.64 Its historical preamble emphasizes the good relations between Hatti and Wilusa in the reigns of those western campaigners Tudhaliya I/II and Suppiluliuma I,65 though unfortunately the passage covering Mursili's reign is almost entirely lost.66 Since Mursili's own sources preserve no mention of Wilusa, his contacts are unlikely to have been close. An important letter from Manapatarhunda to a Hittite king67 mentions a campaign against Wilusa, so should be connected with the treaty and be addressed to Muwatalli. It too is informative on western affairs, mentioning the writer's bad relations with Piyamaradu and Atpa, and also the involvement of Kupanta-DKAL.
See Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.127-129.
62 Kup.%2; Extended Annals, beginning of year 12, KBo IV, 4 iv 56-60 = AM, p.l40f.
63 Man. §§1-2; Extended Annals, year 4, KUB XIV, 15 iv 14-18 = AM, pp.66-69.
64 Alaks., see above, n.27; note the additional readings provided by Otten, MIO 5 (1957), pp.26-30, based on a copy made by Winckler at the time of the tablet's discovery.
65 Alaks. §§2-3 cover the Arzawa campaigns of 'Labarna', Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma. The discrepancy between this report of peaceful relations with Tudhaliya and the inclusion of the land Wilusiya in the list of hostile countries of Assuwa (KUB XXm, 11 ii 19) has been noted: Gurney, CAH (3rd ed., 1973), p.676 f.; cf. Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, p.273f.
66 Alaks. §§4-5, badly damaged, unnumbered in Beckman HDT, who does however include U.A30-33, but unfortunately adheres to the old Forrer-Friedrich restoration of 1.30, for which, as Heinhold-Krahmer has demonstrated, there is no supporting evidence (Arzawa, p.l37f.). See above, n.58.
67 KUB XIX, 5 with joined frag. KBo XIX, 79; recently edited and elucidated by Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 28 (1983-84), pp.38-64.
4.2. A notable feature of the Alaksandu treaty is that it now addresses the western 'lords' as 'kings', specifically 'four kings in the Arzawa lands', Alaksandu, Manapatarhunda(?), Kupanta-DKAL and Urahattusa.68 Later, Muwatalli made Masturi his brother-in-law and king of the Seha River land,69 presumably in direct succession to Manapatarhunda whose son he may have been.70 In the disturbance occasioned by Hattusili's usurpation of the kingship from Urhi-Tesub, this Masturi supported the usurper, and his breach of loyalty oaths to Muwatalli's succession was held up as a warning, quite inappropriately, by Tudhaliya IV.71 Kupanta-DKAL, however, still king in Mira, showed loyalty to Urhi-Tesub by a letter on his behalf to Rameses II.72 The effect this may have had on his relations with Hattusili is unknown.
68 Alaks. §17 (Beckman, HDT— §14), KUB XXI, 1 iii 31-33; 1.32 is supplemented from Winckler's copy to give the name [(lma-an-pa)]-VKAL (Otten, loc. cit. n.64, p.29 with n.9). This eliminates the Forrer-Friedrich restoration of [Piyama]-DKAL (son of Uhhaziti), but leaves the problem of the identity of Manpa-DKAL. Heinhold-Krahmer has argued convincingly that this is simply an error for Manpa-DU/IM, i.e. Manapatarhunda (Arzawa, pp. 152-157), and most scholars follow her: e.g. Houwink ten Cate, loc.cit. (preceding n.), p.62 and n.79. Beckman however still prefers Piyama-DKAL (HDT, pp.85, 118 with n.20). Urahattusa is generally accepted to have been the contemporary king of Hapalla.
69 Sauskamuwa treaty: KUB XXIII, 1 (+ XXI 43) ii 15-30 = Kiihne and Otten, StBoT 16, p. 104. Muwatalli gave him his sister DINGIRMES-IR (Matanazi), in marriage. The statement that Mursili gave her to Manapatarhunda as E.GE4.A (see following n.) is problematic.
70 There is no direct evidence for these two assumptions, except the statement, difficult to interpret because fragmentary, of KUB XXI, 33 11.12-13, relating to the giving of DINGIRMeS-TR by Mursili to Manapatarhunda as bride/daughter-in-law (E.GE4.A): for this passage see Freu, Hittites et Acheens (L.A.M.A. XI; Nice, 1990), p.22 n.23 with bibliography.
71 Houwink ten Cate considers this use of him as a warning may point to an ultimate disgrace of Masturi (loc. cit., (n.67), p.67). If so, the disgrace would have occurred in Tudhaliya's own reign since Masturi still king of the Seha River land appears as a witness on the Bronze Tablet (below, n.80). But this would not fit well with the recent interpretation of the 'sins of the Seha River land', dated to Tudhaliya's reign: see IV.2.2, 3 and nn.94-98.
72 See now E. Edel, Die dg.-heth. Korrespondenz aus Bogazkby (Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), no.28 (vol.1, pp.74-77; vol.11, pp.125-131).
16
Hawkins
5.1. For the reign of Hattusili III, the Tawagalawa letter now generally ascribed to his authorship73 would constitute the most important source for western events. Neither Mira nor the Seha River land are directly mentioned, but the itinerary followed by the Hittite king, from Sallapa to Iyalanda en route for Attarimma, then diverting to Millawanda, is very important and will be considered below.74 The content of the letter is now recognized as revolving around the part played by Piyamaradu between the spheres of interest of the two Great Kings, Hatti and Ahhiyawa.75 It seems to have become accepted to refer to Piyamaradu as a 'freebooter', but in fact there is no reason to doubt that he was another refractory Arzawan prince pursuing traditional goals.76 Only one point in the letter is relevant in the present context: Piyamaradu wrote to the Hittite king while the latter was in Sallapa requesting to be taken into service and brought into the presence by the crown-prince, and subsequently demanding peremptorily to be granted the kingship 'here on the spot' .77 He was apparently at the time in Iyalanda, but on the approach of the Hittite king took himself off to Millawanda.78
73 Singer, An.St. 33 (1983), p.209f; Heinhold-Krahmer Or. 52 (1983), pp.95-97; Popko, AoF 11 (1984), pp.199-203; van den Hout, RA 78 (1984), pp.89-92; Starke, Studia Troica 7, p.453. Contra (dating to Muwatalli): Freu, Hittites et Acheens (1990, see n.70), pp.32-38; final, Two Peoples on both sides of the Aegean Sea (1991, see n.lll), p.33f.; D.W.Smit, KUB XIV 3 and Hittite History (Talanta 22/23 (1990/91), pp.79-111. Crucial to a decision is the identity of1 DKAL (col.i 73). Since the discovery of the Bronze Tablet, his identity as Kurunta king of Tarhuntassa is highly likely, which would ensure a dating to Hattusili III. Contrary to final's argument, Kurunta was certainly not tuhkanti to Muwatalli. The case of the charioteer Dabalatarhunda (col.ii 57-61, 70-76) is very significant: contrary to the argument of Freu, his Luwian name would hardly disqualify him from marrying into the family of the queen, as he is stated to have done, if that queen were Puduhepa. The statement that the queen's family is very great (1.73f.) can surely only refer to Puduhepa. Also the clause (col.ii 56) 'and further in no way [did I act] contrary to (handas) my brother', which occurs as a repeated theme in the Apology of Hattusili (Hatt. iii 38, 61, iv 29, 60), points to Hattusili's authorship.
74 See below, V.5.4 and n.158.
75 Following the elimination of Tawagalawa from the central role independently by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer, loc.cit., n.73.
76 'Freebooter' — see Gurney, The Hittites (revised ed., 1990), p.39; Singer, An.St. 33, p.210; followed by myself, StBoTBh.3, p.56 n.199. Starke, attractively but speculatively, suggests that he was son of Piyama-DKAL son of Uhhaziti (Studia Troica 7, p.453 and nn.63-65).
77 Taw. col. i 7f., 14f.
78 Without being explicitly stated, this emerges from the narrative of the Hittite king's instructions sent to Iyalanda and
5.2. What position was he asking and what kingship would the Hittite king have in his gift? The combined demands to be taken into service and for the kingship make it sound as if he expected to receive one of the Arzawa vassal kingdoms. By what right could he have made such a demand except by descent from a/the Arzawan royal line? In the view of the geography argued below, this was most likely to be the kingship of Mira.79 Could Piyamaradu possibly have hoped that Hattusili might install him as king in place of Kupanta-DKAL, fallen into disfavour because of his loyalty to Urhi-Tesub - or dead from old age?
6. Notable new evidence on the position in the West at the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliya IV arrived with the discovery and publication of the Bronze Tablet.80 Among the witnesses to this treaty between Tudhaliya IV and his cousin the king of Tarhuntassa are Masturi king of the Seha River land, who had thus ruled there continuously since his installation by Muwatalli,81 and Alantalli king of Mira, previously unknown but bearing a historic Arzawan name of one of the opponents of Suppiluliuma I, a direct or indirect successor of Kupanta-DKAL, and possibly his son.82
7. We may here briefly recapitulate the now attested history of the rulers in Mira and the Seha River land. Mursili in year 4 set up as lords Mashuiluwa in Mira (incorporating rump Arzawa) and Manapatarhunda in the Seha River land. In year 12 Mashuiluwa of Mira rebelled
his subsequent arrival there, followed by his diversion to Millawanda, communications sent to Piyamaradu and Atpa, and Piyamaradu's departure by boat.
79 Piyamaradu's operations between Iyalanda and Attarimma and his base in Millawanda are located on the southern border of Mira-Arzawa by the identification with Miletos and its environs (see below, V.6.1-4); cf. the location of the events of the Milawata letter, below, V.7.4.
80 Otten, StBoT Bh.l (1988). The bibliography on this remarkable document is rapidly increasing: see van den Hout, StBoT 38 (1995), p.326. An English translation is now available, Beckman, HUT, no.l8C, with bibliography, p. 175.
81 col.iv 32; cf. above n.69.
82 col.iv 36; Alantalli / Alaltalli (I) appears in DS frags. 18, 19 — see Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, p.369f. For Alantalli II, see van den Hout's prosopography of the witnesses on the Bronze Tablet, StBoT 38, pp. 142-149. He now identifies him with the Alantali appearing on KUB VI, 47 1.9, his restorations of which are individually very plausible but result in finding Kupanta-DKAL still on the throne of Mira at the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliya IV, the grandson of the king (Mursili II) who originally installed him. Kupanta-DKAL would have been improbably old. Also he would have had to have survived into the reign of Tudhaliya, written KUB VI 47, died and been succeeded by Alantalli, all before the issue of the Bronze Tablet.
17
Anatolian Studies 1998
and was replaced with Kupanta-DKAL, his nephew and adopted son, who was still on the throne after Hattusili's usurpation of the kingship, but possibly compromised by some loyalty to Urhi-Tesub. By the beginning of the following reign at the latest he had been replaced by Alantalli whose relationship to his predecessor is not certain. In the Seha River land Manapatarhunda survived well into the reign of Muwatalli though claiming serious, but possibly diplomatic, illness. At some stage Muwatalli installed in the position Masturi, whose relationship to his predecessor is also uncertain but probably son and direct successor. This Masturi survived the reigns of Urhi-Tesub and Hattusili (by deft transference of allegiance from the one to the other) and was still on the throne early in the reign of Tudhaliya.
III. The Karabel readings
1. This review of the history of relations between Hatti and Arzawa has been provided as the background to the consideration of the new Karabel readings. Thus Bogazkoy Cuneiform sources present alongside the three Hattusa generations, Mursili — Muwatalli and Hattusili — Tudhaliya, three kings of Mira, themselves probably representing three generations (even if Alantalli were not the son of Kupanta-DKAL). Kupanta-DKAL himself explicitly, thus also by implication his father and his uncle/adoptive father Mashuiluwa, was of the royal line of Arzawa, and the land of Mira was perhaps earlier a dukedom of the kingdom.83 On KARABEL A Tarkasnawa king of Mira names his father and grandfather also as kings of Mira, a three-generation line, but the father's name is of unknown reading and the grandfather's still illegible. He himself was clearly king of Mira before the fall of Hattusa: impressions of his seal were found at Bogazkoy. It would be difficult to accommodate all of Tarkasnawa's three-generation line after Alantalli, that is, in the later reign of Tudhaliya and that of his son Suppiluliuma II, the last known king of Hattusa. It is much more probable that the three ascending generations of KARABEL A overlap by one or two generations with the line Mashuiluwa — Kupanta-DKAL — Alantalli. This implies that the name Alantalli should be sought in the name of the father or grandfather, and if recognized in the father's, the name Kupanta-DKAL could be sought in the grandfather's.
2. The uncertainty of the reading of the father's name and the almost complete absence of any recognizable traces of the grandfather's make the following observations speculative.
See above, II.3.3 and n.52; II.3.4 and nn.57-58.
a. The father's name, AVISx-/r: if the second sign is indeed li, then clearly Alantalli is a possible candidate for the reading, which would be logogram + phonetic complement. It was noted above that the bird as represented seems to be a specific type (e.g. partridge), and one might speculate that this was an *alanta-biv&, unattested in Hittite, let alone Luwian.84 This at best remains an open question.
b. The grandfather's name: if Alantalli were written other than logographically one might expect a Hier. syllabic *d-la-ta/td/ta-li, while for Kupanta-DKAL it should be *ku-pa-ta/td/ta-CER\US2(-ti). As noted above (1.2.4) the only trace of the grandfather's name on KARABEL A 1.3 is a possible final ra/i, which does not fit with either reading considered here. KARABEL C2 on the other hand could be more promising (above, 1.3.4.2): following the initial signs, for which I propose the reading 'King BIRD, king of <the land> Mira', Kohlmeyer identified an 'antler', CERVUS2, followed after a space by a further REX. As noted above, this could point to a restoration —
[ku-pa-ta/td/td]-CERWUS2-[ti] REX [mi+ra/i-a (REGIO) INFANS]
'[son of Kupa(n)ta]-KAL, king of [the land Mira]'
but photographs of KARABEL C2 kindly provided by Kohlmeyer, while leaving [ku-pa-ta]-CERVUS2-[ti] possible, provide no support for [mi+ra/i-a (REGIO) INFANS]. So the evidence for the presence of Kupanta-DKAL as grandfather of Tarkasnawa is possible but by no means secure.
IV. The Historical Implications
1. Our enquiry so far establishes Tarkasnawa as a king of Mira, probably descended from Kupanta-DKAL and/or Alantalli, who must have come to the throne not earlier than the later reign of Tudhaliya IV. His surviving monuments — seal, rock relief, and seal impressions at Hattusa — suggest that he was a ruler of some consequence and longevity. The size and location of the kingdom of Mira revealed by the new evidence (see below, V. The Geographical Implications, for details) confirm what has been long suspected, that it was a very important, indeed key element in Hittite relations with the West, and this should provide a new perspective on the later days of the Hittite Empire. We should here examine this in the context of some known documents of the period.
If this is indeed the Hier. writing of Alantalli, it in no way affects the etymology of the name discussed by van den Hout (StBoTSS, p.l47f.).
18
Hawkins
2.1. The main text documenting Hittite relations with the West in the reign of Tudhaliya IV is the Milawata letter.85 Its principal problem is the identity of the recipient, whose name is lost from the first line. He is addressed as 'my son' by the Hittite king, in a respectful rather than peremptory tone, and appears to have acted as a partner. All that is intelligible of the obverse, where only the beginnings of the lines are preserved, deals with the injuries inflicted by the recipient's father on the writer, the Hittite king. The now fairly complete lower reverse covers the following subjects: (11.36-37) an apparent change of lords; (11.38-44) wooden document(s) for Walmu, held by Kuwalanaziti,86 brought to the recipient by IDKAL87for inspection, so that with mutual cooperation the recipient should hand over Walmu to be reinstated as king of Wilusa and to resume his former position of military vassal88 'to us' (recipient and Hittite king); (11.45-47) joint action89 on the frontier of Milawata by 'us', my Sun and my son; (lower edge) further ill-deeds of the father, involving the city Arinna and failure to surrender the hostages of U(tima) and At(riya), so Kuwalanaziti sent; (left side) hostages of Awarna and Pina(li)90 to be exchanged by Hittite king for hostages of Utima and Atriya from recipient, who failed to comply.
2.2. The historical background to this document has been much discussed since Hoffner's join,91 and it is not
85 KUB XIX, 55 + KUB XLVITI, 90 joined to lower reverse and edited by Hoffner, AfO 19 (1982), pp.130-137. The conquest of Awarna and Pina(/i) by Tudhaliya IV on his Lukka campaign, recorded on YALBURT (blocks 12-13), also the EMIRGAZi block (B 1.3), now securely dates this letter, with its references to the 'hostages of Awarna and Pina(li)' (left edge), to his reign: so already E. Masson, Journal des Savants 1979, p.37.
86 Written IKI.KAL.BAD-ZA: for reading kuwalana- (for kuwfi^Tna-), see RIA VI, s.v. Kuwatna-muwa, Add.; Starke, S?Bor31,p.234ff.
87 See van den Hout, RA 78 (1984), p.91; contrary to his speculations there (with n.25), there is no difficulty in translating: 'and Kurunta will bring them to (you) my son'.
88 Lit. 'soldier-servant', IR-TUM ku-la-wa-ni-es: for the latter word see Starke, StBoT 31, p.236; Puhvel, HED 4 (1997), s.v. kulawan(n)i- .
89 Nature of the action uncertain: verb written DV-u-en, 'we DU-ed'. Hoffner read DU as TUM (loc.cit., p.l32f. with nn.10, 17,18) = Akk. (t)abalu, 'carry off'. Guterbockin Mellink, Troy and the Trojan War (Bryn Mawr, 1986), p.38 n.17, preferred GIN, 'establish, fix.' Gurney suggests a badly written RA, = Hitt. walh-, 'smite' (Fs Sedat Alp (1992), p.220f. n.58).
90 The city 'Pina' recorded on the tablet can now be seen as an abbreviation for the place written in Hieroglyphic on YALBURT (also paired with Awarna) as Pina/;': for reading of final syllable see Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, p. 115.
91 See especially Singer, An.St. 33 (1983), pp.214-216; Bryce, An.St. 35 (1985), pp.13-23; Guterbock loc. cit. (preceding n.); Freu, Hittites et Acheens (1990), pp.39-44; Starke, Studia Troica 7 (1997), p.454
necessary to recapitulate in detail here, but the new evidence does affect the identity of the recipient. Bryce and later Freu both sought in the recipient and his recalcitrant father rulers of Milawata, specifically Atpa and a putative son.92 Singer earlier and more plausibly had suggested the ruler of the Seha River land, in preference to the other possible option, Mira. His argumentation, cogent as ever, rested on the positive indications in the letter, connections with Wilusa and the frontier of Milawata, and negative indications, the disappearance of reference to Mira after Kupanta-DKAL. He also proposed an identification of the rulers by invoking the text 'the sins of the Seha River land' (see IV.3), and seeing Tarhunaradu as the troublesome father, so the 'seed of Mufwawalwi]' who replaced him would be the recipient of the Milawata letter.
2.3.1 completely agree with Singer's reasoning up to the point of choice between Mira and the Seha River land as the country of the recipient of the Milawata letter. The new evidence assembled around Tarkasnawa however contradicts his supposition of the decline of the importance of Mira. Furthermore the geographical disposition arising from the reading of KARABEL A favours Mira, as the country which would share a boundary with Millawanda — Miletos, and would also be better placed to have hostages from Utima and Atriya.93 This view was now advanced also by Starke even without the support of the KARABEL reading. Thus it is probably Mira now as earlier that remains the key to Hittite influence in the West, so we would consider that it is actually Tarkasnawa, on the throne of Mira in the later reign of Tudhaliya, who is the recipient of the letter addressing him in persuasive tones as 'my son'. Such a proposal leaves us with the question of the troublesome father, probably Alantalli, as argued above. Could this ruler, a loyal adherent witnessing the Bronze Tablet treaty at the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliya, turn into the 'chief factor among the evil factors' of the Milawata letter? Given the kaleidoscopic shifts in allegiance of the Arzawan princes from Madduwatta down to Manapa-tarhunda and Mashuiluwa, not to mention Piyamaradu, Alantalli himself may not be an unbelievable candidate for the figure of the father.
The recipient of the Milawata letter was undoubtedly a king, and while both Bryce and Freu (cf. also below, n.107) speak of Millawanda as being the seat of a king, there is no evidence to support this assumption. 93 See below, V.7.4.
19
Anatolian Studies 1998
3. As for the text 'the sins of the Seha River land',94 in which the first sin may be identified as the defection of Manapatarhunda at the beginning of Mursili's campaign, the second sin appears to be the revolt of Tarhunaradu, 'relying on' the king of Ahhiyawa,95 which led to his removal and replacement by [someone] of the seed of Mu[wawalwi] (known as the father of Manapatarhunda). The evidence of the Bronze Tablet that Masturi was still on the throne at the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliya96 rules out the dating of the 'second sin' to the reigns of Urhi-Tesub and Hattusili III, when Masturi was continually on the throne. It might be possible to insert the events of the 'second sin' into the reign of Muwatalli, between the end of Manapatarhunda and the installation of Masturi.97 But it is easier to place it after Masturi, that is in the later reign of Tudhaliya, and indeed Giiterbock's recent restoration of the text does just that.98 This is particularly important historically, since it would show Tudhaliya to be still politically active in the central West,99 and still able to effect a change of throne in an Arzawan kingdom in the Hittite interest.
4.1. One further Arzawa document is of relevance here, the MAShuitta letter (in which a reading of the recipient's name as Parhuitta — MAS=PAR — may now seem preferable).100 The preserved text of this top right corner of a tablet includes the address from [the king of
9 KUB XXIII, 13. Note that this text was once thought to be part of the Tudhaliya Annals before these were transferred from Tudhaliya IV to Tudhaliya I/II. See e.g. Garstang and Gurney, Geography, p.l20f.
95 The subject of 1.5 is missing but assumed to be the man deported in 1.8. For a new treatment of the text see Giiterbock, Fs SedatAlp (Ankara, 1992), pp.235-243. The interpretation of appa ep- as 'rely on' has been advocated by Giiterbock in his recent treatments, especially loc. cit., pp.235, 240f. A similar proposal was made independently by D. Easton as long ago as 1980-81: in L. Foxhall and J. K. Davies (ed.) The Trojan War (Liverpool, 1985), p.29.
96 Above, n.61.
97 So Freu, loc. cit., p.25 f. But the evidence that Masturi may have been son and direct successor to Manapatarhunda (above, n.70) would preclude the possibility.
98 By restoring '[great-] grandfather' (for Suppliluliuma) and '[grandfather]' (for Mursili).
99 As the YALBURT inscription shows him to have been in the south-west, i.e. Lukka.
100 KBo XVIII18, discussed by Freu, Hittites et Acheens, p.43f, with reference to Singer and Giiterbock. For the name of the addressee, a late Hier. Luw. inscription PORSUK (late 8th century B.C., Tuwana) has an author named Parhwira (pa+ra/i-HWl+ra/i-) which could be seen as a rhotacized form of Parhuitta. MAShuitta has been analysed as Luwian by comparison with Mashuiluwa. Parhwira is likely to be Luwian though no one analysis is certainly obvious.
Hat]ti to Parhuitta king [ ... ], a section of the elaborate greeting formulae usual only between Great Kings and equals,101 and in the remaining nine fragmentary line-ends four mentions of the land Wilusa. The latter might, but need not, show that Parhuitta was himself the king of Wilusa; if not, he was clearly much concerned with it and a king of consequence whom the Hittite king wished to flatter by his address.
4.2. The identity of this Luwian-named Arzawan of near Great-King status interested in Wilusa has been debated. He may not in spite of the greetings formulae have been actually addressed as 'Great King', any more than was Tarhundaradu, King of Arzawa. Yet we saw above that Tarhundaradu must have built up a commanding position in the Arzawa lands, which led to Arzawan conquest of the Lower Land as far as Tuwanuwa.102 It may well be that this letter implies that Parhuitta had achieved a western ascendancy comparable with that of Tarhundaradu.
4.3. Indeed the possibility of the presence of other Great Kings in Anatolia besides the king of Hatti has recently come very much to the fore. Impressions of seals of Kurunta king of Tarhuntassa have been appearing at Bogazkoy, in which he takes the full titulary of the Hittite Great King,"1' and even more recent is the discovery of the Hatip rock relief south-west of Konya, on which Kurunta styles himself 'Great King, Hero, son of Muwatalli, Great King, Hero'.104 This evidence has been recently evaluated by Singer,105 who in addition to suggesting a peaceful coexistence of two Great Kings in Hattusa and Tarhuntassa respectively, further proposes that Hartapu of KARADAG-KIZILDAG (and BURUNKAYA), entitled 'the Sun, Great King, Hero, son of Mursili Great King, Hero', was also king of Tarhuntassa before rather than after the fall of Hattusa and end of the Hittite Empire."*
101 See above n.34, referring to Hagenbuchner, THeth 15, pp.49-55. Hagenbuchner restores Parhuitta's title as LUGAL.fGAL], 'Great King', on the basis of the greetings formula alone. This hardly seems justified, since the closest parallel to this letter, EA 31 addressed by Nimuwariya, Great King, King of Egypt (Amenophis III) to Tarhundaradu King of Arzawa, is precisely a Great King addressing an ordinary king.
102 Above, II.2.2and nn.31-34.
103 P. Neve, AA 1987. pp.401-403; 1991, pp.330 Abb.35a-b, 332f.
104 H. Bahar, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 18/73 (1996), pp.2-5 (Turkish), 6f. (German); A. and B. Dincol, ibid., 8f. (Turkish); H. Bahar, Eskigag Konya Ara§tirmalari 1 (1996), pp.42-45 (Turkish), cover and pis. Ill, X-XV; A. Dincol, TUBA-AR 1 (1998). pp.27-34.
m5.SAffi4 38 (1996), pp.63-71.
""' ibid., pp.68-70. As Singer notes, my reason for dating Hartapu to the period after the fall of Hattusa was his use of the
20
Hawkins
4.4. Thus we should consider whether on the evidence of the Parhuitta letter a similar process may have been going on in western Anatolia. This would amount to a revival of the Greater Arzawa which existed in Tarhundaradu's days, approximately the reign of Tudhaliya III. Singer envisaged Parhuitta as a (near) Great King of the Seha River land, while Freu placed him in Millawanda.107 The latter is highly unlikely, given the geographical isolation of Millawanda-Miletos as emphasized below, with its poor inland communications, restricted territory and general character as a naval station. Against an aggrandized Seha River land the argument here would be again that Mira remained as it had always been, the most important and powerful western state, the actual heir of Greater Arzawa. Can we envisage Parhuitta as a near Great King in Mira-Arzawa? If so, given the Mira dynasty as reconstructed here, he would have to have been a successor to Tarkasnawa, which chronologically would bring him down beyond the reign of Tudhaliya into the final period of the Hittite Empire, probably as a contemporary of Suppiluliuma II, who might then be expected to be the author of the letter to him.
5.1. In the new picture of the late Hittite Empire emerging from recent discoveries — the Bronze Tablet, the inscriptions YALBURT, BOGAZKÓY-SUDBURG, and KARADAG-KIZILDAG, and the inscribed rock reliefs HATÍP and KARABEL — Mira-Arzawa revived as a major power, a match for Tarhuntassa and even Hattusa, does not seem very improbable, so Parhuitta, addressed by a Hittite king as a near-equal, may well be best identified as king of such a power. The picture though faint is beginning to take shape.
5.2. The end, when it came, must be sought mainly in the destruction levels of known western sites, which are still difficult to synchronize with the destruction of Hattusa.108 But we may remember that Arzawa was one of the countries recorded as destroyed by the Sea Peoples by Rameses III in his year 8, along with Hatti, Qode,
Hittite royal aedicula, assumed to have been the sole prerogative of the Hittite king. But this now appears invalidated by the discovery of Kurunta's sealings at Bogazköy as well as his rock relief at Hatip.
107 Hittites et Acheens, p.43. Cf. above, n.92, where the absence of evidence for there being a king in Millawanda is stressed.
108 Bittel and Akurgal, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy (ed.), Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante wahrend der 'Dark Ages' vom 12 bis zum 9.Jh.v.Chr. (Vienna, 1983), pp.25-55, 67-78; Mellink, AJA 87 (1983), pp.138-141; Muhly and Sams, in W. A.Ward and M. S. Joukowsky (ed.) The Crisis Years: the 12th Century B.C. (Iowa, 1992), pp.10-26, 56-60.
Karkamis and Alasiya.109 What exactly is to be understood from this well known statement continues to be discussed with separate reference to each of the named places. In the present context we would like to know what the Egyptians knew of or meant by Arzawa: a general term for western Anatolia or a major power as in the days of Tarhundaradu?
V. The Geographical Implications (see map, fig 11) 1. The Karabel pass is a geopolitical feature of some importance in western Anatolia. It is one, perhaps the easiest, of the routes across the Tmolos mountain range (Boz Daglan), linking the valleys of the Cayster (Kiiciik Menderes) and the Hermos (Gediz) rivers. In classical antiquity it carried a road, though probably not the main one, between Ephesos and Sardis.110 The presence of the Karabel monuments themselves doubtless attest to its importance in the Late Bronze Age.
1.2. Its now revealed connection with the kingdom of Mira is of major significance in establishing the location and extent of that kingdom and thus also the geopolitical divisions of western Anatolia.111 The mere fact of tying the western end of Mira to this fixed point (whether to the north or the south to be discussed below) is of the greatest importance in establishing the axis of Hittite routes to the West. In assimilating this new evidence to the familiar picture of Hittite relations with the West, we shall find general corroboration for the geographical proposals of John Garstang as finally formulated in Garstang and Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire}12 The Hittite route to the West is described in most detail at the outset of Mursili's Arzawa campaign
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, IV §64; Edgerton and Wilson, Historical Records of Rameses III (Chicago, 1936), p.53.
110 For a recent discussion of these routes in the context of a new stadion-stone, see D. French, Pre- and Early-Roman roads of Asia Minor. A Hellenistic Stadion-stone from Ephesus (Arkeolji Dergisi 5 [1997], pp.189-196).
111 There is now an immense bibliography covering this subject. For extensive recent ones, see A. Unal, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan 4 (Wiesbaden, 1991), pp.38-44; F. Starke, Studio Troica 7 (1997), pp.484-487; and for an older and even more comprehensive one see E. Jewell, The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the second millennium B.C. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1974)
112 London, 1959. As the background to this book published after the death of Garstang stand a number of separate geographical studies, especially (in the context of our present interest) Hittite Military Roads in Asia Minor: II. Mursil's penetration of Arzawa (AJA 47 [1943], pp.39-47). Note Gurney's recent reassessment of Geography, Hittite Geography: thirty years on (Fs SedatAlp [Ankara, 1992], p.213 ff, especially in the present context pp.217-221).
21
Anatolian Studies 1998
beginning in his third year,113 and Garstang identified the named stages:"4 the river Sehiriya (Sangarios), Mount Lawasa (Dindymos), Sallapa ([S]palia/Sivrihisar), and Aura (Amorium/ Aiorion). This stage of the route is not rediscussed here, beyond the observation that is brings us to a very suitable location for the frontier of Mira and beginning of the land of Arzawa, so is likely to be correct.
2.1. The city Aura is the first of a cluster of toponyms which define the frontier of Mira and the later joined Kuwaliya. It faced the river Astarpa and Walma,115 beyond which lay Kuwaliya."6 Mira itself was not distant, having ready access to Aura and Sallapa.117 Mursili in his Arzawa settlement established the Astarpa river as the frontier of Kuwaliya and the Siyanta river apparently as that of Mira, which suggests a pair of rivers forming a roughly continuous frontier. If as seems likely the Astarpa river is the Akar Cay (inland Cayster),"8 then the Siyanta should be sought in a river which can be suitably juxtaposed. The Banaz Cay selected by Garstang and Gurney119 seems too far west and makes Mira hard to place in relation to Kuwaliya. More promising would be one of the upper tributaries of the Sakarya: either the Porsuk (Tembris) or the Seydi (Parthenios).120 The advantage of the latter is that it flows to the east of a big mound Malatca (or Malatya) hoyiik, identified epigraphi-
113 See above, II. 3.1. and n.43.
114 loc.cit. (n.112), later incorporated into the Geography.
115 Mursili in Aura was confronted by Piyama-DKAL the son of the Arzawan king on the river Astarpa at Walma where the battle was fought: above, II.3.1 and n.44.
116 The Astarpa river is defined as the frontier of Kuwaliya in Kup. §§9-10 (Beckman, HDT — §§9-10). Crossing over to Aura is prohibited.
117 Mashuiluwa came presumably from Mira to meet Mursili in Aura (above, II.3.1 and n.43); in year 12 when his double-dealing was detected, Mursili marching westwards summoned him to Sallapa (above, II.3.3 and n.51).
118 Already so identified by Garstang in 1943; maintained in Geography, p.86. The unexpressed basis for the identification was the need to find a river flowing in the right direction to serve as the Hatti-Arzawa frontier (Gurney, personal communication). Similar reasoning leads to the preference of the Carsamba Cay over the Goksu (Calycadnos) as the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier (Hawkins, StBoTBh3, p.53 and n.183).
119 Geography, p.91f.
120 Macqueen identifies the Siyanta with the Porsuk and places Mira to the west of it (An.St. 18 [1968], p.l76f). Forlanini however in an article locating the cult centres of KBo II1 in the area of western Phrygia (Midas City), has Akar Cay = Astarpa, Porsuk = Hulana and Seydi = Maliya; but though he marks Meiros at Malatca and places Mira (Mera) to the south, he does not consider the problem of the Siyanta river as the Hatti frontier of Mira. See Hethitica 13 (1996), pp.5-11, with map p.12.
cally as Byzantine Meiros, which has been viewed as a late survival of the toponym Mira.121
2.2. Mashuiluwa established as ruler of Mira-Kuwaliya nevertheless indulged in anti-Hittite intrigues in Pedassa,122 thus notably following the precedent of Madduwatta when established on the river Siyanta three-four generations earlier.123 The repeated association of the land or frontier of the river Siyanta with Pedassa is particularly significant, since the latter is securely located as a Hittite dependency in the upper Sakarya plain, west of the Salt Lake between Polath and Kadinhan.124 Further, Pedassa is the area where the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier description begins in the Ulmi-Tesub treaty of Hattusili III, and now the Kurunta treaty of Tudhaliya IV.125 The location of this frontier running from Pedassa along the hills west of Konya has been dramatically confirmed by the discovery of the Hatip rock relief.126 Thus the inland eastern frontier of Mira-Kuwaliya is tied to the same general area as is the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier.
2.3. Mursili's victory on the river Astarpa opened to him the road into Arzawa, and his narrative takes him directly to Apasa, capital of the Arzawan king Uhhaziti, who fled 'across the sea to the islands'.127 Garstang's original location of Apasa at Habessos (=Antiphellos/Kas) on the south coast was abandoned by Garstang and Gurney in favour of Ephesos,128 surely correctly on a number of counts,129 and virtually confirmed by the new evidence of Karabel, since this points to the core of Arzawa being located in the territory of Ephesos (see below). In particular a victory across the Akar Cay into Kuwaliya would have opened the direct route to the west through Apamea (Dinar) on the upper Meander, to Laodicea (Denizli) and straight on down the Meander valley.
121 Meiros marked by Forlanini (preceding n.), and see Atlante Storico 4.3, notes to Tav. XVI, (7) L Anatolia Occidentale. The Byzantine inscription identifying the site was published by Anderson, JHS 17 (1897), p.423 no.21.
122 See above, II.3.3 and n.51.
123 See below, V.5.2 and n.155.
124 Including the territory around Ilgin and Yalburt, the site of Tudhaliya's YALBURT inscription: Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, p.51 and n.177.
125OoIV, lOobv. 16-18. Bronze Tablet i 18-21. This frontier description probably commenced up in the direction of Kadinhan.
126 See above, IV.4.3 and n.104.
127 See above, II.3.1 and n.44.
128 Geography, pp.84, 88f.; cf. Gurney, Fs SedatAlp, p.220
129 West coast rather than south coast suggested particularly by Uhhaziti's flight 'to the islands' (above, n.44); also the route through to Ephesos is incomparably much easier than to Habessos.
22
Hawkins
2.4. When Mursili entered Apasa, a part of the population fled up Mount Arinnanda, which Mursili dramatically describes in the context of its capture.130 If Apasa is Ephesos, there can be no doubt of the identity of Mount Arinnanda: it must be Mount Mycale (Samsun Dag) which exactly answers to the description, as scholars have recently noted.131
3.1. Mursili's Arzawan settlement at the completion of his campaign in year 4 established as we know the three states Mira-Kuwaliya, Seha River land - Appawiya, and Hapalla, and we follow Heinhold-Krahmer's demonstration that the rump of Arzawa was included in the state of Mira with which it had already close connections.132 The evidence from the beginning of Mursili's campaign shows, as just discussed, that Mira, as well as Kuwaliya, bordered on Hatti at the western edge of the Anatolian plateau in the neighbourhood of Afyon. Yet the reading of KARABEL A now establishes that the king of Mira in the reign of Tudhaliya IV controlled the Karabel pass far to the west. The likelihood is that this state, stretching from the Anatolian plateau almost to the coast, was indeed that established by Mursili: that is, he joined the core of Arzawa, with its capital Apasa-Ephesos, to its inland province(s) Mira(-Kuwaliya).
3.2. Can we be confident that Mira-Arzawa controlled the Karabel pass from the south and that this point marked its northern boundary? This question involves the location of the Seha River land, recognized as being closely connected, indeed coterminous with Mira,133 and often identified as the Meander valley.134 The support for this location seems to amount to little more than a desire to place this important river-land in the major western river system, but it is argued here is that this is untenable, and that Karabel marks the frontier between Mira and the Seha River land, the former lying to the south, the latter to the north, thus to be identified as the Hermos valley.135
130 KUB XIV, 15 iii 39-44, 16 iii 7-14 (Goetze, AM, p.54f.). "This Mount Arinnanda is very difficult: it is going out into the sea, also it is very high, it is tangled, also it is rocky, and it is impossible to drive up with horses. The refugees held it en masse, and the troops were up there en masse. Because it was impossible to drive up with horses, I My Sun marched before the army on foot, and I went up into Mount Arinnanda on foot.'
131 Starke, Studio Troica 7, p.451 with n.27, following Bammer, Ephesos. Stadt an Fluss und Meer (Graz, 1988), p.136. Mount Mycale/ Samsun Dag, especially visible from the air and satellite photograph, is a colossal ridge of rock, over 20 km long, rising abruptly from sea level to over 1200m and jutting out into the sea, almost touching Samos.
132 Arzawa, pp.136-147, 211-219, 329.
133 ibid., pp.329 f., 337 f., 343 f.
134 e.g. by Goetze, Forlanini, Freu, de Martino.
135 I am certainly not the first to advocate this location. In particular, Houwink ten Cate has so argued, following
3.3. The Seha River land should be placed north of Mira because of links with other places in that direction, the location of which is at least partly dependent on identification with classical toponyms: (1) Appawiya = Abbaitis, the upper reaches of the Macestos (Simav Cay), a land only important, indeed attested, in the context of its junction with the Seha River land.136 The area is geographically entirely suitable for annexation to the Seha River land / Hermos / Gediz, since it lies immediately across the watershed of the latter. (2) Lazpa = Lesbos, attested in the Manapatarhunda letter, where the identification of the toponyms Lazpa/Lesbos is strengthened by the contextual reference to 'across the sea'.137 (3) Wilusa = Ilion. The evidence of the treaties and also of the Manapatarhunda letter suggests that Wilusa was more remote than the other Arzawan states and specifically reached through the Seha River land with which it may have shared a frontier.138 With the Seha River land and Mira attached to either side of the Karabel pass, Wilusa is inexorably pushed into the northwest.
3.4. In a choice between the Hermos and Caicos rivers for the Seha River land, Garstang and Gurney opted for the latter so that its interests in Lazpa could be explained by the proximity to Lesbos.139 The Hermos is here preferred as the other main river system of western
Giiterbock's second reading of KARABEL CI (Giiterbock, above 1.3.3 and n.19; Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 28 [1983-84], p.48 f. n.38). Starke also argues strongly for this geographical disposition (Studia Troica 1, p.451 ff. esp. nn.40-41). The reading of KARABEL A however provides for the first time solid geographical proof of the correctness of this view, and removes the extremely uncertain KARABEL CI from the discussion.
136 Identification of Appawiya / Abbaitis, Geography, p.97. Appawiya is written KUR ™^ap-pa-wi5-ia (KUB XIX, 49 i 63, iv 30; KUB XTX, 50 iii 16 = Man. §§5, 9, 19; Beckman, HDT — §§5, 20, 7); KUR a-ab-ba-u-ia (KUB XXI, 1 1.32 = Alaks. §4). The identification / restoration of urua.£a.x [ ] (Tawagalawa, KUB XIV, 3 i 47) as Appawiya is to be discarded: this is a place between Iyalanda and Millawanda.
137 KUB XIX, 5 (+KBo XIX 79) obv. 8. Context: smiting of land of Lazpa by Atpa at instigation of Piyamaradu involves SARIPUTI-men of Manapatarhunda and Hittite King, who claim to have 'come across the sea' (1.16). See Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 28 (1983-84), p.38 ff.
138 For this much discussed location see principally Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.344, 350 f; Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 28, esp. pp.56-58; Starke, Studia Troica 7, esp. p.454 f.
139 Geography, p.96f; cf. Gurney, Fs Sedat Alp, p.221; Starke, Studia Troica 7, p.451 with n.40. Professor Gurney points out to me that a further reason besides proximity to Lesbos led to the preference for the Caicos, namely that the Hermos valley had already been preempted for the location of Arzawa (Geography, p.84).
23
Anatolian Studies 1998
Anatolia besides the Meander, and because of the attachment to one end of the Karabel pass. But even with this view, it is not unlikely that the Seha River land included the Caicos valley too under its political authority.
4.1. The argument for placing Mira south of the Seha River land at the south end of the Karabel pass is based on the recognition that this area, the Cayster valley and the land of Ephesos, was the core of the kingdom of Arzawa with its capital at Apasa, and that this was joined into a single political unit, under the designation 'land of Mira', with the inland provinces Mira and Kuwaliya, which adjoined the Hatti frontier across the rivers Siyanta and Astarpa in the neighbourhood of the land of Pedassa. Such a large kingdom could only have been held together by good control of communications, and it is likely that the Meander valley, the major pass from the plateau to the west, formed the backbone of Greater Mira.
4.2. A more detailed argument may be based on the topography of the Karabel pass itself and its monuments (fig 9). These are located at the northern entrance/exit to the pass at a point where the steeply descending road passes out of the hills into the open valley through a narrow defile. The relief with KARABEL A is placed high up on the south face of the rock forming the eastern side of the defile, while the rocks with KARABEL B and C were located to the north on the valley bottom outside the defile. The inscriptions KARABEL A and C2 as here read show that the kingdom of Mira controlled both sides of the defile itself, thus that Mira was the power controlling the entire pass from the south rather than that which controlled the open terrain to the north. So it should have been here that one descended from Mira into the Seha River land.
4.3. If so, it is hard not to see the Karabel pass as the theatre of that dramatic scene in which Mursili, having completed the reduction of Arzawa, was deflected from vengeance on the equivocal Manapatarhunda of the Seha River land by the intercessionary mission of the latter's mother with the old men and women of the land.140 It would be here that they fell at his feet and obtained pardon before he could begin to ravage the country. Control of the Karabel pass would have ensured a certain superiority of Mira over the Seha River land.
4.4. At this point the question of the location of the political centres of both Greater Mira and the Seha River land should be considered, if not answered. No towns of the latter are known by name except Maddunassa, appar-
See above, II.3.2 and n.47.
ently a frontier town with Mira.141 The Iron Age successor of the Seha River land in the Hermos valley was the kingdom of Lydia ruled by Anatolian dynasts from their capital at Sardis. A Bronze Age predecessor of this city might perhaps have already been a political capital.142 Otherwise a large Bronze Age site in the Hermos heartland should be sought.
4.5. For Mira four cities are named as fortified and garrisoned by Mursili: Arsani, Sarawa, Impa and Hapanuwa.143 Whether there was a city Mira as a capital of the land is uncertain:144 the Byzantine name Meiros located at Malatca hoyiik has been adduced as a possible candidate,145 though surprisingly far towards the east. The great site of Beycesultan on a branch of the upper Meander is likely on the geographical view taken here to have been a city, perhaps the principal one, of the land of Kuwaliya.146 Its enormous Burnt Palace belongs to the Middle Bronze Age, and the buildings above it in the Late Bronze levels though substantial are not unambiguously palatial.147 For Arzawa proper, promising Late Bronze Age remains are beginning to be found at Ephesos,148 which should represent the royal city Apasa.
141 Principally attested in Kup. §9 (Beckman, HDT); restored by Houwink ten Cate on KUB XXIII, 100 obv. 11 (JEOL 28, pp.64f., 67).
142 For archaeological recognition of Bronze Age Sardis, see A. Ramage, Early Iron Age Sardis and its neighbours (in A. £ilingiroglu and D. H. French (ed.), Anatolian Iron Ages III (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1994), pp.163-172).
143 Mursili's Extended Annals, KUB XIV. 15 iv 35-37 = AM, p.72f. Impa and Hapanuwa are mentioned earlier in the Extended Annals in the context of Mashuiluwa's defeat of Piyama-DKAL: KUB XIV, 15 i 27, 30 = AM, p.38f.
144 Heinhold-Rrahmer, Arzawa, p.339.
145 See above, V.2.1 and n.121.
146 Kuwaliya is located across the river Astarpa which forms the frontier with Hatti (Kup. §9; Beckman, HDT — §9). If the Astarpa is the Akar fay, Kuwaliya would lie across the route south-west to Dinar (Apamea) on one branch of the upper Meander, and could well have included the other branch running through Civril (Pelte), near Beycesultan. Alternatively Mira, here located generally in the area south of Kiitahya (Cotiaeon) could have extended far enough south to include Beycesultan.
147 Seton Lloyd, Beycesultan III part 1 (London, 1972), ch. 2. The Late Bronze levels III and II lying over the immense Middle Bronze 'burnt palace' of level V show substantial buildings with megaron-style plans, not obviously parts of a palace complex.
148 M.-H. Gates, Archaeology in Turkey (AJA 100 [1996], p.319) reports a sounding at the north-western end of the Artemision in the 1996 season which reached a Mycenean level. Recent researches conducted by Selcuk Museum on the citadel of Ephesus have identified a wall foundation of large limestone blocks as dating to the Late Bronze Age. A report by
24
Hawkins
Where the political centre of gravity in the huge centre-west kingdom of Mira-Arzawa could have been is still a matter for speculation: control from the west might seem more probable than from inland, i.e. from core Arzawa rather than old Mira.
5.1. Up to this point the geopolitical configuration of western Anatolia has been considered largely in the context of Mursili's Arzawa campaigns and his political settlement. But there are other sequences of events which should be included in the enquiry: those centring on the Indictment of Madduwatta (reigns of Tudhaliya I/II and his son Arnuwanda I149), and on the Tawagalawa Letter (reign of Hattusili III150).
5.2. The Madduwatta text has received some recent attention, not all of it illuminating.151 Here we need only recall the outline of its principal's career as there presented: Madduwatta as a destitute refugee from Attarissiya the 'man of Ahhiya' was established by Tudhaliya I/II in the territory of Mount Zippasla, subsequently refused an offer of Mount Hariyati nearer Hatti, but then accepted the Siyanta River land.152 From this base he was able to strike at Arzawa, and to seize Hapalla, which involved him with the ruler of Kuwaliya.153 Later, in the reign of Arnuwanda I, he seized a significant group of lands claimed by the Hittites: Zumanti, Wallarimma, Iyalanti, [Zumarri,]
Mustafa Biiyiikkolanci, archaeologist at Selcuk Museum, is published in the account of a Symposium held in the museum in 1997 (publication 1998). Work will continue in 1999.
149 See above, II.2.1 and n.29. For a full recent coverage of the west in the reigns of Tudhaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I and Tudhaliya III, see S. de Martino, UAnatolia occidentale nel medio regno ittita (Eothen, Florence, 1996), with comprehensive bibliography, pp. 107-114, of which the most relevant items to our present inquiry are Carruba, 1977; Neu, 1986; Freu, 1987.
150 See above II.5.1 and n.73.
151 I. Hoffmann, Einige Überlegungen zum Verfasser des Madduwatta-Textes (Or 53 [1984], pp.34-51); rebutted by Freu, Hethitica 8 (1987), p.l25ff.
152 Madd., §§4, 21 (Beckman, HDT, pp.145, I48f. — §§4, 18). Cf. the remarks of Freu, Hethitica 8, p.126 ff.; but note that some of his geographical locations are unacceptable: (p. 127) Apasa is indeed Ephesos, as shown in this article; (p. 129) Bryce's identification of the Siyanta and Astarpa rivers as the river system beginning at Lake Beysehir and ending in the Carsamba Cay, accepted by Freu, belongs to a geographical arrangement now quite superseded (this river system not the Calycadnos should be the Hulaya river land); (p. 129) the 'Ortakaraviran bulla' is not likely to be authentic. Note also that the river Siyanta does not occur in the form Siyanti.
153 Madd., §§22-23 (Beckman, HDT, p.149 — §§19-20). The passage suggests the proximity of the Siyanta river land, Kuwaliya and Hapalla, in spite of doubts of Heinhold-Krahmer (Arzawa, p.347f.).
t
K.r.b.L
Fig 9. Bittel's sketch map of the Karabel from AfO 13 (1939-41), p. 184
Mutamutassa, Attarimma, Suruta, Hursanassa.154 Then he commenced anti-Hittite intrigues in Pedassa, foreshadowing similar tactics employed by Mashuiluwa after he had been established in Mira with the river Siyanta as his frontier.155 This suggests that Madduwatta's territory was comparable or identical with later Mira, where Mount Zippasla, perhaps also Hariyati, should be sought.156
5.3. The location of this group of Hittite lands seized is not suggested in the Madduwatta text, but connects with the group of Mursili's subjects whose flight to Arzawa constituted his casus belli against Uhhaziti: the people/refugees of Hu(wa)rsanassa, Attarimma and Suruta,157 who were among those who later took refuge in Mount Arinnanda and Puranda, locating them generally in the area of the lower Meander valley.
5.4. In the reign of Hattusili III, an important itinerary at the beginning of the Tawagalawa letter attaches this group of places to the environs of Millawanda.158
154 Madd., §24 (Beckman, HDT, p.149 — §21). The land of Zumarri is restored in the list from §29 (Beckman, §26).
155 Madd., §26 (Beckman, HDT, p.l49f. — §23); cf. above, V.2.2 and nn.122, 123.
155 Cf. Freu, Hethitica 8, p.133; de Martino, op.cit. (n.149), p.47f.
157 See above, II.3.1 and n.42.
158 Taw., i 1-62.
25
Anatolian Studies 1998
Piyamaradu, as the text is now interpreted,159 destroyed and burnt Attarimma, so that the men of Lukka appealed to Tawagalawa, the brother of the king of Ahhiyawa, and to the Hittite king, both of whom came. The latter, advancing through Sallapa and Waliwanda, sent messages to Piyamaradu in Iyalanda instructing him to evacuate it. On arrival there, after fighting off an attack, he entered it, and proceeded to ravage its land except for Atriya, which he spared. He wrote again to Piyamaradu, by now in Millawanda, again summoning him, and later, receiving word that the king of Ahhiyawa had instructed Atpa in Millawanda to hand over Piyamaradu, he advanced to that city only to find that Piyamaradu had fled by boat.
6.1. The geography of this report is very suggestive, revealing as it does the relative locations of Iyalanda and Millawanda on the route taken by the Hittite king on the way to Attarimma as summoned by the Lukkans. The site of Miletos in classical times was a headland jutting north at the entrance to the large Latmic gulf, and even Myos, some 13km to its north-east, was similarly situated on a branch of the gulf circling the north-west end of Mount Latmos. The gulf is now silted up, leaving only the lake Bafa Golii along the south-west side of Latmos as the surviving part of its furthest extremity, but a millennium before the classical period, it presumably extended even further north-east up the Meander valley. However that may be, classical Miletos was known to be inaccessible from the interior of Anatolia.160 The route down the Meander valley could not simply follow the shore of the gulf, itself a major detour, since the rugged bulk of Mount Latmos did not afford a passage. The only practicable approach involved a massive diversion southeastward from the Meander valley up a tributary, the Marsyas (Cine Cay), turning at Stratoniceia through to Mylasa (Milas), then north-westwards along the old gulf shoreline (now the south shore of Lake Bafa), and so to Miletos.
6.2. The identification of Millawanda with Miletos, generally accepted since its first appearance,161 coupled with Garstang's identification of Iyalanda with classical
" Following the independent elucidations of the text offered by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer in 1983 (above, n.73).
160 For a good pair of maps showing the difference between the lower Meander valley in classical antiquity and the present day, see the Blue Guide, Turkey (2nd ed., 1995), p.230f. (fig.6) (drawn by John Fowler). They are here reproduced as fig 10, with acknowledgements.
161 First by Hrozny, Ar. Or. 1 (1929), p.329. Forrer placed Millawanda in the Milyas {Forschungen 1/2 [1929], p.237), and some have followed him, but this location is now excluded by the geographical evidence of the Bronze Tablet.   See in
Alinda,162 offers an obvious understanding of the itinerary in Tawagalawa. The site of Alinda is well placed to control the open northern end of the Marsyas/Cine Cay pass, and here should be the land of the city Iyalanda. The road running from the Meander valley up the narrow, rocky gorge of the upper Marsyas is the great highway which traverses inland Caria right the way through to the beginning of Lycia at Telmessos. The Hittite king summoned by the Lukkans would most easily have marched down the Meander to take the Carian highway through the Marsyas pass. The occasion of the summons was the burning of Attarimma by Piyamaradu, probably based in Iyalanda, so the theatre of these events can be easily understood as this highway controlled from the north by Iyalanda-Alinda. There is thus good reason to place Attarimma at the other end of the route, perhaps actually at Telmessos (Fethiye),163 the first Lycian city, and indeed the connection of the Hittite and classical names could be defended.164
general Heinhold-Krahmer, RIA VIII/3-4 (1994), s.v. Milawa(n)da, with references to recent views. Archaeological investigation of Miletos shows it to have been first a Minoan settlement, then Mycenean. Its headland position and poor inland communications characterize it as in origin a naval station. For the relations of the names Millawanda-Miletos, see below, n.207.
162 First in AJA 47 (1943), p.42; further in Geography, p.78. The text KUB XXIII 83, which has the men of Dalauwa and Kuwalapassi resolving to attack the land of Iyalanda, does not necessarily place the former two places close to each other or to Iyalanda.
163 Attarimma has been proposed as the basis for the Lycians' self-designation as Trmmili, Greek Termilai: Carruba, Athenaeum 42 (1964), pp.286-290; cf. id., Fs Borchhardt (Vienna, 1996), pp.28-31. The same scholar has sought the origin of Telmessos (Lyc. Telebehi) in Hitt. Kuwalapassa (Die Sprache 24 [1978], p.167). But these proposals on the toponyms are philologically rather than geographically based, so Carruba is able to accept not only Telmessos / Telebehi but also Colbasa and even Olbasa as reflections of Kuwalapassa (Fs Borchhardt, p.27). It is here suggested that Attarimma might be more geographically appropriate to location at Telmessos than is Kuwalapassa. Other derivations for Trmmili / Termiloi have also been offered, e.g. by Laroche, Revue Archeologique 1976, p. 19.
164 J. Borker-Klahn identifies Attarimma with Termessos in the extreme east of Lycia, but this seems to have been influenced by the place name appearing on the Hieroglyphic inscription KOYLUTOLU YAYLA (11.1, 3), written ta5-tara/i-ma (URBS): see Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposiums (Vienna, 1993), I. pp.53-62. But the usage of Empire period ta$ and ta$ is highly problematic: Hawkins, StBoTBh.3, Appendix 5, pp.114-117. Since Hier. tayta^-mi seems to represent the name Alalime, Hier. taytara/i-ma should by the same token represent the city Alatarma. Attarimma can hardly be placed at Termessos. The phonetic identification of Attarimma with Lyc.
26
Hawkins
Fig 10. Comparative maps, the lower Meander valley in classical antiquity and today, showing the effect of silting up of the Latmic Gulf. From B McDonagh, Blue Guide, Turkey (2nd ed 1995), p230f., reproduced with acknowledgements
6.3. The cluster Hittite toponyms associated with the route from Iyalanda to Attarimma and also with Millawanda, which find classical correspondences along the Carian highway, is, as has been noted, too numerous to be dismissed as insignificant coincidence.165 Among the group of lands seized by Madduwatta, besides Iyalanti (Iyalanda) and Attarimma, Wallarimma has been identified with Hyllarima166 and Mutamutassa with
Mylasa. In the Tawagalawa context, Atriya has been identified with Idrias (=Stratoniceia),168 where a route branches off the Carian highway westwards across to Mylasa and ultimately through to Miletos, and it reappears in the Milawata letter, where the recipient's father and he himself, identified here as kings of Mira, hold hostages from Atriya and Utima, the latter being also identified with Idyma at a further stage down the highway.169
Telebe-, Greek Telme- presents no particular problem; only the addition of the possessive (ethnic?) suffix -esso- / -ehi would require explanation.
165 Geography, ch.VI, where the idea of the cumulative corroboration provided by the identification of linked groups of Hittite and later toponyms is introduced (p.81f). These 'clusters' of Lukka-associated toponyms is further developed by Bryce, JNES 33 (1974), esp. pp.398-401; Carruba, Fs Borchhardt, pp.26f., 32f., 34f. The placing of this whole cluster in Pisidia and Pamphylia, along with Millawanda in Milyas, by Forlanini (Vicino Oriente 1 [1988], pp.162-168) was rapidly invalidated by the geographical evidence provided by the Bronze Tablet, published in the same year.
166 First in Garstang, The Hittite Empire (1929), p.179; cf. Geography, p.79.
Carruba, Fs Borchhardt, p.33. Mutamutassa was earlier placed in Pamphylia by Forlanini along with the rest of its cluster (above, n.165), which he supported by the occurrence of Mutamutassa and Ura together in the treaty KBo XVI 47 (Often, 1st. Mitt. 17 [1967], pp.55-62). Forlanini supposed this to be the well known Ura, the port of Tarhuntassa, located probably at Silifke (Seleucia), but since there is no way that Mutamutassa and its cluster can now be located anywhere near Tarhuntassa, we must suppose that the Ura is another place bearing this common toponym (Forlanini, Atlante Storico, Tav. XVI (7); cf. Gurney, Fs Alp, p.219).
168 Freu, Hethitica 8, p. 148; cf. Carruba, Fs Borchhardt, p.32 n.31.
169 Geography, p.81.
27
Anatolian Studies 1998
6.4. We may ask how Hittite kings, specifically Arnuwanda I, Mursili II and Tudhaliya IV, could possibly have claimed as subjects people and cities as remote from Hattusa as those on the Carian highway. The places seized by Madduwatta had presumably been conquered by Tudhaliya I/II on his Arzawa campaign:170 Wallarimma is the only one appearing in Tudhaliya's fragmentary list, but others could well have been named in the gaps. Mursili's claim on the people of Attarimma, Hu(wa)rsanassa and Suruta could have been based on conquests of Suppiluliuma not recorded in the surviving fragments of his Arzawa campaign, or was possibly a more tenuous historical claim going back to the days of his great-grandfather Arnuwanda I. The claim of Tudhaliya IV on the hostages of Atriya and Utima could indicate that the expedition of his father Hattusili III as recorded in the Tawagalawa letter revived Hittite claims to cities on the Carian highway. Certainly he himself held the hostages of Awarna and Pinali as a result of his own Lukka campaign as recorded on YALBURT.17'
7.1. Returning to consider the position of Millawanda itself,we must emphasize the fact, perhaps not appreciated by non-specialists, that it is only mentioned in three texts, the Extended Annals of Mursili, and the Tawagalawa and Milawata letters of Hattusili III and Tudhaliya IV respectively (and in spite of the designation of the last named document, the city is by no means its main preoccupation, commanding the brief attention of three lines of text only).
7.2. Little enough is learned of Millawanda from the fragmentary reference in Mursili's Annals.172 At the beginning of year 3, the outbreak of hostilities with Uhhaziti of Arzawa in some way involved Millawanda and the king of Ahhiyawa, as a result of which it seems to have been raided by Hittite generals.17. This event has been identified archaeologically with a destruction of Miletos (level II),174 which is not impossible, though it infers much more than the text records.
7.3. In the Tawagalawa letter, as noted above,175 the Hittite king had marched (down the Meander valley) to Iyalanda-Alinda en route for Attarimma-Telmessos. From Iyalanda city he ravaged the land of Iyalanda, sparing only Atriya (=Idrias/Stratoniceia), then advanced
to the frontier176 of Millawanda, where he negotiated for the handing over of Piyamaradu, who left by boat. This action would have required the Hittite king to have advanced up the Marsyas pass, turned westwards at Stratoniceia across to Mylasa and so north-westwards to Miletos. There is no clear evidence that he entered or controlled the city: rather he seems to have accepted that it lay under the authority of the king of Ahhiyawa.
7.4. The Milawata letter was written by Tudhaliya IV177 in a polite tone to 'my son', argued above to be Tarkasnawa, King of Mira. The recipient is holding Walmu, whom the Hittite king wishes to restore to the throne of Wilusa, so that he may be the joint 'soldier servant' to writer and recipient. This does not necessarily imply that Wilusa and the recipient's land shared a frontier: if the latter is indeed Mira, the Seha River land presumably intervened. But the joint action on the frontier of Milawata, whatever that was,178 does imply that the recipient's land bordered on this. Starke was already able categorically to identify Mira in this context,179 even without the powerful corroboration of the reading of KARABEL A. Bearing in mind what has been said of the landward approaches to Miletos, we might well link the recipient's ability to affect the frontier of Milawata with his father's having taken hostages from Atriya and Utima. Miletos, which has been characterized as a naval station, would presumably have controlled the rather inaccessible peninsula on which it was located, which would thus be the 'land of Millawanda'. The frontier itself might have been expected to run across the neck of the peninsula between the present Akbiik Liman and that south-east extension of the Latmic Gulf surviving today as Lake Bafa. See above, map, fig 10.
8.1. It has been argued here that the state of Mira, with its eastern frontier already attached to Hatti in the area of Pedassa, is now shown by the reading of KARABEL A to have extended to the area of Ephesos and the coast, and this has been seen to be best explained in terms of the already demonstrated incorporation of core Arzawa into Mira. The confirmed location of this enormous political entity stretching from the Anatolian plateau to the west coast now provides a secure
"° KUB XXIII, 11 ii 2-8 = Geography, p.121.
171 Poetto, StMed 8 (Pavia, 1993), esp. pp.75-82; Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, pp.68-71, cf. p.49.
172 Above, II.3.1 and n.41.
173 Following Goetze's interpretation: cf. Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.97-100.
174 See most recently B. and W.-D. Niemeier, Milet 1994-1995 (AA 1997, pp.196, 20Iff.).
175 Above, V.5.4 and n.158.
1/6 Taw., i 49, reading [MA-H\AR ZAG, 'before the frontier' (Sommer, cf. Geography, p. 112). If further in Taw., ii 20f., we read with Forrer nu-kdn A-NA ZAG-ia pa-ra-a ti-ia-nu-un, T stepped forth to the frontier' (denied by Sommer, commentary ad loc), the Hittite king would be further emphasizing his respect for the frontier of Millawanda.
177 Above, IV.2.1 and n.85.
178 Cf. n.89.
179 Studia Troica 7, p.454 with reference back to n.59.
28
Hawkins
foundation for the establishment of the political geography of the centre west in the Late Bronze Age. As has been shown, the Seha River land can be attached in the north, including the Hermos valley and probably also the Caicos and Macestos valleys. To the south, the Meander valley has been postulated as the backbone holding Mira-Arzawa together, and this ties in Millawanda-Miletos, Iyalanda-Alinda and the highway through Caria to Lycia.
8.2. Such a firming up of political geography occurred only recently for southern Anatolia in the light of the discoveries of the Bronze Tablet, the YALBURT inscription, and recently the Hatip inscribed relief, which now takes its place alongside the entirely comparable Karabel. It can now be seen that the whole central south is occupied by the land of Tarhuntassa, stretching from Kizzuwatna-Plain Cilicia to Parha-Perge. Beyond, the south-west is now confirmed as Lukka, extending to Awarna and Pinali (Xanthos and Pinara).
8.3. It is hardly necessary to point out that the now firm locations of such major countries as Tarhuntassa, Lukka, Mira-Arzawa and the Seha River land severely reduce the scope for moving around other known and important places. Effectively now only north-west Anatolia is really available space, and so the land of Wilusa is going to return here to its Troad home, so strenuously debated since its proposed identification with Ilion.180 But in the location of western lands there remain two jokers in the pack, Karkisa and Masa, which are found linked with each other,181 also with Lukka and Wilusa.182 We can hardly avoid a word on these in the present context, where the crucial question may now be formulated: 'north or south of Mira?'. The association of Lukka, Karkisa and Masa with each other and with Wilusa, has in the past been thought by some scholars to demand a northern location for all three countries.183 Yet this solidarity has now been broken by the new evidence placing Lukka in Lycia, so either of the other two may follow. Alternatively it may be necessary to consider that
180 First by Kretschmer, Glotta 13 (1924), pp.205-213; further in 21 (1933), pp.213-257; 24 (1935), pp.203-251.
181 Principally in Taw., iii 53, iv 5; also in ritual text CTH 483 (listed between Arzawa, ... , Talawa, and Kuntara, Iyalanda, Wilusa); oracle enquiry CTH 716 (KUB XLIX, 79 i 14) — see Heinhold-Krahmer, RIA VII/5-6 (1989), s.v. Masa (p.442 cold).
182 Karkisa, Masa and Lukka (also Warsiyala) in relation to Wilusa: Alaks., §15 (Beckman, HDT— §11); also Egyptian account of Hittite army at battle of Qadesh, grouping Drdny, Ms, Pds, 'Irwn, Krks, Lk (Dardaniya (= Wilusa?), Masa, Pedassa, Arawanna, Karkisa, Lukka; Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt III, §§306, 309; Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (1960), pp.7, 10, 57f.; Helck, Beziehungen (2nd ed., 1971), p.195).
183 e.g. in the most extreme versions, in the locations of Macqueen and Mellaart, An.St. 18 (1968), pp.169 ff., 187 ff.
their repeated grouping is based on factors other than geographical proximity.
8.4. The connection of Karkisa/Karkiya with the ethnic designation 'Carian' (Gk. Káres, Achaem. Karka, Aram. Krk) may be accepted184 without necessarily pointing to a location for the Late Bronze Age. For a location, beyond general association with the West, only three contexts seem at all definite. The [land Kjarakisa appears in the list of Assuwa countries fought by Tudhaliya I/II.185 Manapatarhunda, expelled from the Seha River land by his brothers, fled there and was well received thanks to good offices of Hittite kings.186 Piyamaradu proposed to go across (sc. the sea?) from Ahhiyawa into Masa and Karkiya, and seems actually to have done so.187 Could we envisage Karkisa being simply located in classical Caria?
8.5. Certainly Piyamaradu's sphere of operation in the Tawagalawa letter appears to be here, from Iyalanda and Millawanda down what I have termed the 'Carian highway' to Lukka. The fact that individual cities of this area are mentioned without ever being explicitly associated with the land of Karkisa may not argue against the location. Nor must Karkisa necessarily adjoin the Seha River land to explain Manapatarhunda's refuge. The appearance of Karkisa among the Assuwa lands rather than the Arzawa lands in the Annals of Tudhaliya I/II does however exert a pull towards a northern location.
8.6. Conflicting pulls to the north or south are even more acute in the case of Masa.188 References relevant to location include the following: Suppiluliuma with his father conducted a campaign against the lands of Masa and Kammala in reprisal for raids on the Hulana River and Kassiya;189 the disloyal Mashuiluwa, summoned by Mursili in year 12 to Sallapa, fled to Masa and was retrieved after a punitive campaign;190 Muwatalli destroyed Masa on behalf of Wilusa;191 Hattusili III was
184 Philological aspects of the identification explored by Carruba, Athenaeum 42 (1964), pp.290-294. See in general RIA V/5-6 (1980), s.v. Karer (Schmitt), and Karkisa (Heinhold-Krahmer). Note that Heinhold-Krahmer's rejection of the Karki(s)a / Caria connection is based on the parallel rejection of Lukka/Lycia, and has thus been invalidated.
185 KUB XXni, 11 ii 13-19 ; 12 ii 6-13 = Geography, p.l21f.
186 See above, II.3.2 and n.47. The account of the flight to Karkisa is given in the Extended Annals, and appears in a damaged passage of Man., §1.
187 Taw., iii 53, iv 5.
188 See recently Heinhold-Krahmer, RIA VH/5-6 (1989), s.v. with bibliography.
m DS frag. 13.
190 Above, II.3.3 andn.51.
191 Alaks., §6 (restored from Otten, MIO 5, p.27 1.45; Beckman, HDT— §4).
29
Anatolian Studies 1998
threatened by Piyamaradu's activities in Masa and Karkiya;192 the cult reform of Tudhaliya IV presents for the god Yarn of Gursamassa a mock battle against the men of Masa;193 the BOGAZKOY-SUDBURG inscription of Suppiluliuma II records as the objective of the first part of his campaign Wiyanawanda, Tamina, Masa, Lukka and Ikuna;194 and the KIZILDAG 4 inscription of Hartapu has now been plausibly read to record, with the conquest of all the lands, the conquest of Masa, not as has been previously thought, Muska.195
8.7. These references do give rise to contradictory locations which currently appear irreconcilable. While those from the Deeds of Suppiluliuma and Muwatalli's Alaksandu treaty, perhaps also the Tudhaliya cult text, seem to demand a northerly location, those from the Tawagalawa letter and both Hieroglyphic inscriptions are equally insistent for a southern one. Only the flight and surrender of Mashuiluwa could reasonably be placed in either direction. Thus the problems of Masa and to a lesser degree of Karkisa which demanded attention here can hardly be resolved at present.196
9.1. Finally a view on the much disputed land of Ahhiyawa cannot but be affected by the finning up of the geography of western Anatolia arising from the reading of KARABEL A.197 The scholarly tide in favour of recognizing in Ahhiyawa reference to some Mycenean centre of power has been running very strongly since the early 1980s through some notable figures continue to swim bravely against it.198 I have to declare my opinion that the evidence offered in this article strongly supports the view that Ahhiyawa does represent the Mycenean Greeks, whether on the Aegean islands or on the Greek mainland (see P. Mountjoy, this volume).
192 Above, n.187.
193 KUB XVII 35 (CTH 525.2) iii 9-15: see Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford University Press, 1977), p.27. Cf. also Forlanini, Hethitica 13 (1996), pp.5-11.
194 SÜDBURG, §§lb, 4b: see Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, pp.22f., 29, 54f.
195 Poetto, StMed 8 (Pavia, 1993), p.48 n.103; and in more detail recently, id., in Papers of the IHrd International Congress of Hittitology, Corum, September 1996 (forthcoming). He reads §2c: ma-sä (REGIO) AQUILA-na mu(wa)-td (my transliteration), 'and conquered ... the land Masa'. He interprets AQUILA-na as arafi-na = arin, 'forever'.
196 Forlanini perhaps points to the best way forward with his remarks on Masa (loc.cit., n.193), treating this entity as a mobile population group rather than a fixed land.
197 It is not my purpose here to retrace the whole vast discussion but simply to indicate the bearing of the evidence of KARABEL A on the question.
198 e.g. G. Steiner, Neue Überlegungen zur Ahhijawa-Frage (X Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler, II. Cilt (Ankara, 1990), pp.523-530); A. Ünal, loc.cit. (Above n.lll).
9.2. The land of Ahhiyawa is most clearly located by being 'across the sea', and reached at or via the islands,199 and its point of contact with the Anatolian mainland can be seen to be in the area of core Arzawa. This is Madduwatta's homeland when attacked by Attarissiya of Ahhiya. In the reign of Mursili II, the king of Ahhiyawa was in some way concerned with Millawanda,200 as was his successor in the reign of Hattusili III.201 The defeated Uhhaziti fled from Apasa across the sea to the islands with his sons, and this refuge seems definitely to be connected with Ahhiyawa.202 Similarly Piyamaradu fled by boat from Millawanda and later turns up in the territory of Ahhiyawa planning to cross into Masa and Karkiya.203 Earlier Hattusili had been at odds with Ahhiyawa over Wilusa, though by the time of the Tawagalawa letter this had been made up.204 Millawanda was acknowledged to lie within Ahhiyawan influence, and its land frontier was apparently respected.205 In the reign of Tudhaliya IV (probably, rather than of Muwatalli) the revolting ruler of the Seha River land was able to rely on the king of Ahhiyawa.206
9.3. It has been noted that the Late Bronze Age map of Anatolia is now more or less filled, especially as regards the south and west coasts and to a lesser extent the north-west, and this leaves little space for those who might still wish to place Ahhiyawa on the Anatolian mainland. The natural interpretation of the evidence is that Ahhiyawa represents a power lying in or across the sea beyond Mira-Arzawa and the Seha River land and impinging most strongly on them in particular in the area of Millawanda, which was under its control. Since the identification of Millawanda with Miletos is now hardly to be doubted,207 this locates Ahhiyawan interest in Anatolia in the area of the central west coast, precisely the area in which evidence for Mycenean cultural influence is now steadily accumulating.    It is thus
199 See n.202.
200 Above, II.3.1 andn.41.
201 The king of Ahhiyawa is in a position to instruct Atpa in Millawanda to surrender Piyamaradu to the Hittite king: Taw., i 48-50, 55-58.
202 Above, II.3.1 and n.44. That he was fleeing to Ahhiyawa is not explicitly stated in the preserved text but may be generally understood from the situation. The unfortunately partially lost, later passage of the Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 iii 1-6 (=AM, p.66f.) looks as if it would have clarified the position of a son of Uhhaziti in relation to the land of Ahhiyawa.
203 Taw., i. 58-62, iii 52-62.
204 Taw., iv 7-10; cf. the remark of Giiterbock, in Troy and the Trojan War, p.37.
205 Above, V.7.3 and n.176.
206 Above, IV.3 and nn.93-95.
207 Anna Morpurgo Davies writes: This statement refers to the identification of the place which the Hittites called Millawanda
30
Hawkins
becoming increasingly difficult to deny that 'Ahhiyawa' is the term used by the Hittites to designate that culture. Nor is it now reasonable to suppose that the Hittite king in Hattusa, with interests extending through the Levant, across the Euphrates and up to the Black Sea, a correspondent of the kings of Egypt, Babylon and Assur, should have been unaware of or uninterested in conditions in the Aegean. The time has surely come to recognize that the historical geography of western Anatolia is now established in broad outline very much as Garstang and Gurney drew it some forty years ago. Gurney in his recent re-examination and up-dating of the Geography (above, n.112) concluded his section on the South and West with the question: 'Can we dare to hope that even for the West a consensus is at last in sight?' I trust that the new evidence offered in this article will in due course lead to an affirmative answer.
with the place which the later Ionians called MiAr|to<;. The identity of the two names has often been called in doubt or straightforwardly rejected; perhaps the most detailed account is that by A. Heubeck, in Glotta LXm (1985), 127-32, who referred, as others had done before him, to the Mycenaean
ethnic mi-ra-ti-ja which he read as Millatiai and interpreted as indicating women from Miletos. From Heubeck's discussion a series of points emerge: a) the Mycenaean form, written at a time when in Greek -w- was always preserved, speaks against a simple identification of MiAaTog and Mil(l)awanda; b) even if we forget about the Mycenaean evidence, on linguistic grounds it is unlikely that we can derive MíAt|to<; / MíAotTOC, from *Milwdtos, as has been suggested; c) it is possible that the Cretan city MíAoctoc, and the Ionic city MíAnToc, in origin had the same name, since the Ionic city is originally a Minoan creation and the Minoans may have used a Minoan name (which later survived in Crete) for the new foundation. This last point is crucial and in all likelihood correct, but need not lead to Heubeck's outright rejection of a link between MíAoctoc, and Millawanda. If the Minoans did indeed call the place with a name similar to MíAoctoc, (the evidence we have is later, i.e. Mycenaean and Greek, and we must allow for some phonological differences), the Hittites would have come across a name which they did not recognize and which they might well have tried to integrate into their language by adding the suffix -wanda which is common in place-names such as Wiyanawanda. Jie's Retrograde Glossary lists some 50 -wanda names. Hittite is rich in words which start with mil- ; this could have encouraged the creation of a form such as Millawanda which would have been based on an attempt to integrate the name Milatos into Hittite through a simple process of popular etymology.
31