Tarkasnawa King of Mira ‘Tarkondemos’, Boǧazköy sealings and Karabel

Anatolian Studies

Volumn 48, Issue 3-4, 1998, Pages 1-32

  Hawkins, J D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012514555     PISSN: 00661546     EISSN: 20480849     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3643046     Document Type: Article

References (134)

1. J. D. Hawkins and A. Morpurgo Davies, Of Donkeys, Mules and Tarkondemos (Mir Curad. Studies Calvert Watkins [Innsbruck, 1998], pp.243-260).
2. 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 Gtinter Neumann [Innsbruck, 1982], pp.227-232).
4. 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 Cl published in 1967 (see below 1.3.2 and n.16).
5. The bullae., pp.249-255. The problem is tied up with the Late Hieroglyphic writings tarkasna- and tarkasni-.
6. The bullae., pp.248ff.
7. 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, The bullae., p.749 ff.; Salvini, SMEA 29 (1992), pp.149-154.
8. KARABEL Cl-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 pls.1.2, 2. For KARABEL B and C in general see Kohlmeyer, Actual surviving royal seals of the Hittite kingdom are almost non-existent. (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.
9. The best kindly supplied by Dr. Hatice Gonnet, taken in April 1994.
10. 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 Turkei [2nd ed., 1988], pp.46-52.
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 11a.m. After that the light is fair but becomes flat in the early afternoon.
12. KARABELA 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.
13. The Tarkondemos seal is said to have been bought in Izmir by an Istanbul merchant. (n.12), pp.19-21 with fig.5, 118f. Taf. 6, 7.3.
14. The Tarkondemos seal is said to have been bought in Izmir by an Istanbul merchant. (n.10), p.67f.
15. The Tarkondemos seal is said to have been bought in Izmir by an Istanbul merchant., p.68f.
16. Asia [Istanbul, 1946], p.72.
17. Laroche, Noms, no.1144, equating the Cun. PN1DLIS-DKAL with Hier. sa+US-ka-CERVUS2-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 Ni§antepe 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 -ti. Other such writings with the second element CERVUS2-rf placed with CERVUS2 standing in front of the first element include the names Sarpa-CERVUS2, Huwa- CERVUS2 and Halpa-CERVUS2
18. 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.
19. A.Goetze, DieAnnalen des Mursilis (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.
20. J.Friedrich, Staatsvertrdge 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.
21. Friedrich, SVII, no.5 (Alaks.); Beckman, HDT, no.13.
22. Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.136-147, 211-219.
23. 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.5If.) 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.
24. 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.
25. DS frags. 18-20, reviewed with additional material by Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.64-72.
26. DS frags., pp.72-74, with circumstantial references implying the existence of a treaty between Suppiluliuma and Uhhaziti.
27. Evidenced by two fragments brought together by Houwink ten Cate as discussed by Heinhold-Krahmer, DS frags., 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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, V.I.
32. 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.
33. 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).
34. Principally Ten-Year Annals, KBo III, 4 ii 47-82 = AM, pp.60-65.
35. Ten-Year Annals, KBo HI, 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.
36. Extended Annals, KUB XIV, 15 iv 34-49 = AM, pp.72-75.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. 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.
40. KUB XIX, 5 with joined frag. KBo XIX, 79; recently edited and elucidated by Houwink ten Cate, JEOL 28 (1983-84), pp.3 8-64.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Houwink ten Cate considers this use of him as a warning may point to an ultimate disgrace of Masturi (There is no direct evidence for these two assumptions., (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.
44. See now E. Edel, Die dg.-heth. Korrespondenz aus Bogazkoy (Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), no.28 (vol.1, pp.74-77; vol.11, pp.125-131).
45. Following the elimination of Tawagalawa from the central role independently by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer, Korrespondenz aus Bogazkoy., n.73.
46. ‘Freebooter’ - see Gurney, The Hittites (revised ed., 1990), p.39; Singer, An.St. 33, p.210; followed by myself, StBoT Bh.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).
47. Without being explicitly stated, this emerges from the narrative of the Hittite king's instructions sent to Iyalanda and his subsequent arrival there, followed by his diversion to Millawanda, communications sent to Piyamaradu and Atpa, and Piyamaradu's departure by boat.
48. 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.
49. 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, HDT, no.l8C, with bibliography, p.175.
50. col.iv 32; cf. above n.69.
51. See above, II.3.3 and n.52; II.3.4 and nn.57-58.
52. If this is indeed the Hier. writing of Alantalli, it in no way affects the etymology of the name discussed by van den Hout (StBoT 38, p. 147f.).
53. KUB XIX, 55 + KUB XLVIII, 90 joined to lower reverse and edited by Hoffner, A/O 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.
54. Written IKI.KAL.BAD-ZA: for reading kuwalana- (for fawATna-), see RIA VI, s.v. Kuwatna-muwa, Add.; Starke, StBoT 31,p.234ff.
55. 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’.
56. 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-.
57. Nature of the action uncertain: verb written DU-M-en, ‘we DU-ed’. Hoffner read DU as TUM (KUB XIX., p.l32f. with nn.10, 17,18) = Akk. (t)abalu, ‘carry off’. Guterbock in 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).
58. 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 Pinali: for reading of final syllable see Hawkins, StBoTBh.3, p.115.
59. See especially Singer, An.St. 33 (1983), pp.214-216; Bryce, An.St. 35 (1985), pp.13-23; Guterbock KUB XIX. (preceding n.); Freu, Hittites et Acheens (1990), pp.39-44; Starke, Studia Troica 7 (1997), p.454
60. 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.
61. 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 MI. See e.g. Garstang and Gurney, Geography, p.l20f.
62. 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, FsSedatAlp (Ankara, 1992), pp.235-243. The interpretation of appa ep- as ‘rely on’ has been advocated by Giiterbock in his recent treatments, especially KUB XXIII., 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.
63. So Freu, KUB XXIII., p.25 f. But the evidence that Masturi may have been son and direct successor to Manapatarhunda (above, n.70) would preclude the possibility.
64. By restoring ‘[great-] grandfather’ (for Suppliluliuma) and ‘[grandfather]’ (for Mursili).
65. As the YALBURT inscription shows him to have been in the south-west, i.e. Lukka.
66. KBo XVIII 18, 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-HWI+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.
67. See above n.34, referring to Hagenbuchner, THeth 15, pp.49-55. Hagenbuchner restores Parhuitta's title as LUGAL.[GAL], ‘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.
68. P. Neve, AA 1987, pp.401-403; 1991, pp.330 Abb.35a-b, 332f.
69. H. Bahar, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 18/73 (1996), pp.2-5 (Turkish), 6f. (German); A. and B. Dincol, KUB XXIII., 8f. (Turkish); H. Bahar, Eskicag Konya Ara§tirmalan 1 (1996), pp.42-45 (Turkish), cover and pis. I-II, X-XV; A. Dincol, TUBA-AR 1 (1998), pp.27-34.
70. KUB XXIII., pp.68-70. As Singer notes, my reason for dating Hartapu to the period after the fall of Hattusa was his use of the 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 Bogazkoy as well as his rock relief at Hatip.
71. Hittites et Acheens, p.43. Cf. above, n.92, where the absence of evidence for there being a king in Millawanda is stressed.
72. Bittel and Akurgal, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy (ed.), Griechenland, die Agdis und die Levante wahrend der ‘Dark Ages’ vom 12 bis zum 9Jh.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.
73. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, IV §64; Edgerton and Wilson, Historical Records of Rameses III (Chicago, 1936), p.53.
74. 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).
75. 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, Studia 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)
76. 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 Sedat Alp [Ankara, 1992], p.213 ff., especially in the present context pp.217-221).
77. KUB XXIII. (n.112), later incorporated into the Geography.
78. 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.
79. Mashuiluwa came presumably from Mira to meet Mursili in Aura (above, II.3.1 and n.43); in year 12 when his doubledealing was detected, Mursili marching westwards summoned him to Sallapa (above, II.3.3 and n.51).
80. 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 Carjamba Cay over the Goksu (Calycadnos) as the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier (Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, p.53 and n.183).
81. 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 II 1 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.
82. Meiros marked by Forlanini (preceding n.), and see Atlante Storico 4.3, notes to Tav. XVI, (7) L'Anatolia Occidental. The Byzantine inscription identifying the site was published by Anderson, JHS 17 (1897), p.423 no.21.
83. Including the territory around Ilgin and Yalburt, the site of Tudhaliya's YALBURT inscription: Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, p.51 and n.177.
84. KBo IV, lOobv. 16-18. Bronze Tablet i 18-21. This frontier description probably commenced up in the direction of Kadinhan.
85. Geography, pp.84, 88f.; cf. Gurney, Fs Sedat Alp, p.220
86. 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.
87. 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.’
88. Starke, Studia Troica 1, p.451 with n.27, following Bammer, Ephesos. Stadt an Fluss undMeer (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.
89. e.g. by Goetze, Forlanini, Freu, de Martino.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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).
93. Principally attested in Kup. §9 (Beckman, HDT); restored by Houwink ten Cate on KUB XXIII, 100 obv. 11 (JEOL 28, pp.64f., 67).
94. For archaeological recognition of Bronze Age Sardis, see A. Ramage, Early Iron Age Sardis and its neighbours (in A. Qilingiroglu and D. H. French (ed.), Anatolian Iron Ages III (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1994), pp.163- 172).
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. 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 Mustafa Biiyukkolanci, 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.
98. 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, L ‘Anatolia 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. See above II.5.1 and n.73. 150
99. I. Hoffmann, Einige Uberlegungen zum Verfasser des Madduwatta-Textes (Or 53 [1984], pp.34-51); rebutted by Freu, Hethitica 8 (1987), p.l25ff.
100. Madd., §§4, 21 (Beckman, HDT, pp.145, 148f. - §§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 Bey§ehir and ending in the Carsamba fay, 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.
101. 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.).
102. Madd., §24 (Beckman, HDT, p.149 - §21). The land of Zumarri is restored in the list from §29 (Beckman, §26).
103. Madd., §26 (Beckman, HDT, p.l49f. - §23); cf. above, V.2.2andnn.l22, 123.
104. Cf. Freu, Hethitica 8, p. 133; de Martino, Geography. (n.149), p.47f.
105. Following the independent elucidations of the text offered by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer in 1983 (above, n.73).
106. 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.
107. 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 n ow excluded by the geographical evidence of the Bronze Tablet. See in 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.
108. 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.
109. 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 (Lye. 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.
110. 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 7 [1988], pp.162-168) was rapidly invalidated by the geographical evidence provided by the Bronze Tablet, published in the same year.
111. First in Garstang, The Hittite Empire (1929), p.179; cf. Geography, p.79.
112. 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 (Otten, 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).
113. Freu, Hethitica 8, p. 148; cf. Carruba, Fs Borchhardt, p.32 n.31.
114. Following Goetze's interpretation: cf. Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, pp.97-100.
115. See most recently B. and W.-D. Niemeier, Milet 1994-1995 (AA 1997, pp.196, 201ff.).
116. Studia Troica 7, p.454 with reference back to n.59.
117. First by Kretschmer, Glotta 13 (1924), pp.205-213; further in 21 (1933), pp.213-257; 24 (1935), pp.203-251.
118. 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 col.i).
119. 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).
120. e.g. in the most extreme versions, in the locations of Macqueen and Mellaart, An.St. 18 (1968), pp.169 ff., 187 ff.
121. 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.
122. KUB XXIII, 11 ii 13-19 12 ii 6-13 = Geography, p.121f.
123. 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.
124. See recently Heinhold-Krahmer, RIA VII/5-6 (1989), s.v. with bibliography.
125. Alaks., §6 (restored from Otten, MIO 5, p.27 1.45; Beckman, HDT- §4).
126. 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.
127. SUDBURG, §§lb, 4b: see Hawkins, StBoT Bh.3, pp.22f., 29, 54f.
128. Poetto, StMed 8 (Pavia, 1993), p.48 n.103; and in more detail recently, id., in Papers of the Illrd International Congress of Hittitology, Corum, September 1996 (forthcoming). He reads §2c: ma-sa (REGIO) AQUILA-na mu(wa)-td (my transliteration), ‘and conquered. the land Masa’. He interprets AQUILA-wa as ara/i-na = arin, ‘forever’.
129. Forlanini perhaps points to the best way forward with his remarks on Masa (Geography, n.193), treating this entity as a mobile population group rather than a fixed land.
130. 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.
131. e.g. G. Steiner, Neue Uberlegungen zur Ahhijawa-Frage (X Turk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler, II. Cilt (Ankara, 1990), pp.523-530); A. Unal, 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. (Above n.111).
132. 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.
133. 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 IE, 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.
134. Taw., iv 7-10; cf. the remark of Guterbock, in Troy and the Trojan War, p.37.