muhly, j. d. hittites and achaeans, ahhijawa redomitus

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawā redomitus Author(s): J. D. Muhly Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 23, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1974), pp. 129-145Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435391Accessed: 24-09-2015 23:31 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:31:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435391

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



ABHANDLUNGEN

HITTITES AND ACHAEANS: AHHIJAWA REDOMITUS

The dream of every Homeric scholar has been to come into the possession of some sort of contemporary evidence for the events described by Homer, the time of the Trojan War and the Nostoi or Returns of the Heroes. Homer's account itself has held the attention of scholars for centuries, but it was recognized already in Antiquity that Homer was not an actual contemporary ot the period he purports to describe. According to Herodotus Ho- mer lived some 400 years before his time, that is, about 850 B. C.' This date is about 100 years higher than the date commonly used today for the monumental composition of the Iliad, now placed in the latter part of the eighth century B. C.2

Herodotus seems to place the Trojan War itself in the middle of the 13th century B. C.,3 while later Greek historians, as part of the highly artificial post-Herodotean refinement of early Greek chronology, assigned to the ten year siege of Troy the exact dates of 1193-1184 B. C.4 Modern Homeric scholarship has tended to accept this dating as a reasonable one. Indeed, since the monumental publication of Carl Blegen's salvage re-excavation of Troy during the years 1932-1938,5 it has been commonly held that archaeology not only provided confirmation of this dating but of the historical reality of the War itself. Blegen felt confident enough to state that archaeological excavations at Troy and in Greece itself had proved that Troy VIIa, the Troy of Priam, Hecuba, Hector, and Paris/Alexander, was destroyed by forces from the Greek mainland led by Agamemnon, the king of Golden Mycenae. The only aspect of the Greek tradition which disturbed Blegen was the date of the War, for Blegen felt that the archaeological evidence

' Hdt. 11. 53. 2.

2 For recent discussions see G. P. Edwards, The Language of Hesiod in its Traditional Context, Ox- ford, 1971 (Publ. of the Philological Society, XXII), p. 201.; G. S. Kirk, "Homer's Iliad and Ours," Proc. of /he Cambridge Philological Society, N. S., 16 (1970), 48-59.

3 Hdt. II. 145. 4. Cf. G. Huxley, "Thucydides and the Date of the Trojan War," PdP, 54 (1957), 209-212.

4 For the process by which these dates were establishcd see J. Forsdyke, Greece hefore Homer, Ancient Chronology and Mythology, London, 1956, p. 62 f.; p. 28 f.

5 C. W. Blegen, et al., Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-1938, 4 volumes in 8, Princeton, 1950-1958.

9 H-istoria XXIII/2



130 J. D.MUH LY

from Troy supported a date of about 1250 B. C. for the Greek sack of the city.6 This dating, which approximates that of Herodotus, is also favored on historical grounds by those who see in Hittite documents from the reign of Tudhaliyas III7 describing Hittite campaigns against the 'League of Assuwa' a historical background for Greek involvement in western Anatolia.8

In the absence of contemporary records directly relating to Greece and the Trojan War, Homeric scholars turned to archaeological evidence in order to reconstruct the actual course of events in the 13th and 12th centuries B. C. Yet it was soon pointed out that such evidence is always ambi- guous at best and subject to a number of possible interpretations.9 The 'Mute Stones' do not speak for themselves; they need a spokesman.10 There was archaeological evidence for the destruction of the site commonly identified as Homeric Troy, but no evidence that the destruction in question had anything to do with the Greeks, let alone Greek forces led by Agamemnon. Perhaps it was the work of the so-called 'Peoples of the Sea', known from Egyptian sources to have been active in the area right at the time of the tradi-

* C. W. Blegen, "The Mycenaean Age. The Trojan War, the Dorian Invasion, and Other Prob- lems," in Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, First Series, 1961-1965, Princeton, 1967 (Univ. of Cincinnati, Classical Studies, I), 1-41, pp. 18 f., 30 f.

7 There is, at present, great confusion regarding the proper sequence and numbering of the Hittite kings. The ruler formerly known as Tudhaliyas IV is most probably the third Hittite king of that name. See P. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, The Records of the Early Hittite Empire (C. 1450-1380 B. C.), Istanbul, 1970 (Publ. de l'inst. hist. et arch. de Stamboul, XXVI); H. G. Guterbock, "Thc Predecessors of Suppiluliuma Again," JNES, 29 (1970), 73-77; A. Goetze, "The Predecessors of Suppiluliuma? of Hatti and the Chronology of the Ancient Near East," JCS, 22 (1968), 46-50. H. G. Guterbock, "Hattusili II Once More," JCS, 25 (1973) 100-104 (with recent bibliography).

s D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley, 1959 (Sather Classical Lectures, 31), 97-112, esp. p. 110 (who favors a slightly lower dating, c. 1230 B. C.); V. R. d'A. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, An Archaeological Survey c. 1200-c. 1000 B. C., Oxford, 1964, p. 249:

"In conclusion, then, the contemporary evidence would permit an Achaean war against Troy between 1250 and 1230, but at no other time." For other attempts to use the Hittite evidence see L. Derwa, "A propos de la date de la guerre

de Troie," RHA, XXII/74 (1964), 67-86; E. 0. Forrer, "Der Untergang des Hatti-Reiches," in Ugaritica VI, Paris, 1969 (Mission de Ras Shamra, XVII), 207-228 (both of these articles are very speculative and must be used with great caution).

9 Cf. D. Page, "The Historical Sack of Troy," Antiquity, 33 (1959), 25-31; G. E. Mylonas, "Priam's Troy and the Date of its Fall," Hesperia, 22 (1964), 352-380; M. I. Finley, et al., "The

Trojan War,"JHS, 84 (1964), 1-20; M. I. Finley, "Lost: The Trojan War," in Aspects of Antiqui- ty: Discoveries and Controversies, New York, 1969, 24-37; C. Nylander, "The Fall of Troy," in The Deep Well, New York, 1970, 131-141.

10 Cf. R. de Vaux, "On Right and Wrong Uses of Archaeology," in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Festschrift Nelson Glueck, New York, 1970, 64-80; M. I. Finley, ,,Ar- chaeology and History," Daedalus, 100/1 (1971) 168-186; G. Ernest Wright, "What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do," BA, 34 (1971), 70-76.



Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomilus 131

tional date for the Trojan War." There was also a strong suspicion regarding the dating confidently proposed by various Greek archaeologists. It was never clear to what extent the dating actually reflected independent chronological evidence and to what extent it was really based upon attempts to re- concile later Greek literary traditions.12 No critical historian was ever going to accept such equivocal evidence. If that is all there was to the 'historical background' of the Homeric poems, then it was certainly preferable to return to the position held by most scholars in the 19th century A. D.: the whole Trojan War cycle belonged to the legendary mythological history which later Greeks created in order to give themselves a respectable antiquity. Greek history, as a proper field for study by a modern historian, began with the founding of the Olympic Games in 776 B. C.13

There are those who will say that the decipherment of the Linear B tablets as an early form of Greek has brought the Late Bronze Age into the realm of history.14 Yet, as far as the Trojan War is concerned, the Linear B tablets provide virtually no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing that can be taken as providing evidence for the historical reality of the Trojan War.'5 If contemporary historical records relating to the Trojan War were ever to come to light, they would most likely come from somewhere outside the Greek world proper. Troy itself was, in this respect, a great disappointment. Incre- dible as it may seem that great site in the Troad seems to have remained illi- terate throughout its long history.'6

1' A. Heubeck, Gnomon, j33 (1961), 113-120 (review of D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad); C. Nylander, "The Fall of Troy," Antiquity, 37 (1963), 6-11; N. K. Sandars, "From Bronze Age to Iron Age: a sequcl to a sequel," in The European Community in Later Prehistory: Festschrift C. F. C. Hawkes, London, 1971, 3-29, p. 17 f.

12 Thus there is question whether Blegen's high date for the fall of Troy VIla (as high as 1270) is really an archaeological date or whether it is an attempt to fit in the traditional genealogical chronology and to solve the problem raised by 0. Broneer, "Athens in the Late Bronze Age," Antiquity, 30 (1956), 9-18. See G. E. Mylonas, Mycenac and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton, 1966, 215-218.

13 Cf. George Grote, History of Greece, 5th ed., 1888, reprinted in 12 volumes, London, 1907, esp. vol. I. For the work of Grote see A. D. Momigliano, "George Grote and the Study of Greek History," in Studies in Historiography, New York, 1966, 56-74.

14 Foreword by A. J. B. Wace, to M. Ventris & J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenacan Greek, Cambridge, 1956, pp. xvii-xxxi.

15 About the best that can be done with the tablets is that they might describe arrangements made for the defence of Pylos against an anticipated invasion by sea. This could be related to the events which destroyed Mycenaean Greece, apparently after the Trojan War. See L. R. Palmer, "Military Arrangements for the Defence of Pylos," Minos, 4 (1956), 120-145; idem, The Interpreta- tion of Mycenaean Greek Texts, Oxford, 1963, pp. 147-163; D. A. Was, "The Kingdom of Pylos. Its Topography and Defence," Anatolica, 3 (1969-70), 147-176.

"I For the so-called written documents from Troy see E. Grumach, Bibliographic der kretisch-my- kenischen Epigraphik, Munich, 1963, p. 117, s. v. 'Hissarlik' (and see Supplement I, Munich, 1967, p. 34).

9*



132 J. D. MULILY

In 1924 the Swiss scholar, Emil Forrer, announced to an astounded aca- demic world that he had identified the Achaean heroes of the Trojan War in contemporary Hittite texts.17 We have yet to sort out all the implications of Forrer's original thesis, and the Ahhijawa question has become one of the most controversial issues in our reconstruction of the history of the Late Bronze Age. Forrer not only identified a group of people, the Homeric Achaeans ('AXato1 ( 'AXaLFOQ, with the inhabitants of Hittite Ahhijawa. He went further and proposed to identify specific individuals mentioned by Homer:

Alexandros of Troy appeared in Hittite as Alaksandus of Wilusa Atreus as Attarissiyas Andreus as Antarawas Eteocles as Tawagalawas (representing Greek 'ExrF?KA'F5) Troy and Ilios appeared as Taruisa and Wilusiya respectively.

The reaction was not long in coming. In 1926 Johannes Friedrich published a long paper rejecting the entire thesis as 'something which has gone astray' (Irrweg).18 Forrer defended his basic idea two years later, in 1928.19 Then, in 1932, came the definitive study by the great Indo-Europeanist Fer- dinand Sommer, Die Abbi/avd-Urkunden, a massive monument of philological scholarship.20 Sommer rejected the entire hypothesis. He considered it to be a great hoax, the product of Forrer's brilliant but erratic mind.

In spite of the force of Sommer's arguments and the weight of his scholarship in this and in subsequent publications,2' almost every Homeric scholar has been unwilling to abandon completely the equation Ahhijaw -'AxaL- Ftcd. Almost all of the more fanciful identifications proposed by Forrer were rejected, but this basic identification seemed too good to be abandoned. It could not be defended on philological grounds for, as Sommer pointed out, -hh- cannot equal Greek -X- and -ija- does not reflect Greek -al-.22 Still, it

17 E. Forrer, "Vorhomerische Gricchen in den Keilschrifttexten von Boghazkoi," MDOG, 63 (1924), 1-22; idem, "Die Griechen in den Boghazkoi-Texten," OLZ, 27 (1924), 113-118.

18 J. Friedrich, "Werden in den hethitischen Keilschrifttexten die Griechen erwahnt?," K/F,

I/l (1927), 87-107. 19 E. Forrer, "Fur die Griechen in den Boghazkoi-Inschrif ten," K/F, 1/2 (1928), 252-272. 20 F. Sommer, Die Ajhbijavd-Urkunden, Munich, 1932 (Abh. d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist.

Abt., N. F., 6). 21 F. Sommer, Ahhijavdfrage rind Sprachwissenschaft, MIunich, 1934 (Abh. d. Bayer. Akad. d.

Wiss., Phil.-hist. Abt., N. F., 9); idem, "Ahhijava und kein Ende?," IF, 55 (1937), 169-297. 22 Ibid, p. 269,. Also A. Sacconi, "Gli Achei in eta micenea ed in Omero," 2iva Antika, 19

(1969), 13-19, p. 18 f. For an attempt to solve this problem and to support the identification of Ahhijawa and 'AXaqL,I on linguistic grounds see J. Harmatta, "Zur Ahhiyawa-Frage," in Studia

Mycenaca, Brno, 1968 (Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis Facultas Philosophica, 127), 117-124 (and the summary of his argument in the review of this volume by H. A. Hoffner, Jr., AJA, 73 (1969), 474-475, p. 475).




was felt that somehow Ahhijawa must be related to Greek 'AxatF0i. The only question that actually remained to be discussed was whether Ahhijawa was to be considered a Greek kingdom located somewhere in western Anatolia or whether it could be identified with the Greek mainland itself.23 No less a scholar than Fritz Schachermeyr defended the mainland location in a famous monograph published in 1935.24 Others have identified Ahhi- jawa with various islands in the eastern Mediterranean, chiefly Cyprus and Rhodes. The identification with Rhodes, first proposed by Bedrich Hrozny in 1929,25 has found a recent champion in the forceful arguments of Denys Page.26 An article by the Turkish archaeologist Yusuf Boysal extends this by arguing that'... with Rhodes as the centre, Ahhijava is located within the area of the other islands and the coasts of Caria and forms a singlk zone which takes in Southern Ionia'.27 All of the various identifications which have been proposed, together with the arguments pro and con, were sum- marized in a 1964 article by the Hittitologist Gerd Steiner.28 This is not the place nor the time to re-trace all the old paths.

Within this maze of arguments and counter-arguments there seems to be one thread with which almost everyone has tried to enter and return. That is the conviction that Ahhijawa does represent 'AXa'FtFI and that references to Ahhijawa must somehow involve Mycenaean Greeks. Only Ferdinand Som- mer has been willing to go so far as to deny any connection whatsoever between Ahhijawa and the Greeks. For Sommer, Ahhijawa was an Anatolian kingdom having nothing in common with the Aegean world. Sommer asked a very elementary question: is there anything about the Hittite references to Ahhijawa themselves which suggests the Aegean world, anything which would indicate that Ahhijawa was something other than an Anatolian power? Sommer's answer was a positive NO.29

23 That is, everyone accepts the equation as valid (see G. Steiner, Saeculum, 15 (1964), p. 368, n. 15). The only question is exactly where to place Ahhijawa. V. R. d'A. Desborough has the most all-inclusive answer. For him Ahhijawa comprises "the whole Mycenaean world" (The Last Mly- cenaeans and their Stccessors, p. 219). See also R. Hope Simpson & J. F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer's 'Iliad', Oxford, 1970, p. 118 f.; M. I. Finley, Early Greece: The Bronze and Ar- chaic Ages, New York, 1970 (Ancient Culture and Society Series), p. 58 f.

24 F. Schachermeyr, Hetiiter und Achaer, Leipzig, 1935 (MAOG, 9/1-2). See also F. Schacher- meyr, "Zur Frage der Lokalisierung von Achiawa," in Minoica: Festscbrift Johannes Sundwall, Berlin, 1958, 365-380. G. Mylonas combines both locations by proposing two places called Ahhijaw5, one in Pamphylia and the other in mainland Greece (G. Mylonas, "Hoi proistorikoi katoikoi tas Hellados kai ta historika Hellenika phyla," Arch. Eph., 1930, 1-29, p. 25).

25 B. Hrozny, "Hethiter und Griechen," Arch. Or., 1 (1929), 323-343. 26 D. L. Page, H-istory and the Homeric Iliad, pp. 1-40. 27 Y. Boysal, "New Excavations in Caria," Anatolia, 11 (1967) (1969), 32-56, p. 56. 28 G. Steiner, "Die Ahhijawa-Frage heute," Saeculum, 15 (1964), 365-392. 29 F. Sommer, IF, 55 (1937), p. 286 f.



134 J. D. MUHLY

This is, for me, the most compelling aspect of Sommer's thesis. The philological arguments are not decisive and cannot in themselves prove or disprove the Achaean identification. But, beyond the possible similarity of the two names, is there anything else about Ahhijawa that would require an association with the Greek world? For Denys Page Ahhijawa is a powerful sea-faring kingdom beyond the direct sphere of Hittite influence. Rhodes is the only location that fits such a description and, since Rhodes is Achacan, therefore Ahhijawa must refer to Achaean Greeks.30 The argument is simply not valid for there is one location that fits all of Page's specifications, namely the Troad. A series of Anatolian scholars, from Goetze to Mellaart, have defended precisely this location for Ahhijawa.31

Ferdinand Sommer was a philologist and he considered only philological evidence. For this he has been severely criticized by recent scholars who argue that the archaeological evidence for Mycenaeans in western Anatolia supports the identification Ahhijawa- 'AXaLFU.32 Now this evidence consists of a quantity of Mycenaean pottery from some dozen different sites in western Anatolia,33 especially from the region of ancient Halicarnassus, modern Bodrum.34 There even seems to have been a Mycenaean settlement at ancient Miletus. Now Miletus, which seems to have been known by that name already in the Linear B tablets from Pylos,35 is usually identified with Hittite Millawanda, a city which seems not to have been in Ahhijawa but to

'I D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, p. 15 f. 31 A. Goetze, Gnomon, 10 (1934), 177-183 (review of Sommer, Die A4bbijavd-Urkunden); idem,

Kleinasien2, Munich, 1957 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 11I. 1. 3. 3. 1), p. 183; J. G. Macqueen, "Geography and History in Western Asia Minor in the Second Millennium B. C.," Anat. St., 18 (1968), 169-185; J. Mellaart, "Anatolian Trade with Europe and Anatolian Geography and Cultural Provinces in the Late Bronze Age," Anat. St., 18 (1968), 187-202.

12 D. L. Page, op. cit., p. 17: "Is it not vain to resist any longer the temptation to identify the names?" For V. R. d'A. Desborough the uniformity of the Mycenaean pottery must represent an unified Mycenaean empire, ruled from Mycenae, and this empire can only be the Hittite Ahhijawa (Tbe Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, p. 219). But even the existence of such an empire is only a matter of hypothesis. See C. G. Thomas, "A Mycenaean Hegemony? A Reconsideration," JHS, 90 (1970), 184-192.

33 K. Bittel, "Karabel," MDOG, 98 (1967), 5-23; D. H. French, "Protohistoric Sites in North- west Anatolia, II. The Balikesir and Akhisar/Manisa Areas," Anat. St., 19 (1969), 41-98, pp. 73-75; J. M. Cook & D. J. Blackman, "Archaeology in Western Asia Minor, 1965-70," in Arch. Reports

for 1970-71, 33-62, p. 38 f. For lasos see AJA, 77 (1973), 177f. q' G. F. Bass, "Mycenaean and Protogeometric Tombs in the Halikarnassos Peninsula," AJA,

67 (1963), 353-361; Y. Boysal, Katalogder Vasen des Aluseums in Bodrum, I, Ankara, 1969. 35 Py Aa 1180 and Py Ab 573 refer to mi-ra-ti-ja, which can be transcribed into the Greek alpha-

bet as MAa-rLa and may refer to a female worker from Miletus. For these formations in -ja see

J. Chadwick, Gnomon, 36 (1964), 321-327 (review of Palmer, Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek

Texts); C. J. Ruijgh, Lrtudes sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycdnien, Amsterdam, 1967,

p. 99 f., esp. p. 151, p. 179 & n. 410.




have belonged to Ahhijaw!.36 Hence, say Homeric scholars, Ahhijawa must represent a state controlled by Mycenaean Greeks.37 Not so. What the evidence does tell us is that the Mycenaeans were at Millawanda and, borrowing the native designation, they came to call the city * Mi)aFaTog, which became * MOAiTOg and finally MI2XqTO4.38

It is commonly felt that Hittite Millawanda, Apasas, and Lazpas represent Anatolian versions of the Greek originals Miletus, Ephesus, and Lesbos.39 It now seems reasonable to suggest that the borrowing went the other way, that the Anatolian names are the originals and the Greek names the derived forms. Such is the case with the name 'lonian' as the present author will try to show in a forthcoming paper.40 What about Ahhijawa ? What I would like to suggest is that Ahhijawa is the Anatolian name for the region of the Troad. The region surrounding the royal citadel of Taruisa (Troy?) seems to have been known as Wilusiya (Ilios?), a kingdom known to the Hittites since the time of the Hittite Old Kingdom. This is the land of Ahhijawa as known to the Hittites, a powerful Anatolian kingdom situated in northwestern Anatolia with the fortress of Troy VI as its royal citadel. It is possible that the kingdom extended to the islands of the north Aegean, as Mellaart has suggested that the city of Poliochni on the island of Lemnos was part of the same kingdom.4' Who were the inhabitants of the kingdom of Ahhijawa? Most probably Indo-Europeans, related in some way to the Indo-Europeans of the Greek mainland.42 The language of Ahhijawa must have been part of the Anatolian branch of IE, perhaps even Palaic.43

36 For Millawanda see J. Garstang & 0. R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hitite Empire, Lon- don, 1959 (Occ. Publ. of the British Inst. of Arch. in Ankara, no. 5), pp. 75 f., 80 f.; G. L. Hux- ley, Achaeans and Hiiti/es, Belfast, 1960, 11-15.

37 M. P. Nilsson, Homer and Mycenae, London, 1933, p. 104 (and see the summary and discussion of Nilsson's position in W. A. McDonald, Progress into the Past: the Rediscovery of Mycenacan Civilization, New York, 1967, 285-291).

38 The change from - a - to - n - came about some time in the early first millennium B. C. Cf. A. Barton6k, Development of the Long- Vowel System in Ancient Greek Dialects, Brno, 1966, p. 99 f. (who dates the change to c. 900 B. C.). The change took place after Mycenaean as, for example, za-we-te <*kyd-wetes> TrTeg. E. Laroche, "Observations sur la chronologie de l'ionien a> a," in Melanges de linguis/ique et de philologiegrecques offerts a Pierre Chantraine, Paris, 1972, 83-91.

39 Cf. J. Garstang & 0. R. Gurney, op. cit., pp. 80 f., 88, 96; G. L. Huxley, op. cit., pp. 11 f., 40 f.

40 J. D. Muhly, "Yadnana, Yaman, and the Origin of the Name 'Ionian'," (paper read at the meeting of the American Oriental Society, Spring, 1970, to be published shortly in an expanded version). See also D. Hegyi, "The Origin of the Ethnic Name: Ionian," Annales Universi/atis Scien- tiarum Budapestinensis, Sectio Philologica, 6 (1965), 89-102.

41 J. Mellaart, The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, Beirut, 1966, p. 142.

42 It is generally assumed that the break between Troy V and Troy VI is related to events on the Greek mainland and that the presence of the horse and a gray monochrome pottery in Troy VI, related to the Gray Minyan ware in Greece, marks the arrival of Indo-European peoples in both



136 J. D. MUHLY

Troy was in contact with the Greek world at least from the end of the 16th century B. C. onwards, as considerable amounts of LH II and LH III pottery were found in the excavations from the middle of Troy VI and continu- ing into Troy VIIa.4 The Knossos Linear B reference to akwi-ja-de suggests that some form of the name 'AXa1FtiI was known in the Aegean world by the end of the 15th century B. C.45 The resemblance between a-ka-wi-ja-de and Ahhijawa is probably only accidental. What the Linear B reference does suggest is that the Greek name developed completely apart from borrowing or influence from Anatolia.

Like the rest of the Mycenaean pottery from western Anatolia, that from Troy reflects only the existence of commercial contacts, not the presence of actual Mycenaean settlement. The only possible exception is Miletus. Here there seems to have been an actual Mycenaean settlement which, according to its excavator Gerhard Kleiner, shows that the Mycenaeans were on the west coast ot Asia Minor already by the 15th century B. C.46 But Miletus was not Ahhijawa.

areas. That is, the Greeks are somehow related to the Trojans. Cf. C. W. Blegen, Troy and the Tro-

jans, New York, 1964 (Ancient Peoples and Places, 32), p. 145 f. Blegen concludes (ibid. p. 146),

that " . . . we shall have to accept the further conclusion that the founders of Troy VI were also

Greeks . . .", but few would be prepared to go that far. For other points of view see J. Mellaart,

The Chalcolitbic and Early Bronze Ages, p. 192 f.; R. A. Crossland, "Immigrants from the North,"

in CAH2, 1/27, Cambridge, 1967, p. 20 f. (and review by J. Mellaart, JHS, 89 (1969), 172-173);

W. F. Wyatt, Jr., "The Indo-Europeanization of Greece," in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans,

Philadelphia, 1970, 89-111. The problem of the nature of the break between Troy V and VI is dis-

cussed by K. Bittel, Gnomon, 28 (1956), 241-252 (review of Troy III: The Sixth Settlement, Prince-

ton, 1953). See also the general discussion by D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, pp. 41-96. 43 For Palaic see 0. Carruba, Das Palaische: Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon, Wiesbaden, 1970

(StBoT, 10). It is commonly assumed that Palaic was the language spoken in northwestern Anato-

lia. See 0. Carruba, "Origini e preistoria degli indoeuropei d'Anatolia," Rivista di Filologia Classi-

ca, N. S., 97 (1969), 5-30. "4 C. W. Blegen, Troy and the Trojans, pp. 141 f., 159 f. Blegen felt that the earliest Mycenaean

pottery from Troy was LH I ware from level VId (ibid, p. 141). This question is discussed in Troy,

vol. III, and in the reviews of that volume by K. Bittel, Gnomon, 28 (1956), 241-252, p. 248, and

M. J. Mellink, Bi. Or., 14 (1957), 235-239, p. 237. 46 Kn C 914, in J. Chadwick, J. T. Killen, & J.-P. Olivier, The Knossos Tablets4, Cambridge,

1971, p. 52. A-ka-wi-ja-de represents 'AXaLFI&, a toponymic derived from the ethnic 'AXaQF6;. Cf.

C. J. Ruijgh, etudes sur la grammaire ee le vocabulaire du grec mycenien, Amsterdam, 1967, p. 154, p. 181

and n. 420. However the context of this short text, recording deliveries of sheep and goats, indi-

cates that 'AXaLFId must refer to a place in Crete. L. R. Palmer, The Interpretation of Mycenaean

Greek Texts, p. 65, takes a-ka-wi-ja-de as referring to the name of a herdsman which is simply im-

possible. The form 'AXalF'av be (accusative plus postposition 6E) can only be a reference to a place

name. See M. Lejeune, REA, 68 (1966), 405 f. F. Gschnitzer, "Stammesnamen in den mykeni-

schen Texten," in Donum Indogermanicum: Festschrift Anton Scherer, Heidelberg, 1971,90-106, p. 95. '6 For recent work at Miletus see A. Mallwitz & W. Schiering, "Der Alte Athena-Tempel von

Milet," Istan. Mitt., 18 (1968) (1970), 87-160, esp. p. 144 f.; G. Kleiner, "Stand der Erforschung

von Alt-Milet," Istan. Mitt., 19-20 (1969-70), 113-123. See also AJA, 76 (1972), 175f.



Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomitut 137

The recent re-dating of a number of key Hittite texts relating to Ahhijawa concerns not only the problem of the historical background in Anatolia but also the origin of the name Ahhijawa.47 It is now held that the Madduwattas text, long dated towards the end of the 13th century B. C.48, is actually two centuries earlier. If this is accepted, then the variant spelling Ahhija instead of Ahhijawa in Madduwattas, is of considerable interest. It could represent the earliest Hittite attempt to represent the sound of Greek 'AxatFt'a. This was then modified to Ahhijawa in order to make it more of an Anatolian name.49

This theory would require that the Greek 'AXaLFWa be the original and Ahhijawa the derived Anatolian form. It would also mean that, from the very beginning, Ahhijawa did refer to Mycenaean Greeks. The theory is an attractive one, but there are a number of problems. It is not clear why Ahhi- jawa is any more Anatolian than Ahhija. The re-dating of the Hittite texts is still only a hypothesis and there are many good reasons for retaining the traditional chronology.50 Most important of all, there is nothing in the Hittite references to Ahhijd/AhhijawA, whenever they are dated, which suggests any connection with the Aegean world. The redating of these Hittite texts would have profound consequences for those who see in the wars of Tudha- liyas in western Anatolia the contemporary background of the Homeric poems. These texts, often thought to provide a historical background against which the Trojan War had to be placed, might actually describe events around 1400 B. C.5' However the re-dating is uncertain and, in any

'17 For the re-dating of various Hittite texts see Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, The Record: of the Early Hi/tite Empire, pp. 4 f., 57 f.; 0. Carruba, "Die Chronologie der hethitischen Texte und die hethitische Geschichte der GroBreichszeit," in ZDMG, Suppl., I/1, Wiesbaden, 1969 (XVII Deutscher Orientalistentag, Vortrage), 226-249; idem, "Ober historiographische und philolo- gische Methoden in der Hethitologie," Orientalia, 40 (1971), 208-223.

48 A. Goetze, Madduwaltaf, Leipzig, 1928 (MVAeG, 32/I, 1927, Hethitische Texte, III). 49 For re-dating of text see H. Otten, Sprachliche Stellung und Datierung des Madduwatta-Textes,

Wiesbaden, 1969 (StBoT, 11). For Ahhjija in Madduwattas see Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, op. cit., p. 63 f., and also his paper read at the 1970 Sheffield Conference on Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean Age, to be published shortly in R. A. Crossland & A. Burchell, eds., Bronze Age Mi- grations in the Aegean. For the dating of the text see also 0. Carruba, Orientalia, 40 (1971), p. 214 f.

60 A. Kammenhuber, "Die Sprachstufen des Hethitischen," KZ, 83 (1969), 256-289. The presence of archaic forms in the Madduwattas text has long been recognized. See R. A. Crossland, "Archaic Forms in the 'Mattuwattas Text'," in Comple rendu de la Ille Rencontre Assyriologique, Lei- den, 1954, 158-161.

61 The text in question is the so-called 'Annals of Tudhaliyas' (for English translation see J. Garstang & 0. R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire, pp. 120-123), once considered to be a text of Tudhaliyas IV (III?), but now felt to be a composite text part of which - including the Assuwa campaigns - actually belongs to the reign of Tudhaliyas II (I?). See P. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, op. cit., pp. 62, 72; 0. R. Gurney, "Anatolia, c. 1600-1380 B. C.," in CAH2, II/15 (a), Cambridge, 1966, p. 20 f. This text is, of course, the one mentioning Wilukiya and Taruila.



138 J. D.MUHLY

case, the value of these texts for Homeric studies has been greatly exaggerat- ed.

This may strike some as being essentially a negative paper. It certainly is negative for those in search of Hittite evidence for the Trojan War. There is none and there is no reason why any should be expected. There is no evidence for Hittite contacts with the Greek mainland and about the only possible Hittite objects in Bronze Age Greece are a series of small bronze sta- tuettes from such sites as Mycenae and Tiryns.62 More important, there is no trace of the Hittites in later Greek traditions.53 The Hittites simply never at- tracted the attention of the Bronze Age Greeks. By the time the Greeks became interested in Anatolia the Hittites had long since disappeared, to be replaced by the Iron Age peoples of Lydia and Phrygia. Herodotus tells us a good deal about the Lydians and the Phrygians, but of the Hittites not a word. And there are no Achaeans in the surviving texts from the Late Bronze Age.

Without going into detail here I would add that there are also no Aegean elements among the so-called 'Peoples of the Sea', as listed in Egyptian in- scriptions from the time of Merneptah and Ramses III.54 The Aqaiwasa may be related, at least in name, to the inhabitants of Ahhijawa, but neither can be traced back to the 'Axato.65 If anything, the direction of borrowing went the other way. The same holds true for the names of the other groups as well. The Philistines did not come from Philistia which did not even have that name till the Philistines were settled in the area and gave their name to the land.56 If there is any connection between the Turusa and the Etruscans57 it

52 J. V. Canby, "Some Hittite Figurines in the Aegean," Hesperia, 38 (1969), 141-149.

68 The idea that the Hittites were to be identified with the Amazons of later Greek tradition

must now be regarded as nothing more than a historical curiosity. Il There is still no satisfactory treatment of this period. For the present see W. Helck, Die Be-

ziebungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jabrtausend v. Chr., Wiesbaden, 1962 (Agypt. Abh., 5),

p. 240 f.; G. A. Lehmann, "Der Untergang des hethitischen GroB3reiches und die neuen Texte aus

Ugarit," UF, 2 (1970), 39-73; S. Donadoni, "I testi egiziani sui 'popoli del mare'," Rivista Storica

Italiana, 77 (1965), 300-314. 66 D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, p. 21 f., n. 1. W. Helck, op. cit., p. 243, reads the

name as 'd-qa-ja-wa-L. 56 For recent work on this problem see T. Dothan, "Archaeological Reflections on the Philis-

tine Problem," Antiquity and Survival, 2 (1957), 151-164; G. Ernest Wright, "Philistine Coffins and

Mercenaries,", BA, 22 (1959), 54-66; K. Galling, "Goliath und seine Rustung," in Volutme du

Congres, Genive, 1965, Leiden, 1966 (Suppl. to VT, XV), 150-169; C. Nylander, "Zur Moort-

gat-Festschrift-Troia-Philister-Achimeniden," BJV, 6 (1966), 203-217; T. C. Mitchell, "Philis-

tia," in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, Oxford, 1967, 404-427. 67 For the Turusa see W. Helck, op. cit., p. 242 f. (who reads tu-ra-!). For the attempt of V.

Georgiev to connect the Etruscans with the Trojans see M. Lejeune, REA, 68 (1966), 397-400,

p. 399, and F. Bader, BSL, 63 (1968) (1969), 35-41, p. 39 f. (reviews of V. Georgiev, Iniroduzione

alla storia delle lingue indeuropee, Rome, 1966).



Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomitus 139

can only be explained by the hypothesis that this group of people, having been repulsed from Egypt, eventually settled in northwestern Italy which, from that time on, was known as Etruria or Tuscany. In the same way the Sardana eventually settled in Sardinia, giving their name to that island.58 The names of the 'Peoples of the Sea' provide no evidence for the participation of Aegean peoples in the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. When available, all of the evidence locates these peoples in Anatolia. In other words, our evidence illuminates the later history of various ethnic names. The origins of these names still remain unknown.

APPENDIX

The Re-dating of Hittite Texts

In light of the recent current interest regarding the redating of certain Hit- tite texts and the confusion which now exists concerning Hittite history during the Empire period (1400-1200 B. C.) it seems appropriate to include, as an appendix, a discussion of some of the central points involved in the various arguments. The question is of cardinal interest for Aegean prehistorians and Homeric scholars as three of the Hittite texts which are most relevant to the Aegean world, the Madduwattas text (cat. 89), the tablet of Mita of Pah- huwa (cat. 88), and the Annals of Tudhaliyas III (cat. 85) are all affected by this re-dating.

The first point which has to be appreciated is that the Hittites had no interest in chronology. Unlike Egypt or Mesopotamia, Hittite Anatolia had no chronological tradition. There are no precise dates regarding the length of reign of any Hittite king.59 Only the Hittite interest in genealogy enables us to reconstruct a sequence of Hittite kings and there is still much debate regarding the basic sequence itself. It is the genealogy of the author of a text which usually enables us to date that particular text. However, this genealogy appears only at the beginning of a text. If the opening lines are lost, as so often happens, the only real evidence for dating is gone forever.

Thus, among, students of Hittite, there has always been an awareness of the fact that the dating of many Hittite texts was very uncertain and was of-

58 For the Sardana and Sardinia see M. Delcor, "Reflexions sur l'inscription phenicienne de Nora en Sardaigne," Syria, 45 (1968), 323-352, p. 339 f. For the Nora Stone see now B. Peckham, "The Nora Inscription," Orientalia, 41 (1972), 457-468; F. M. Cross, "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone," BASOR, 208 (1972), 13-19.

Il Hattusilis III says that he tolerated the reign of Urhi-Tesub for seven years before deposing him. This is usually taken to mean that Urhi-Tesub reigned for seven years, but that is not what the text actually says.



140 J. D. MUHLY

ten based upon intemal evidence and upon an evaluation relating the historical background of a particular text to the general Hittite historical development.

Furthermore, it has long been recognized that, in the 500 years of record- ed Hittite history, the Hittite language underwent considerable development. The written language of the 16th century B. C. was different from that of the 13th century B. C. Even the form of the signs was different. Thus it was possible to speak of Old Hittite and New Hittite ot Imperial Hittite, of Old Hittite ductus and New Hittite ductus. Some would like to refine this into three divisions: Old, Middle, and New Hittite. The recognition of the existence of Middle Hittite (which, in chronological terms, is entirely different from the Hittite Middle Kingdom) is an essential part of the arguments for the re-dating of Hittite texts.

What is now proposed is that the language and script, together with the conventions of the writing system, can be used to date Hittite texts with a far greater degree of accuracy. Thus an Old Hittite text will have ma-a-ah- ba-an while a younger text will give ma-ab-ha-an. Older texts have ne-i-ya-; younger texts ni-ya-. Older texts have ui-pa-a-an-ti; younger ones si-pa-an-ti. In other words, older texts more commonly have the plene spelling. This ap- plies also to place names. Older texts have Sa-mu-u-ha and Ne-e-ri-ik-ki; younger texts give Sa-mu-ha and Ne-ri-ik.

Older texts tend to write in Hittite words that are commonly written with Sumerian and Akkadian logograms in later texts. Thus ia-a-ku-wa, "eyes", is replaced by IGI. HI. A-wa. Na-at-ta, "not", becomes Ui. UL while a-ap-pa, "back", appears in later texts as EGIR-pa.

There is far more to the argument than just differences in orthography. There are also changes in vocabulary, as later texts employ a different word which serves the same function as its predecessor in earlier texts. Thus older texts have uk/uga as the first person personal pronoun while later texts use ammuk. Older texts have harnink-, "destroy", while younger texts give bar- ganu-. Olderpaprai-, "defile", becomes youngerpaprab-. Older texts use both the particles -wan and -kani quite interchangeably. After c. 1300 B. C. only -kan is used. Older texts have as sentence connectives, used to begin a sentence, both ta- and Su-. Younger texts use only nu-.60

The study of such features can best be done on a computer and this is exactly what has been done. The Hittite Computer Project, begun at the Orien-

60 For a discussion of this material see the work of Houwink Ten Cate (referred to above, note 47) together with the excellent review of this work by H. A. Hoffner, Jr., JNES, 31 (1972), 29-35. See also A. Kammenhuber, "Die erste Computer-Analyse des Hethitischen," MSS, 28 (1970), 51-69; Idem, "Das Verhaltnis von Schriftduktus zu Sprachstufc im Hethitischen," AISS, 29 (1971), 75-109.



Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomiius 141

tal Institute of the University of Chicago by Hans G. Guterbock, has been continued in Holland by his former co-worker, Philo H. J. Houwink Ten Cate. Houwink Ten Cate distinguishes, on the basis of these computer studies and all other evidence, four different groups of texts which he designates A, B, C, D. In brief they are:

A. Old Hittite texts B. Undoubtedly Middle Hittite texts C. Possibly Middle Hittite texts D. Texts from the reign of Suppiluliumas I.

Old Hittite texts come from the long period c. 1700-1450 B. C., but there are still very few texts from this period. New Kingdom or Imperial Hittite texts cover the period 1380-1200 B. C. and represent the majority of all Hit- tite texts. It is the middle period which has been the subject of all recent work in re-dating. The three key texts mentioned above, formerly regarded as Imperial texts from the latter part of the Hittite Empire, have now been moved into Houwink Ten Cate's C category. This makes them possible Middle Hittite texts.

Annelies Kammenhuber, the most persistent critic of the redating, em- ploys a somewhat different system of classification. Her divisions are: Alt- hethitisch, Archaisch-Junghethitisch or klassisches Junghethitisch, and spates Jung- hethitisch or Spdthethitisch.6' This is not just a quibble over terminology. What Miss Kammenhuber wants to emphasize is that there are really only two different periods, Altbethitisch and Junghethitisch. Within the latter there are two sub-divisions the second of which has as one of its chief characteris- tics the deliberate use of archaisms. A good example of such a spdtesJunghethi- tisch text is the Madduwattas text. Emmanuel Laroche, on the other hand, simply designates Madduwattas as an archaic text without further com- ment.62

It is difficult for anyone not directly involved with this problem and not working with the texts themselves to appreciate the weight or implications of the various arguments being presented. Much of the recent work has been rather counter-productive in nature, seemingly based upon the assumption that anything repeated often enough eventually becomes correct. The material must be evaluated with great care. One of the most difficult problems, fully appreciated by most of the present contestants, involves working with late, modernized copies of earlier texts. This becomes the central issue with regard to Houwink Ten Cate's C group of texts. As he himself puts it, there are two possibilities:

61 A. Kammenhuber, KZ, 83 (1969), 258 f. 62 E. Laroche, "Ltudes de linguistique anatolienne, III," RHA, 28 (1970), 22-71, p. 49.



142 J. D. MUHLY

"1) the texts of group C are originals of late date, sometimes with archaizing features, or 2) the texts of group C are from the Middle Hittite period, partly originals, partly late copies, which have in some instances been adapted to later scribal habits."63

It must now be accepted that the basic arguments advanced by such scholars as Otten, Carruba, and Houwink Ten Cate are essentially correct and they have developed important new criteria for the dating of Hittite texts. The major problem comes precisely with that group of texts which initiated the entire discussion, Houwink Ten Cate's C group of texts and, in particular, the Madduwattas text. At present there does not seem to be any clear choice between the two possibilities outlined above by Houwink Ten Cate.

The Madduwattas text is a good example of the problems involved here. If it is to be considered a Middle Hittite text, then it should represent, at least partly, a late copy of a Middle Hittite original. Such late copies of earlier originals are well attested and the habits of later copyists can be set out in considerable detail.64 Unfortunately, as Houwink Ten Cate himself points out,65 with Madduwattas'. . . we are dealing with an original or, perhaps, a draft, but not with a later copy . . .' If the Madduwattas text is not a late copy of a Middle Hittite original then it must be a late original with archaizing features, and that is exactly what Miss Kammenhuber considers it to be.66 But, if it is a late original, then it is not a Middle Hittite text. The problem with the Madduwattas text is one of inconsistency. The orthography of the text is not that of Middle Hittite nor that of Imperial Hittite nor that found in a later copy of an earlier text. The evidence, at present, seems to favor consider- ing the Madduwattas text as a spates Junghethitisch text but, if this is to be accepted, then it must be removed from the category of possible Middle Hittite texts.

If the existence of such archaizing texts is to be admitted then, as 0. Car- ruba has pointed out,67 it remains to be explained why such archaistic texts come only towards the end of the 13th century B. C., in the reigns of Tudha- liyas III and Arnuwandas III. There seems to be no satisfactory answer to this question. It could be suggested that this archaizing is part of the general atmosphere of weakness and incipient doom exemplified by the Madduwat- tas text and that it represents an attempt to hearken back to better but by- gone days. There is, of course, no real evidence to support such a hypothesis beyond the historical parallel which could be drawn from other, better at-

63 Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, The Records of the Early Hittite Empire, p. 63. '" Ibid. p. 53 f. (discussion of cat. 308). 65 Ibid. p. 53. OS A. Kammenhuber, op. cit., pp. 262 f., 265 f., 277. 67 0. Carruba, "Ober die Sprachstufen des Hethitischen. Eine Widerlegung," KZ, 85 (1971),

226-241, p. 240.




tested archaizing periods in the history of Egypt and the Graeco-Roman world.

It remains to consider the historical problems raised by this re-dating. As Houwink Ten Cate has already observed:

"When one seriously considers this new dating for these texts as a whole, it becomes necessary of course to find new answers to questions hitherto answered on the basis of the traditional chronology. Most difficult perhaps will be to explain the background of the indictment of Madduwattas, since this new dating will inevitably have repercussions for the Ahhiyawa problem."16

The Madduwattas text concerns not only Ahhijawd but also Alasiya, i. e., Cyprus. Thus the re-dating of this text involves not only possible Hittite re- lations with Mycenaean Greece but also with Late Bronze Age Cyprus. It would be tempting to relate all of this to the period of confusion in the eastern Mediterranean caused by the collapse of Minoan Crete some time round 1400 B. C.69 Such temptation must be resisted. There is nothing in the historical background of the Madduwattas text which would demand a date in the latter part of the 15th century B. C. The text still fits very well the situation in the latter part of the 13th century B. C.70

Concering the 'Annals of Tudhaliyas' there remains one final argument which has been brought forward in favor of the re-dating. The observation of E. I. Gordon, accepted by almost everyone else who has discussed the problem,7' has it that Tudhaliyas III could not possibly have referred to a 'King of the Hurrians' because the kingdom of Mitanni had already been destroyed by the Assyrians and incorporated into the empire of Assyria. This argument ist simply not valid.

First of all there is the complex problem of geographical terminology. Contemporary texts refer to Mitanni, Hanigalbat, and Hurri. Some consider all three names to be interchangeable;72 others consider only the first two as

68 Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, op. cit., p. 76. 69 M. J. Mellink, AJA, 75 (1971), p. 169; R. A. Crossland, "The Hittites and Alasiyas," Min-

utes of the Mycenaean Seminar, Inst. of Class. St., Univ. of London, May 21, 1969, 351-352. 70 J. D. Muhly, "The Land of Alashiya. References to Alashiya in the Texts of the Second Mil-

lennium B. C. and the History of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age," in Proc. of the First Intern. Con- gress of Cypriot Studies, Nicosia, 1972, Compare 0. Carruba, "Contributo alla storia di Cipro nel II millennio," SCO, 17 (1968), 5-29; Y. Lynn Holmes, "The Location of Alashiya," JAOS, 91 (1971), 426-429, esp. p. 428, n. 29.

71 See, in particular, 0. Gurney, in CAH2, II/15(a), p. 20; Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate, op. cit., p. 78; 0. Carruba, KZ, 85 (1971), p. 240 f.

72 M. C. Astour, "HattuCilis, Halab, and Hanigalbat,"JNES, 31 (1972), 102-109, p. 103. Also A. Kammenhuber, Die Arier im Vorderen Orient, Heidelberg, 1968, pp. 71-78. Also I. M. Diako- nofT, "Die Arier im Vorderen Orient: Ende eines Mythos (Zur Methodik der Erforschung ver- schollener Sprachen)," Orientalia, 41 (1972), 91-120.



144 J. D. MUHLY

conterminous and regard the kingdom of the Hurrians as a separate political entity.73 Tudhaliyas refers to a king of the Hurrians. The context is not at all clear and we have no idea to whom this might refer. In the time of Hattusi- lis I the names Hanigalbat and Hurri seem to be interchangeable; we have no evidence that such was the case in the 13th century B. C.

Hittite sources from the Empire period do equate Mitanni with Hanigal- bat. But again the situation is not a simple one. At the beginning of his reign Adad-nirari I (1307-1275 B. C.) defeated Sattuara, the king of Hanigalbat, and made him a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria. In the latter part of his reign Adad-nirari had to campaign against Hanigalbat for a second time fol- lowing the revolt of Wasasatta, son and successor of Sattuara. This time Hanigalbat was incorporated into the Assyrian empire.74 Yet the kingdom of Hanigalbat was still around to revolt in the time of Shalmaneser I (1274-1245 B. C), son and successor of Adad-nirari I. Once again Hanigal- bat was incorporated into the empire of Assyria. Yet Hanigalbat, and cities known to be located within Hanigalbat, continue to appear in Assyrian in- scriptions and, in the 10th century B. C., Hanigalbat was re-conquered for Assyria by Adad-nirari II, the third such re-conquest in Assyrian history. Adad-nirari (911-891 B. C.) records six separate campaigns against 'the wide land of Hanigalbat' and records that

"The tribute of Hanigalbat, north and south, I received. The whole of the wide land of Hanigalbat I brought under my sway. To the territory of my land I turned it. I made them all subject to one rule."75 Assurnasirpal 11 (883-859 B. C.) refers to tribute received from the kings

of Hanigalbat,78 and the land of Hanigalbat was still a source of trouble to Assyria in the time of Esarhaddon (680-669 B. C.).77

If one accepts the premise that the king of the Hurrians is to be identified with the king of Mitanni/Hanigalbat, then the evidence given above makes it difficult to deny the possibility of a Hittite reference to a king of the Hurrians in the time of Tudhaliyas III. There is one final point. Given the standard dates for the reign of Tudhaliyas III (1265-1235 B. C.)78 it is entirely possible that the reference to the king of the Hurrians in his 'Annals'

73 A. Goetze, "On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B. C., " JCS, 11 (1957), 53-61; 63-73, p. 66 f. However, compare M. Liverani, "Hurri e Mitanni," OA, 1 (1962), 253-257.

74 For historical background see M. B. Rowton, "The Background of the Treaty between Ra- messes IL and Hattusilis III,"JCS, 13 (1959), 1-11; J. M. Munn-Rankin, "Assyrian Military Pow- er, 1300-1200 B. C.," in CAH2, 11/25, Cambridge, 1967; J. A. Brinkman, "Notes on Mesopo- tamian History in the Thirteenth Century B. C., " Bi. Or., 27 (1970), 301-314, p. 308.

76 Text is KAH II 84. English translation in D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Asryria and Babylonia, 2 vols., Chicago, 1926-27, vol. I, p. 111 f., pp. 363-368. The quote is from p. 115, p. 373.

76 Ibid, p. 148, p. 447. 77 Ibid, vol. II, p. 202, p. 504.

78 This is the chronology used by P. Garelli, Le Proche-Orient asiatique, des origines aux invasions

despeuples de la mer, Paris, 1969, pp. 158, 192 f.



J. D. MUHILY, Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhijawa redomitus 145

comes from a period contemporary with Shalmaneser I, a time when, according to the Assyrian sources, the Hittites were the allies of Hanigalbat.79 It should also be pointed out that a Hittite text from the very end of Hittite history continues to refer to a land of the Hurrians.80

The evidence thus far presented regarding the re-dating of the Madduwat- tas text and the Annals of Tudhaliyas III is inconclusive and there is, at this time, no reason to change the traditional dating. These texts do describe the last years of the Hittite empire, but it remains to be proved that they have anything to do with Mycenaean Greece or the Aegean world.

University of Pennsylvania J. D. Muhly

7" D. D. Luckenbill, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 39 f., p. 116. See also E. Ebeling, B. Meissner, E. F. Weid- ner, Die Inschrifien der altassyriscben Konige, Leipzig, 1926, p. 116 f. For the synchronisms between Assyria and the Hittites see H. Otten, in E. Weidner, Die Inschrbften Tukulli-Ninur/as I. und seiner Nachfolger, Graz, 1959 (AfO, Beiheft 12), pp. 64-68; H. Otten, "Ein Brief aus Hattuga an BAbu- ahu-iddina," AfO, 19 (1959-60), 39-46.

'I A. Kammenhuber, MSS, 28 (1970), p. 68, n. 15.

10 Historia XXII/2



muhly, j. d. hittites and achaeans, ahhijawa redomitus

Documents

trojan war

jstor terms

troy of priam

troy viia

jstor archive

utcyour use

terms conditions of

greek mainland