Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday

 | 
Alice Mouton

III. Histoire et géographie historique

An Alternative View on the Location of Arzawa

Max Gander

Texte intégral

I would like to thank Dr. Alice Mouton for organising the splendid conference of the Institut Français des Études Anatoliennes in November 2014 and for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to present these ideas concerning western Anatolian geography. I am also most grateful to the attendants of the conference, who provided me with important feedback, both in discussion and in private talks. I have tried to include their suggestions and caveats as well as possible. Furthermore I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Hans Mommsen, Dr. Edward Stratford and Dr. Kamal Badreshany for explaining to me the often difficult matters concerning the data of the chemical analysis, to Prof. Dr. Stefano de Martino, Dr. Michele Cammarosano, Dr. Adam Kryszeń, Dr. Zsolt Simon and Yvonne Gander-Kunz for their feedback on an earlier version of this paper, and again to Dr. Zsolt Simon and Dr. Annick Payne for discussing the readings of the LATMOS and KARAKUYU-TORBALI inscriptions with me. None of these persons, however, should be held responsible for any of the curious ideas presented herein. Finally, Tara Gschwend, SIVIC UZH, is to be thanked for her help concerning the photos.

Introduction

  • 1 See Smolenski 1915 for an overview and e.g. the identification of Lukka and Lycia by de Rougé 1867: (...)
  • 2 E.g. Luckenbill 1911; Phythian-Adams 1922; Forrer 1924a; Forrer 1924b; Hrozný 1929: 333-334; Barnet (...)

1The geography of western Anatolia seems to be a particularly vexing problem for Hittitology. Even before decoding the Hittite texts, scholars attempted to connect toponyms, mentioned in the Egyptian sources, with region names of Asia Minor known from later texts.1 Immediately after the first Hittite texts were available and understandable, various scholars tried to associate names appearing in these texts with persons and places known from classical sources, in particular Greek myth.2

2Although it has long been shown that a search for a “true core of the Greek myths is methodologically questionable, it further functioned as a catalyst in this area of Hittite studies, thus, securing the interest of a broader audience in classical and ancient studies.

  • 3 E.g. Vermeule 1983; Bryce 1986: 11-41; Hiller 1991; Börker-Klähn 1994: 319-323; Cline 1996; Cline 1 (...)
  • 4 See preceding note and particularly, Högemann 2004; Herda 2009; Niemeier 2007: 60-90; Niemeier 2008 (...)

3This connection between Hittite history and Greek myths has been often criticized from both sides, but lived on until now. All too often, a Greek myth is used to explain an episode of Hittite history.3 The question of the geography and history of western Anatolia in the Bronze Age has too often been reduced to the quest for a historic kernel of the Trojan War, the first appearance of Greeks or evidence supporting the Greek myths concerning the Ionian migration.4

  • 5 For an overview of the research see Steiner 1964; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 349-352; Heinhold-Krahmer (...)

4The most important names, repeatedly mentioned in this context, are Wilusa, Taruisa, and Aḫḫiyawa. The first two connected with Homeric ’Ίλιος and Τροίη, and the last one with the Αχαίοι.5

  • 6 As Forlanini 2012: 134 rightly pointed out, for this area of Anatolia it is too early to combine ph (...)

5Though the connections to Greek myths secure certain attention by classical scholars, Hittite history should be considered completely independent of any mythical narratives. Myth is not history and should not be treated as such. A historicistic interpretation of a Greek myth does neither justice to the myth nor to the history that it is compared to. A myth must have its raison d’être in the present and cannot be interpreted as a conveyor of actual historic truth. The discussion about the historical geography of western Anatolia, therefore, should be based solely on the Hittite written sources.6

  • 7 For an overview of the controversy see Cobet/Gehrke 2002, Weber 2006a and Weber 2006b.
  • 8 See in particular Latacz 2010 and Kolb 2010.
  • 9 Particularly Starke 1997, but see also Starke 1998; Starke 1999; Starke 2000; Starke 2001a; Starke (...)
  • 10 Particularly Hawkins 1998, but see also Hawkins 1999; Hawkins2002; Hawkins 2015.
  • 11 E.g. Bryce 2003; Melchert 2003a: 5-7; Melchert 2003b: 37; Bryce 2005: 41-60; de Martino 2006; Kling (...)
  • 12 E.g. Högemann 1996; Niemeier 1999: 141-155; Waelkens 2000; Yakar 2000: esp. 303-372; Benzi 2002: 35 (...)
  • 13 Brandau/Schickert/Jablonka 2004; Siebler 2001; Exhibition Catalogue: Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: da (...)
  • 14 Schmauder 2007.

6In the dispute about western Anatolia’s political geography, one can discern phases in which the scholarly community was more critical and others in which it was more receptive to the various name equations. Throughout the last century the discussion was open, and rarely something was taken for granted. However, in the course of the so-called “Troia-Debatte” at the beginning of the 21th century,7 Hittitologists were also forced to take sides and argue for their geographical and historical reconstructions. Though the tone was never as hostile as it was among archaeologists and historians,8 it clearly became more aggressive and apodictic. Among archaeologists and historians, the question of Troy’s size and relevance remained largely undecided. However, in Hittitology, the geographical reconstructions provided by Frank Starke9 and J. David Hawkins10 became a widely accepted, largely unquestioned communis opinio, and was adopted, not only by Hittitologists,11 classicists, and archaeologists,12 but also in publications aimed at the broader public,13 and even educational works,14 often without the necessary reservations.

  • 15 See e.g. Haider 2004; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c; Hertel 2008; Pantazis 2009; H (...)
  • 16 See e.g. Peschlow-Bindokat2002; Herda 2009; Latacz 2010: 364-365; Woudhuizen2015: 9; Oreshko, forth (...)

7Doubts on the reconstruction by Hawkins and Starke15 were largely ignored or dismissed. In place of geographical discussions, the new millennium sometimes saw historical reconstructions based on the presumed “facts”. The location of Wilusa in the Troad, among others, was treated as a historical certainty, on the basis of which new geographical considerations were developed.16 However, the location of Wilusa, as of all the other Arzawa lands, is highly dependent on those of Arzawa and Mira. The argumentation of many of these contributions, based on the “established location of Wilusa and other lands, is therefore inherently circular.

  • 17 Forlanini2012: 133. Interestingly in recent years a more critical approach has gained more supporte (...)

8For this reason, I would like to present evidence that might challenge the commonly held view and show that the geography of western Anatolia is “still an open question.17

The communis opinio: the reconstructions of Frank Starke and J. David Hawkins

  • 18 See above n. 9 and 10.
  • 19 See Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c.

9The so-called “solution of the problem referred to by different scholars, is the one provided by Frank Starke and J. David Hawkins in 1997 and 1998, respectively.18 Though their reconstructions differ in many ways, especially regarding the western Anatolian inland,19 they essentially agree on the placement of Arzawa and the Arzawa Lands.

  • 20 Starke 1997: 452.
  • 21 Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 328-329, 337-340; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 162; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 46-51 (...)

10One suggestion of Starke,20 not shared by Hawkins, namely that Mira from the beginning included the core area of Arzawa, could be shown to be incorrect,21 even though it is quite certain that Mashuiluwa belonged to the Arzawa royal house. Perhaps one has to think of Mira as Arzawan secundogeniture.

  • 22 Following a suggestion by Houwink ten Cate 1992: 254 n. 28.
  • 23 Starke 1997: 450 and 469 n. 14.
  • 24 Poetto 1993: esp. 75-84, vitis(regio) – Wiyanawanda – Οι’νóανδα, (mons)Pa-tara/i – Pttara – Πάταρα, (...)
  • 25 Starke 1997: 450.
  • 26 Starke 1997: 450.

11Starke begins his reconstruction with the geography of Tarhuntassa, where he mentions the well-known equations of Parha – Perge and Kastaraya – Kestros. Beyond Parha lay enemy territory, as is evident from the Bronze Tablet (Bo 86/299 I 61-63). This enemy, in Starke’s opinion,22 can only be Lukka.23 Concerning Lukka, Starke mentions the famous equations proposed by Massimo Poetto on account of the Yalburt inscription,24 which almost are universally accepted today.25 He then states, without further argumentation: “Das hethiterzeitliche Lukkā war aber viel weitläufiger als das spätere Lykien, indem es auch den Westen Pisidiens und Pamphyliens sowie den Süden Kariens einschloss,26 and thereby expands Lukka to the borders of Miletos.

  • 27 Gander 2010, Gander 2014 and Gander 2016.

12Even though the Lukka communities are difficult to grasp, and their territory may, in fact, have extended beyond Lycia, it is impossible to say at the moment, how far and where it extended.27

  • 28 Starke 1997: 450.

13According to Starke, Arzawa can only lie north of Lukka, and since Walma (bordering Arzawa) lay north of Tarhuntassa, Arzawa may only have lain in the Meander valley.28 This location of Arzawa determines the whole reconstruction of the other Arzawa Lands.

  • 29 Starke 1997: 451.

14The placement of Arzawa prompts Starke to locate the Seha River Land north, in the valley of the Hermos. To accommodate its relationship with Lazpa – Lesbos the Seha River Land has to include the Kaikos River. This results in the placement of Wilusa in the Troad, intended from the beginning.29

  • 30 Hawkins 1998: 2-10.
  • 31 Hawkins 1998: 15, 23.
  • 32 Hawkins 1998: 23.

15Hawkins, on the other hand, starts his reconstruction with the recognition that the Karabel inscription is a work of king Tarkasnawa of Mira. It is, therefore, evident that Mira should be placed in the Karabel region.30 Following a suggestion by S. Heinhold-Krahmer, Hawkins assumes that Mira must have gotten the lion’s share of the original Arzawan territory, thereby expanding to the coast and including the old Arzawan capital of Apasa – Ephesos.31 This conception induces him to locate Mira south of the Karabel pass, the Karabel forming the border of Mira and Seha. This prompts a location of the Seha River Land in the Hermos Valley and, the interest of Manapatarhunta of the Seha River Land in Lazpa – Lesbos justifies the extension of this land to the Kaikos valley. Hawkins supports this reconstruction referring to the linguistic equations of Lazpa – Lesbos, Appawiya – Abbaitis, and Wilusa – Ilion.32

  • 33 Hawkins 1998: 2, 8 (my own emphasis).

16The close connection between Seha and Wilusa “push[es] the latter kingdom back into its home in the Troad, in the past so hotly contested”.33

  • 34 The identification of Mira with Beycesultan by Woudhuizen 2012 and Woudhuizen2015 on account of an (...)

17The key points for both reconstructions are the identification of Mira with the Meander valley and consequent localization of the Seha River Land in the Hermos Valley, extending further north to the Kaikos. The identification of Apasa with Ephesos seemed to confirm Mira as the successor of Arzawa bordering on Millawanda – Miletos.34

Of Apasa and Millawanda

  • 35 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004; Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011.
  • 36 Arnold/Neff/Bishop 1991: 85: “Ethnographic data from a worldwide sample of resource distances have (...)

18Concerning the important equations Millawanda – Miletos and Apasa – Ephesos, we are in the lucky position that we are in possession of letters allegedly sent from these cities, namely the Tawagalawa letter (VAT 6692 = KUB 14.3, CTH 181) and the Arzawa letter EA 32. In a immense project aiming at a provenance study of the Amarna letters and other cuneiform texts, these two clay tablets underwent mineralogical (OM), neutron activation (NAA), and portable X-ray fluorescence analysis (pXRF) to determine the origin of the clay and have been compared to known pottery samples, especially a database in Bonn.35 It is clear from comparative studies that potters usually use clay available nearby,36 and there is no obvious reason this should not apply to clay tablets. The provenance study of the clay, therefore, should provide us with the information on the original location of the tablet.

  • 37 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 694.
  • 38 Mommsen, e-mail from 8.7.2015.
  • 39 Mommsen, e-mail from8.7.2015.
  • 40 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 686.
  • 41 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 694, Mommsen e-mail from 8.7.2015.

19The petrographical OM analysis of the Tawagalawa letter showed similarities to a Samian amphora.37 The NAA data of this tablet, however, does not agree with Samian pottery38 but match a group of Protogeometric vessels, probably from a workshop in Ephesos, named EphW.39 The pXRF analysis yielded no matches defining VAT 6692 as singular.40 In their paper of 2011 Goren, Mommsen, and Klinger concluded that the Tawagalawa letter most probably come from the Aegean coast south of Ephesos.41 This conclusion does not match the equation Millawanda – Miletos exactly, but locates the place from where the letter was sent and, thus, probably Millawanda, in the estuary of the Meander.

  • 42 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 686.

20Letter EA 32 was also measured with the three analytical methods. The pXRF measurements defined it as a singleton. Also, the OM analysis was quite indistinctive, merely showing that the tablet is made from “Aegean red clay.”42 The NAA data gained from an earlier analysis in Berkeley, generally thought to be reliable, resulted in a little surprise that has largely been disregarded by the scholarly community even though it was already published in 2004. What would be expected according to the reconstructions of Hawkins and Starke is that the clay would come somewhere from the vicinity of Ephesos, from the alleged core territory of the Arzawan state.

21The result, however, is quite different:

  • 43 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004: 47.

“There is no agreement in composition with several groups in our data bank which can be assigned with high probability to workshops in Ephesos. It turned out that the tablet has a composition which is closely associated to a group of samples which was published as Group ‘G’ in Akurgal et al. (2002). (...) according to the distribution of members of this group, a provenance of EA 32 in northern Ionia or even the Aeolis seems very probable.43

  • 44 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004: 45-46.
  • 45 See Kerschner2002: 84-92.
  • 46 See Kerschner 2006: 115: “The pottery workshops of provenance group G/g were situated most likely a (...)

22It is most important to state that there is no match between EA 32 and various groups of pottery that are assigned to Ephesos, so it seems impossible to assign EA 32 to Ephesos. The clay of EA 32 is associated with the pottery of group G, which stems from northern Ionia or even the Aiolis. The publication of 2004 explicitly mentioned the cities of Kyme, Larissa, Phokaia, Smyrna, and Klazomenai.44 However, in 2004, the provenance of the clay of group G had not yet been determined definitively.45 Further research in recent years made the picture clearer, locating provenance group G, with its subgroup ‘g’ in Kyme and/or Larissa.46 Thus, the probable provenance area of the clay used for EA 32 is reduced to a small area at the Aiolian coast.

  • 47 For the Arzawa letters EA 31 and 32 see Hawkins 2009.

23We have to remember that EA 32 contains marriage negotiations between the pharaoh and the Arzawan king.47 Because of that, one could assume that such an important letter was issued by the royal chancellery of Arzawa, i.e. it most likely stems from the Arzawan capital or at least from some important Arzawan city rather than being written abroad, and e.g. when the king was travelling in the Seha River Land. In this case, the problem is evident if we go back to the prevalent reconstruction. The area where the clay stems from is not in the core land of Arzawa but in the heart of the assumed Seha River Land.

  • 48 KUB 23.11 II 1-12 // KUB 23.12 1’-3’, see Carruba 2008: 34-37. Stefano de Martino informs me that h (...)
  • 49 Kınal 1953: 19; Goetze 1957: 228; Laroche 1966: 272; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 345; Freu 1980: 276, 28 (...)

24One may not easily argue that Arzawa incorporated the Seha River Land since we know from the Annals of Tudhaliya that the Seha River Land and Arzawa were distinctive entities even before Tarhundaradu.48 One might still find arguments to avoid the conclusion that the heartland of Arzawa lay in the Aiolis, but in this case the question is: Do these arguments actually outweigh the evidence or is it an attempt to save a reconstruction that has become dear to us? The consequent assumption is that Arzawa cannot be in the Meander valley, and the Seha River Land cannot be in the Hermos Valley. In the search for a location for the Seha River Land, we come back to the old suggestion of identifying the Seha with the Meander.49

  • 50 Of course it would be best to compare only pottery found in a kiln or mud bricks, since only then w (...)

25The Bonn database with its different wares presents a quite reliable background for the analysis of EA 32 and its location in the Aeolis. Still, we have to keep in mind that the analysis of an isolated item, without comparable finds, is highly sensitive.50 However, although the match between EA 32 and Kymean pottery may be accidental, the clear mismatch between the letter and the pottery from several workshops located at Ephesos appears to be significant and it seems at least worth to accept the identification as a working hypothesis and examine if the Hittite texts would also agree with this reconstruction.

Arguments adduced for a location of Mira in the Meander valley

The Karabel monuments and their inscriptions

26As mentioned before, the reconstruction of Hawkins and Starke is strongly based on the placement of Arzawa and later Mira south of the Karabel, in the valley of the Meander.

  • 51 The rediscovery of this relief, already known to Herodotus (Hdt. II 106) is usually assigned to the (...)

27Following Hawkins’ decipherment of the inscription on the famous relief Karabel A,51 we have to assume that the area of Karabel belonged to the land of Mira. Nonetheless, as he himself pointed out during the discussion after my presentation, he was never entirely sure if Karabel really meant ‘you’re entering Mira’, or if it meant ‘you’re leaving Mira’.

  • 52 For a northerly location: Curtius 1876: 51; Güterbock 1967: 70-71; Bittel 1967:22-23; Haider 1997: (...)
  • 53 Hawkins 1998: 24. See also Welcker 1843: 430: “Die Felswand, in welcher die Figur eingehauen ist [… (...)

28In fact, before Hawkins’ and Starke’s seminal articles, opinions were divided whether the land of the king who issued Karabel, had to be located north or south of the pass.52 Hawkins based his arguments for a southerly location of Mira partly on the topography of Karabel. However, the placement of the monuments in the landscape seems to fit a northerly location of Mira even better. As Hawkins wrote, the monuments “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.53

  • 54 See Bittel 1939-41: 186: “Der Blick des Wanderers […] fällt sofort nach Überschreiten der Passhöhe (...)
  • 55 However, on the (in)visibility of the Hittite rock reliefs, see now Ullmann 2014.

29Given the fact that the Karabel monuments mark the northern entrance or exit to the pass, a northerly location of Mira seems more likely. Travelling in a northerly direction, the relief is only visible after having passed the highest point of the pass, before that it is not visible at all from the south.54 According to the common reconstruction, the relief would not have been seen by the people of Mira, at whom it was directed, apart from a few travelers crossing the Karabel pass to Seha.55

  • 56 Hawkins 1998: 24: “The relief with KARABEL A is placed high up on the south face of the rock formin (...)
  • 57 Curtius 1876: 50.
  • 58 Güterbock 1967.
  • 59 Güterbock 1967: 70-71: “Von den zwei Möglichkeiten, daß der Block B erst in nachhethitischer Zeit v (...)
  • 60 Güterbock 1967: 68, Kohlmeyer 1983: 23 and Hawkins 1998: 9.

30A northerly location of Mira is also suggested by the finds of Karabel B and C, since these were lying outside the defile, almost in the valley.56 Karabel B, a marble stele containing a relief similar to Karabel A, was found 1875 by Carl Humann in the area below Karabel A (fig. 1), where the Karabel Deresi, coming from the south entered the so-called “Nymphio plain” (Kemalpaşa Ovası). The monument stood about 120 m north and below Karabel A facing westwards, probably to the ancient route.57 Karabel C, found in 1940 by Hans Gustav Güterbock, was found very close to B (fig. 2).58 As Güterbock pointed out, the rocks B and C were found at their original location, since their closeness to each other and their placement makes it impossible that they both rolled down the hill.59 It is furthermore assured that the first line of Karabel C2 contains the same name as the second line of Karabel A, thereby, establishing a close relationship between the monuments.60 With the rocks B and C lying practically in the Hermos Valley itself, Karabel can strategically hardly belong to a territory of which the core land is placed on the lower Meander.

Fig. 1: Position of Karabel B in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Humann/ Curtius 1876: 50

Fig. 1: Position of Karabel B in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Humann/ Curtius 1876: 50

Fig. 2: Position of Karabel B and C in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Bittel 1937-41: 184, Abb. 2 and Güterbock 1967: 64, Abb 1.

Fig. 2: Position of Karabel B and C in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Bittel 1937-41: 184, Abb. 2 and Güterbock 1967: 64, Abb 1.
  • 61 Curtius 1876: 50-51, Güterbock 1967: 70-71 and Bittel 1967: 22-23.

31For these reasons, Humann, Bittel, and Güterbock were clearly convinced that the area marked by the monuments belonged to the territory north of Karabel, i.e. the Hermos Valley.61 Furthermore, the placement of Karabel B and C almost in the valley also raises some suspicion about its function as border mark.

32A border monument should be placed on the pass summit that would have formed the actual border, overviewing both sides. The relief, however, is positioned near the northern entrance of the pass. A territory reaching from the south over the crest to the north, extending almost into the plain would be highly unusual. The area beyond the crest would be impossible to defend from the south. The three monuments could not be protected at all and would have been an easy target for destruction, since it is hardly plausible that a northern ruler would have accepted the representation of a foreign sovereign in an area that strategically must have belonged to his kingdom.

  • 62 For the function of Hittite rock reliefs see now Ullmann 2010, esp. 241-244 (for Karabel) and Ullma (...)
  • 63 Seeher 2009: 122-124 and 134-136.

33Moreover, none of the hitherto known Hittite monuments can be clearly identified as a boundary mark.62 The interpretation of Hatıp as such is highly doubtful; rather we should compare Karabel (and Hatıp) to other known Hittite monuments, which mark the presence of the king in a certain region, such as Sirkeli, Hanyeri, or Hemite.63

34It is, therefore, rather convincing that Mira, whose king issued the monument, lay north of Karabel (fig. 3), or even more likely that both the southern and the northern area belonged to Mira, and that the reliefs and inscriptions served the purpose of marking the king’s presence.

Fig. 3a: View in southerly direction from the rock of Karabel

Fig. 3a: View in southerly direction from the rock of Karabel

photo taken by the author

Fig. 3b: View in northerly direction from the rock of Karabel

Fig. 3b: View in northerly direction from the rock of Karabel

photo taken by the author

35Recently, two more monuments have been associated with Mira, which need to be discussed here.

The graffiti from Suratkaya (LATMOS 1 and 5)

  • 64 Oreshko 2013: 346 and Herbordt 2001.
  • 65 Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 366, Peschlow-Bindokat2002: 214 and Peschlow-Bindokat 2005: 88-89.
  • 66 See also Schürr 2011: 72-73 n. 14.

36During their search for prehistoric rock paintings in the Latmos in 2000, Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat and her team discovered six Hieroglyphic Luwian carvings under a shelter in the Suratkaya. The rocks did not contain any relief or drawing but only six poorly scratched Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. In their placement, their style, and their contents they are very singular among the known Luwian inscriptions, although probably comparable to the Malkaya and Taşçı graffiti, even though those are more elaborately executed. The six carvings, with the possible exception discussed below, are mostly personal names and accompanying titles.64 Concerning their significance, Annelies Peschlow-Bindokat even suggested that the rock on which the inscriptions were found may have served as a border mark.65 This suggestion is, however, highly unlikely.66 Coming from above the rock is undetectable and seen from below, its only significant feature is that part of the shelter is broken away, but we cannot know when this happened. Otherwise, it is just another rock in a rocky environment (see fig. 4).

Fig. 4: The rock shelter with the LATMOS inscriptions seen from below

Fig. 4: The rock shelter with the LATMOS inscriptions seen from below

photo taken by the author

  • 67 Harmanşah2015: 114-116.
  • 68 See below n. 82.

37Ömür Harmanşah may be right in pointing out that we have to see the inscriptions at Suratkaya more in context with the abundant prehistoric rock paintings of Latmos rather than to associate them directly with the “political territorial structures of the Hittite Empire67 even though the usage of Anatolian hieroglyphs, in my opinion, clearly suggests Hittite cultural influence.68

  • 69 Herbordt 2001: 372-376.
  • 70 Herbordt 2001: 375; Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 366; Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 212-213; Peschlow-Bindokat (...)
  • 71 Bryce 2005: 475-476 n. 58; Ehringhaus 2005: 92-94; Forlanini 2007: 285; Freu/Mazoyer 2008: 187; Nie (...)
  • 72 Cf. Herbordt 2001: 375.

38The exact reading of the names is still under discussion. The two inscriptions that caught the most attention are nos. 1 and 5. The graffito no. 5 was read by Herbordt in her original edition of the text as Ku-pa?-i(a) magnus.rex.filius.69 Peschlow-Bindokat and Herbordt tentatively identified Ku-pa?-i(a) with Kupantakurunta, the King of Mira enthroned by Mursili II after his Arzawa campaign.70 This identification was incautiously taken up by several scholars,71 even though the use of abbreviated forms is not attested for Luwian names and the identification of the middle sign of the name is uncertain. Normally, we would expect a writing Ku-pa-ta/tà/tá-cervus (-ti).72

  • 73 See the comment by Schürr 2011: 72 n. 14. More cautious about the identification of Ku-x-ia and Kup (...)
  • 74 Herbordt 2001: 375. For the usual forms of PA see Laroche 1960: 177, no. 334.
  • 75 Herbordt 2001: 375.

39The identification of the middle sign as PA (*334) seems at least partly induced by the wish to identify this Kupaya with Kupantakurunta of Mira.73 Usually, PA shows two “handles” which are missing in our sign,74 even though in rare cases, e.g. in the seal of Lupakki in BoHa 19, no. 208, it appears without handles and then looks comparable to our sign.75

  • 76 Oreshko 2013: 355-356.
  • 77 Malkaya see Hawkins/Weeden 2008: 244-245, the sign is further attested in Tarsus 4 and 5 and SBo II (...)
  • 78 Its identification as kuni(ya) by Oreshko 2013: 357 is possible, but no more than that.

40In a recent contribution, Rostislav Oreshko proposed to read the sign in question as *324,76 which, in fact, bears some similarity to the one of LATMOS 5. The slightly concave form of *324 seems to agree with our sign quite well. The sign *324 is attested in different forms in the graffiti of Malkaya and on seals, as part of personal names.77 Its phonetic reading, however, is still unclear.78

41The reading ku-pa-i(a) may, therefore, be doubted, alternatively one could read ku-*324-i(a), but at the moment it seems best to abstain from an interpretation and read ku-x-ia. The identification of Ku-x-ia with Kupantakurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya was suggested for various reasons.

  • 79 As has been done e.g. by Peschlow-Bindokat2002: 212-213, Herda 2009: 52 and Latacz 2010: 364-365.

42Firstly, on the ground of the common geographical reconstruction, it was assumed that the LATMOS inscriptions were found on the territory of Mira. The mentioning of Mira in graffito 1 (fig. 5) further strengthened this association. However, we should clearly keep in mind that there is no special relationship between graffito 1 and graffito 5, so it is simply incorrect to state that the inscriptions from Latmos stem from Kupantakurunta, King of Mira.79 The reading of the second sign as PA created some basic phonetic similarity between Kupaya and Kupantakurunta, and the hitherto unattested title magnus.rex.filius seems to suggest that the person in question had close ties to the Hittite ruling family. Kupantakurunta, the adoptive son of Mashuiluwa and a Hittite princess, clearly shows this close association with the Hittite ruling elite. However, as mentioned, the reading of the name is highly doubtful, and even if read correctly, the identification with the famous Kupantakurunta is quite improbable.

Fig. 5: The inscription LATMOS 1

Fig. 5: The inscription LATMOS 1
magnusrexmagnus.rexmagnus.rexfilius80magnus.rexfiliusdumu.lugal.g[al]princepstuhukanti81Ku-x-ia dumu.lugal82
  • 83 Hawkins 2015: 21. Cf. Hawkins 2013: 15.
  • 84 See Schürr 2011: 72 n. 14.

43The second inscription taken to show that the Latmos area belonged to Mira is graffito no. 1, read Mi+ra-a(regio) vir by Herbordt in her original treatment of the text, and interpreted as “man of Mira.” However, in a recent comment on the available sources for the reconstruction of the geography of western Anatolia, J.D. Hawkins aptly characterized the reading “man of the land Mira as “possible”, but “not certain.83 Even if one agrees with Herbordt’s interpretation, it is far more likely that a foreigner would identify himself as “man of Mira” than a local person, for whom it would not be a distinctive feature.84

44However, since all the other graffiti show personal names, it is quite peculiar that we would only have a reference to the land, but not to the person. In view of this, one may propose two alternative interpretations.

45The reading of Mi+ra and vir2 seems quite certain. If one agrees with Herbordt’s reading of the two other signs, one may still interpret them as rendering of the personal name Miraziti Mi+ra-a(regio)-vir2, in which, however, the determinative regio would be disturbing.

  • 85 Oreshko 2013: 365-366.

46A new interpretation has been suggested recently by R. Oreshko,85 who read Mi+ra-cer[vus] bonus2vir2. The interpretation of the sign below Mi+ra is open to discussion since only a few traces are preserved due to the spalling of the rock. It seems that there is more to see than just a single stroke. However, one cannot decide if we are dealing with intentional or accidental scratches.

  • 86 Of these specific names only Miramuwa is attested, see Laroche 1966: 119 no. 807, however the forma (...)

47If one concurs with Herbordt, reading a, this would in no way contradict the interpretation as a personal name. In this case, one would have to assume another element of the name in the part now broken away. A tentative interpretation could then be Mi-ra-a[-bos/-vir/cervus] yielding the names Miramuwa, Miraziti, and Miraruntiya.86

regioregiobonus2urbs
  • 87 Cf. Herbordt 2005: 392-393; Dinçol/Dinçol 2008: 81-89.

48The combination bonus(2)vir(2) is known from many seals,87 and although not attested before in stone inscriptions, seems possible in a graffito.

  • 88 So also Hawkins2015: 21.

49The inscriptions from Suratkaya can, therefore, not be taken to show a southern extension of Mira to the Latmos Mountains.88 The identity of Ku-x-i(a), the son of the Great King is unclear, and the mentioning of Mira in graffito 1 most probably refers to a foreigner or is just part of a personal name.

The stele from Karakuyu-Torbalı (fig. 6)

Fig. 6: The inscription on the stele of Karakuyu-Torbalı

Fig. 6: The inscription on the stele of Karakuyu-Torbalı

photo taken by the author

  • 89 Karabel C was found in 1940, see Güterbock 1967: 63-64. The LATMOS inscriptions were found in 2000, (...)
  • 90 Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 2.
  • 91 Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 2-4.

50After the discovery of Karabel C in 1940 it took sixty years before further hieroglyphic monuments turned up in western Anatolia.89 But only a few years after the find of the Suratkaya graffiti another fragmentary hieroglyphic Luwian monument came to light in a village of Karakuyu near Torbalı, south of the Karabel pass. The stele shows a figure standing with his left foot forward, wearing a short tunic, and pointed shoes. As can be seen from the inscription placed on the narrow side of the stele, the monument was intended to be free-standing.90 Next to the foot, a stick is visible, surely belonging to the shaft of a spear. Typologically, the figure shows close similarities to the representations of Hanyeri, Hemite, Hatıp, and Karabel.91

  • 92 Reading of the inscription according to Tekoğlu apud Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 22-25:magnus.rex Tar[(...)

51The parallels with the monuments mentioned have been displayed in the original publication of the stele, but the detailed analysis led the editors to the conclusion that the monument must date to the post-Hittite period. This conclusion was reinforced by the reading of the inscription, which supposedly mentioned a “Great King” Tarkasnawa of Mira.92

  • 93 See the ideas of Hawkins 1998: 18-21; Starke 1998: 193-194; Starke 1999: 531; Starke 2000: 251-254.

52The text seemed to confirm the expected, given the predominant view of Western Anatolian history and geography. The king Tarkasnawa, who commissioned Karabel, would have become Great King after the Hittite Empire ceased to exist.93

  • 94 Oreshko 2012: 663-665; Oreshko 2013: 373-381; Forlanini 2012: 134.

53Unfortunately, the reading of the inscription, at least of the name and toponym, seems largely induced by wishful thinking. In the lower left corner, where we are supposed to read Ta[rkasna]-wa/i Mi+ra-⌈a⌉, the photo rather shows deus.*430+ra ‘all the gods’ as has already been pointed out by R. Oreshko and K. Forlanini.94 Furthermore, the interpretation of the lower part of the inscription by Oreshko, readingdeus.430+ra lis+[l]i-sa-t[ú] all the gods shall litigate seems quite probable, even though the extensive phonetic writing is somewhat surprising in this early period.

  • 95 Schachner apud Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 11 n. 62 “Die Stele von Karakuyu aber ist ein Beispiel echt (...)

54After all, neither Tarkasnawa nor the land of Mira is mentioned in this inscription; it, therefore, cannot be taken as an argument for an extension of Mira into the Meander valley. The archaeological dating of the monument as “post-Hittite” cannot be definitive, being only based on the analysis of one leg. As pointed out by A. Schachner, the figure shows great similarities to reliefs clearly dated to the Empire Period. Thus, it should (archaeologically) rather be dated to the period in which Hittite art had the strongest influence on Anatolia, probably the late 13th or early 12th century.95

55However, an assignation of Karakuyu-Torbalı to the land of Mira is not excluded. Given the suggestion that Mira lay to both sides of Karabel, one might ask speculatively, if the stele of Karakuyu may be interpreted as counterpart of Karabel B, a free standing marble figure at the entrance of the pass.

The alleged close relationship between Lazpa and the Seha river land

  • 96 The identification of Lazpa with Lesbos, though convincing, is not entirely certain and mostly base (...)
  • 97 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 51, 53, 63; Starke 1997: 453-454; Singer 2008: 21; Hoffner 2009: 293; Bec (...)
  • 98 For Piyamaradu see Heinhold-Krahmer 1983, Heinhold-Krahmer 1986 and Heinhold-Krahmer2005.
  • 99 Usually this Kassu is connected also to the attack on Wilusa, see Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 175 Anm. 2 (...)

56On account of the contents of the letter KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79, a letter of Manapatarhunta, the king of the Seha River Land to a Hittite king, probably Muwatalli II, it has often been argued that Lazpa96 would be part of the Seha River Land.97 In the letter, the vassal king Manapatarhunta first refers to an operation against the land of Wilusa in which he could not take part because he was gravely ill. Then Manapatarhunta reports about the misdeeds of the well-known agitator Piyamaradu,98 who humiliated him; set up a man named Atpa over him, and attacked the land of Lazpa. Seemingly from Lazpa, Piyamaradu took some subjects, referred to as ṣaripūtū, of Manapatarhunta and the Hittite king captive. The ṣaripūtū people then appealed to Atpa to be set free. Atpa at first wanted to comply with their request, but was convinced to keep the captives by a messenger of Piyamaradu. Finally, a man named Kassu arrived, who probably caused Kupantakurunta, the king of Mira, to intervene in the conflict.99 Kupantakurunta finally achieved the release of the ṣaripūtū of the Hittite king. The fate of the ṣaripūtū of Manapatarhunta is unclear since the letter breaks off at this point.

57The alleged appartenance of Lazpa to the Seha River Land is based on the following short passage of the Manapatarhunta letter:

7

[mPí-ia-m]a-ra-du-uš-ma-mu gim-an lu-ri-ia-aḫ-ta nu-mu-kán mAt-pa-a-an

8

[pé-ra-an u]gu ti-it-ta-nu-ut nu kur La-az-pa-an gul-ah-ta

9

[x x x lú.]meša-ri-pu-ti ku-e-eš ku-e-eš am-me-el e-še-er

10

[na-at-kán u-]u-ma-an-du-uš-pát an-da ḫa-an-da-er ša dutui-ia ku-e-eš [ku-e-eš e-še-er]

11

[lú.mešṣa-r]i-pu-ti na-at-kán ḫu-u-ma-an-du-uš-pát an-da ḫa-an-da-er

  • 100 For the first line two translations are given, since they are both possible, but differ in sense, t (...)

When [Piyam]aradu humbled me, he installed Atpa over me. Then he attacked Lazpa.
or
When [Piyam]aradu had humiliated me, set up Atpa over? me, and attacked (the country of) Lazpa.100
[And] all of the ṣaripūtū who were mine without exception joined with him. And all of the [ṣar]ipūtū of the Majesty without exception joined with him.

58According to some interpretations, the humiliation of Manapatarhunta consisted in the attack on Lazpa so that Lazpa would be understood as belonging to the Seha River Land. Furthermore, the attack on Lazpa obviously resulted in Piyamaradu’s possession of the ṣaripūtū people of Manapatarhunta and of the Hittite king. This observation has also been taken as an argument for an appurtenance of Lazpa to the realm of Manapatarhunta. However, both arguments are at least doubtful.

59Firstly, the sentence in line 7 is introduced by the temporal conjunction gim-an (Hitt. mahhan) ‘when’; it is only unclear if the following sentence nu-mu-kán mAt-pa-a-an [pé-ra-an u]gu ti-it-ta-nu-ut set up Atpa over me” belongs to the temporal clause or is a separate main clause. The possible translations are, therefore:

  • 101 See e.g. Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 141.
  • 102 See e.g. Hoffner 2009: 294; similarly Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 40 “When [Piym]aradus had humiliate (...)

When [Piyam]aradu humiliated me and set up Atpa over me, he attacked Lazpa.101
or
When [Piyam]aradu humiliated me, he set up Atpa over me and attacked Lazpa.102

  • 103 Similarly de Martino 2006: 169.

60I prefer the second option, since the humiliation would then be a defeat inflicted by Piyamaradu on Manapatarhunta which thereafter did not have the military strength to oppose a setting up of Atpa over him,103 but one may also argue for the first one. Either way, the humiliation and the attack on Lazpa are not the same events, even if they may be somehow connected. The more important argument for a hegemony of Seha over Lazpa seems to be that subjects of Manapatarhunta were captured during the raid on Lazpa.

  • 104 Singer 2008: 21, 32.
  • 105 Singer 2008: 31-32.
  • 106 See now Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 192-195.
  • 107 Cf. preceding note.

61A plausible explanation for the presence of these ṣaripūtū on Lazpa was brought forward some years ago by Itamar Singer, even if he believed in the appurtenance of Lazpa to Seha.104 Following a proposal by Sylvie Lackenbacher (concerning the Ugaritic texts), Singer could show that ṣaripūtū (a hapax in Hittite context) would best be understood as “purple dyers.” The ṣaripūtū in the Manapatarhunta letter could then be itinerant dyers on a mission to prepare or present purple dyed wool to the palace and/or main deity of Lazpa.105 The help of this otherwise unknown deity is also sought by a Hittite king (probably Hattusili III) in the oracular text KUB 5.6 + KUB 18.54 ii 57’-65’.106 However neither in this case nor the Manapatarhunta letter, a Hittite hegemony over Lazpa is necessary. The presence of foreigners bringing gifts for a deity does not imply any political power over the territory in question, as can be seen by Hittites venerating the Ištar of Niniveh and other Assyrian and Babylonian deities. Even the deity of Aḫḫiyawa is brought to Hattusa to help the ailing Hittite king.107

  • 108 See also Woudhuizen2015: 10.
  • 109 Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 163-164 and Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 51.

62Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that not only the purple dyers of Manapatarhunta but also those of the Hittite king, were taken captive by Piyamaradu. This idea also suggests a short-time visit of Hittite subjects in a foreign land, rather than a full-scale conquest of Lazpa by the otherwise landlocked Hittites.108 Moreover, as pointed out before, the mission of artisans of Manapatarhunta to Lazpa does not need to mean that the Seha River Land has to be located exactly on the coast opposite Lesbos. The connection between Seha and Lazpa is equally possible if the Seha River Land is placed further south in the Meander valley.109

Arguments for a location of Mira in Lydia and the Seha river land in the Meander valley

A close relationship between Seha and Millawanda?

63The first text to provide us with information on a possible southerly location of the Seha River Land is exactly the just mentioned letter of Manapatarhunta. As reported above, Piyamaradu captured a group of dyers belonging to Manapatarhunta and the Hittite king, and they pleaded to Atpa to be released.

  • 110 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 46.
  • 111 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 46.

64The fact that the captives appealed to Atpa (and not to Piyamaradu) for release suggests that, at least at that time, Piyamaradu and Atpa did not stay in the same place. It is quite likely, as Houwink ten Cate suggested that Piyamaradu, after his raid on Lazpa, left the captives with Atpa.110 In the later Tawagalawa letter, Atpa appears as overlord of Millawanda, and it may well be that he already had this position during this earlier episode. Possibly he only got drawn into the conflict because Piyamaradu decided to leave the captives with him.111

  • 112 KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79 I 7-8, see Houwink ten Cate 1983-84, 39-40, Hoffner 2009: 294 and Beckman/Bryc (...)
  • 113 See Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: “Piyamaradu inflicted a humiliating defeat upon Manapa-Tarhunta, and (...)

65Atpa’s presence on Anatolian soil is further reinforced by Manapatarhunta’s complaint that Atpa had been set up over him.112 The expression [peran u]gu tittanut must imply some political or military influence of Atpa on the Seha River Land.113 This notion, however, can only mean that Atpa’s realm and the Seha River Land were very close to each other, probably contiguous.

66If Atpa were indeed already stationed in Millawanda, this would suggest a close proximity of Seha and Millawanda – Miletos. The Seha, in this case, should be identified with the Meander.

The first Hittite attack on Millawanda

  • 114 See above I.2.

67One very fragmentary passage of Mursili’s annals, unfortunately only preserved in KUB 14.15 I 23-26 (CTH 61.II), may suggest a location of Arzawa proper in a more northern area, as pointed out before.114

68The event dates to the beginning of Mursili’s third year (in Goetze’s arrangement) and is certainly prior to the actual invasion of Arzawa.

23

ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma ḫa-me-eš-ḫa-an-za ki-ša-at nu mU-uḫ-[ḫa--…]

24

nu-kán kur uru Mi-il-la-wa-an-da a-na lugal kur Aḫ-ḫi-ú- [wa-a …]

25

nu-kán mGul-la-an mMa-la--in érinmeš [anše.kur.ra ḫi.a-ia] pa-ra-an[e-eḫ-ḫu-un na-aš kur uruMi-il-la-wa-an-da (?)]

26

gul-aḫ-ḫe-er na-at iš-tu nam.rameš gu[dme]š uduḫi.aša-ra-a da-a-er […]

  • 115 Translation after Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 29.

When spring arrived, Uh[ha-ziti] and [ ... ] the land of Millawanda to the King of Aḫḫiyawa, [I, My Majesty, ... ] and di[spatched] Gulla and Malaziti, infantry [and chariotry, and] they attacked [the land of Millawanda]. They captured it, together with civilian captives, cattle, and sheep, […].115

  • 116 See also the discussion in Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 97-99.

69This passage already caused discussion among Sommer, Forrer, and Goetze in the heat of the Aḫḫiyawa controversy.116

  • 117 Forrer 1924b: 113 and Forrer 1926: 45.

70According to Forrer’s restoration, Uhhaziti instigated a revolt in Millawanda against the king of Aḫḫiyawa. Consequently the Hittite king sent two generals, who attacked and destroyed the city of Millawanda.117

  • 118 Sommer 1932: 307-313.

71Also in Sommer’s interpretation, the land of Millawanda was incited to rebel against Aḫḫiyawa by Uhhaziti. However, according to him, the king of Aḫḫiyawa sent the generals Gulla and Malaziti to restore order in Millawanda.118

  • 119 Götze 1933: 234-237.
  • 120 S. e.g. Kınal 1953: 16; Garstang/Gurney 1959: 84-85; Cornelius 1973: 177; Goetze 1975: 120-122; Üna (...)

72Goetze presented another solution in 1933. He saw an alliance between Uhhaziti of Arzawa and the land of Aḫḫiyawa in the course of which Millawanda also sided with them. As a consequence of this alliance, Mursili sent his generals to Millawanda to attack and plunder the city.119 This solution is now commonly accepted and often used without the necessary cautiousness.120

  • 121 Translation after Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 39.

73The assumption of an alliance is based firstly on Goetze’s collation of the line 25, which made him prefer a reading n[e-eh-hu-un] ‘I (the Hittite king) sent’ over Sommer’s n[a-iš-ta] ‘he (the king of Aḫḫiyawa) sent’, and secondly on another passage of Mursili’s annals KUB 14.16 III 24’-28’ // KUB 14.15 III 54’-57’ (CTH 61.II) where we read:121

24’

[nu dutu-ši (?)] a-na uruPu-ra-an-da a-na n[am.rame]š

25’

egir-an-da pa-a-un ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma i-na uru[] ar-ḫu-un nu a-na mešuruPu-ra-an-da

26’

ḫa-at-ra-a-nu-un šu-me-eš-wa-aš-ma-aš Ìrmeša-b[i-ia] e-eš-te-en nu-wa-aš-m[a-aš a-bu-i]a da-a-aš

27’

nu-wa-aš-ma-aš a-na mU-uḫ-ḫa- Ìr-an-ni pa-iš-[ta a-pa-a-aš-ma-wa a-na lugal kur Aḫ-ḫi-(?)]ú-wa-a

28’

egir-an ti-i-ia-at nu-wa ku-u-ru-ri-ia-aḫ-ta

[I, the Majesty] followed the civilian captives to Puranda. When I arrived at […], I wrote to the people of Puranda: “You were subjects of [my] father, and [my father] took you and gave you in service to Uhhaziti. [But] he supported [the king of Ahhiya]wa and became hostile (to me).

  • 122 Sommer 1934: 89 n. 1 was quite sceptical about the restorations of Goetze and designated it as “seh (...)

74The […]-⌈ú-wa-a in KUB 14.15 III 57’ is most probably the rest of a name of the land or king that was supported by Uhhaziti, as we can see from egir-an tiyat ‘supported’ in KUB 14.15 III 57’ // KUB 14.16 III 28’. Among the available toponyms, Aḫḫiyawa seems the most likely, even though one still has to be careful about these restorations.122

  • 123 Sommer 1932: 309.

75As Sommer did, for KUB 14.15 I 24’ nu-kán kur uruMi-il-la-wa-an-da a-na lugal kur Ah-hi-ú-[wa-a …] one may still think of an interpretation in terms of “and since the land of Millawanda belongs to the king of Ahhi[yawa],”123 even though a different explanation for […]-⌈ú-wa-a in KUB 14.15 III 57’ would be needed.

76However, if we accept Goetze’s interpretation of an alliance of Arzawa, Aḫḫiyawa, and Millawanda and a subsequent attack of Mursili’s generals on Millawanda, this implies that the Hittites could attack Millawanda in the preliminaries of the great Hittite-Arzawan war, without getting into trouble with Arzawa.

  • 124 See Freu/Mazoyer 2008: 29; Gander 2010: 152; Forlanini 2012: 139-140; Gander, forthcoming. Cf. also (...)
  • 125 Stefano de Martino (e-mail from 27.8.2015) informs me that he thinks “that Uhha-ziti had already lo (...)

77If Arzawa occupied the Meander valley with its capital lying at Ephesos, such an attack is hardly imaginable,124 a position further to the north would be more suitable.125

Conclusions

78The chemical analysis of the Tawagalawa letter and EA 32 indicate a provenance south of Ephesos for the former and in the area of Kyme and/or Larissa for the latter (fig. 7). Geographically, one can draw the conclusion that Millawanda (from where the Tawagalawa letter was probably written) is to be sought in southern Ionia, whereas, surprisingly, the capital of Arzawa (from which EA 32 should have originated) is to be sought in the Aiolis.

Fig. 7: Map of western Asia Minor with sites and regions mentioned in the text

Fig. 7: Map of western Asia Minor with sites and regions mentioned in the text

79Taking this suggestion as a starting point, I tried to review the Hittite and Luwian sources if they might be brought in agreement with this unusual northern placement of Arzawa. We have seen that it might be argued reasonably that the position of the Karabel monuments suggest a location of Mira to the north rather than to the south of the Tmolos mountains (Boz Dağları). Alternatively, one may think that Mira comprised the whole Karabel pass.

80Furthermore, the inscriptions from Suratkaya and Karakuyu-Torbalı bear no relevance concerning the location of Mira. The identification of ku-x-ia in LATMOS graffito no. 5 with Kupantakurunta of Mira is no more than wishful thinking. The “man of Mira” mentioned in graffito no. 1 may refer either to a foreigner, for whom being from Mira would be a distinctive feature or is to be interpreted as a personal name with no geographical relevance.

81Concerning the alleged close relationship between the Seha River Land and Lazpa, it has been shown that the presence of Manapatarhunta’s subjects on the island need in no way imply hegemony of Seha over Lazpa. We are rather dealing with an occasional visit of artisans to prepare or present purple dyed wool to the ruler of Lazpa or, rather, to the prestigious sanctuary of the deity of Lazpa.

82The Manapatarhunta letter could indicate a close proximity between Seha and Millawanda, if, as is quite likely, Atpa was stationed at Millawanda at the time of the letter.

83Moreover, the Hittite attack on Millawanda (if the restoration is correct) in the preliminaries of the Hittite – Arzawan war, is very difficult to imagine if Millawanda – Miletos lay in proximity to the Arzawan heartland. In this case, too, a northerly location of Arzawa would be more fitting.

84It could be shown that the Hittite and Luwian sources may be taken to argue for a position of Arzawa in later Lydia, which may also induce some doubts on the whole outline of the current reconstruction.

85This article is clearly not intended to present an alternative solution to the problem. Rather, its aim is to elicit a more critical view of established opinions and preconceived meanings concerning the geography of western Anatolia in the Hittite period and to show that, even though a certain idea is widely accepted, alternatives are still possible.

Bibliographie

Akurgal, M. / Kerschner, M. / Mommsen, H. / Niemeier, W.-D., Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 3). Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Vienne, 2002.

Alparslan, M., “The History of the Arzawan State during the Hittite Period”, in: Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Stampolidis, N. / Maner, Ç. / Kopanias, K. (éds.). Koç University Press, Istanbul, 2015, 131-142.

Alparslan, M. / Doğan-Alparslan, M., “The Hittites and their Geography: Problems of Hittite Historical Geography”, European Journal of Archaeology 18, 2015, 90-110.

Arnold, D. / Neff, H. / Bishop, R. L., “Compositional Analysis and ‘Sources’ of Pottery: An Ethnoarcheological Approach”, American Anthropologist 93, 1991, 70-90.

Artzy, M. / Mommsen, H. / Asaro, F., “Neutron Activation Analysis of EA 32”, in: Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna-Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series 23), Goren, Y. / Finkelstein, I. / Na’aman, N. (éds.). Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv, 2004, 45-47.

Barnett, R., “Mopsos”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 73, 1953, 140-143.

Beckman, G. / Bryce, T. / Cline, E. H., The Aḫḫiyawa Texts (Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 28). Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2011. Beekes 2002

Beekes, R., “The Prehistory of the Lydians, the Origin of the Etruscans, Troy and Aeneas”, BiOr 59, 2002, 205-242.

Benzi, M., “Anatolia and the Eastern Aegean at the Time of the Trojan War”, in: Omero tremila anni dopo (Storia e letteratura 210), Montanari, F. (éd.). Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome, 2002, 343-410.

Bittel, K., “Die Reliefs am Karabel bei Nif (Kemal-Paşa)”, AfO 13, 1939-41, 181-193.

Bittel, K., “Karabel”, MDOG 98, 1967, 5-23.

Boase, G. C. / Matthew, H. C. G., “Renouard, George Cecil (1780–1867)”, in: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004; online edition, Oct. 2006 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23380, accessed 17 Aug 2015].

Börker-Klähn, J., “Neues zur Geschichte Lykiens”, Athenaeum 82, 1994, 315-334.

Brandau, B. / Schickert, H. / Jablonka, P., Troia: wie es wirklich aussah. Piper, Munich, 2004.

Breyer, F., Ägypten und Anatolien: politische, kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte zwischen dem Niltal und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 63), Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienne, 2010.

Bryce, T., The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhague, 1986.

Bryce, T., “History”, in: The Luwians (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/68), Melchert, H. C. (éd.). Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2003, 27-127.

Bryce, T., The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.

Bryce, T., “The Geopolitical Layout of Late Bronze Age Anatolia’s Coastlands: Recent Advances and Important Caveats”, in: Vita. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Alparslan, M. / Peker, H. / Doğan-Alparslan, M. (éds.). Ege Yayınları, Istanbul, 2007, 125-131.

Bryce, T., “The Late Bronze Age in the West and the Aegean”, in: The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: 10,000-323. B.C.E. (Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology), Steadman, S. / McMahon, G. (éds.). Oxford University Press, New York, 2011, 363-375.

Carruba, O., Annali etei del Medio Regno (Studi Mediterranea. Series Hethaea 5). Italian University Press, Pavie, 2008.

Cline, E., “Aššuwa and the Achaeans: The ‘Mycenaean’ Sword at Hattušas and its Possible Implications”, Annual of the British School at Athens 91, 1996, 137-151.

Cline, E., “Achilles in Anatolia: Myth, History, and the Aššuwa Rebellion”, in: Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th Birthday, Young, G. / Chavalas, M. W. / Averbeck, R. E. (éds.). CDL Press, Bethesda, 1997, 189-210.

Cobet, J. / Gehrke, H.-J., “Warum um Troia immer wieder streiten?”, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 53, 2002, 290-325.

Cornelius, F., Geschichte der Hethiter mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der geographischen Verhältnisse und der Rechtsgeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1973.

Curtius, E., “Die Entdeckung der (sic!) zweiten Sesostrisbildes bei Smyrna durch Carl Humann”, Archäologische Zeitung 33, 1876, 50-51.

de Martino, S., “Troia e le ‘guerre di Troia’ nelle fonti ittite”, in: Δύνασθαι διδάσκειν: Studi in onore di Filippo Càssola per il suo ottantesimo compleanno (Fonti e studi per la storia della Venezia Giulia. Serie seconda 11), Faraguna, M. / Vedaldi Iasbez, V. (éds.). Editreg SRL, Trieste, 2006, 167-177.

de Martino, S., “Western and South-Eastern Anatolia and Syria in the 13th and 12th Centuries. Possible Connections to the Poem”, in: Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Ulf, C. / Rollinger, R. (éds.). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 2011, 181-205.

de Rougé, E., “Extraits d’un mémoire sur les attaques dirigées contre l’Égypte par les peuples de la méditerranée vers le quatorzième siècle avant notre ère”, Revue d’Assyriologie 16, 1867, 35-45 and 81-103.

Dinçol, A. / Dinçol, B., Die Prinzen-und Beamtensiegel aus der Oberstadt von Boğazköy-Hattuša vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zum Ende der Grossreichszeit (Boğazköy-Ḫattusa 22). von Zabern, Mayence, 2008.

Ehringhaus, H., Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei (Sonderbände der antike Welt. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie). von Zabern, Mayence, 2005.

Forlanini, M., “Happurija, eine Hauptstadt von Arzawa?”, in: Vita. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Alparslan, M. / Peker, H. / Doğan-Alparslan, M. (éds.). Ege Yayınları, Istanbul, 2007, 285-298.

Forlanini, M., “The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: Still an Open Question”, Or NS 81, 2012, 133-137.

Forlanini, M. / Marazzi, M., Anatolia. L’impero hittita (Atlante storico del vicino oriente antico 4.3), Università degli studi di Roma, Rome, 1986.

Forrer, E., “Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschrifttexten von Boghazköi”, MDOG 63, 1924, 1-21.

Forrer, E., “Die Griechen in den Boghazköi-Texten”, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 27, 1924, 113-118.

Forrer, E., Forschungen (1. Band, 1. Heft). Die Arzaova-Länder. Selbstverlag des Verfassers, Berlin, 1926.

Freu, J., “Luwiya. Géographie historique des provinces méridionales de l’empire hittite. Kizzuwatna, Arzawa, Lukka, Milawata”, Document Centre de Recherches Comparatives sur les Langues de la Méditerranée Ancienne (LAMA) 6, 1980, 177-352.

Freu, J., “Homère, les Hittites et le pays d’Aḫḫiyawa”, in: Homère et l’Anatolie (Kubaba Série Antiquité), Mazoyer, M. (éd.). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2008, 77-106.

Freu, J., “Homère, la guerre de Troie et le pays de Wiluša”, in: Homère et l’Anatolie (Kubaba Série Antiquité), Mazoyer, M. (éd.). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2008, 107-147.

Freu, J., “Les pays de Wilusa et d’Aḫḫiyawa et la géographie de l’Anatolie occidentale à l’âge du Bronze”, in: Faranton, V. / Mazoyer, M. (éds.), Homère et l’Anatolie 2 (Kubaba Série Antiquité). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2014, 71-118.

Freu, J. / Mazoyer, M., Les Hittites et leur histoire 3. L’apogée du nouvel empire hittite (Kubaba Série Antiquité 14). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2008.

Friedrich, J., “Das hethitische Felsrelief von Karabel bei Smyrna und seine Erwähnung bei Herodot II 106”, Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 5, 1937, 383-390.

Gander, M., Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder (THeth 27). Winter, Heidelberg, 2010.

Gander, M., “Tlos, Oinoanda and the Hittite Invasion of the Lukka lands. Some Thoughts on the History of North-Western Lycia in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages”, Klio 96, 2014, 369-415.

Gander, M., Review of: Fischer, Robert: Die Ahhijawa-Frage: Mit einer kommentierten Bibliographie (2010), Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 110, 2015, 290-295.

Gander, M., “Antik Yakındoğu Kaynaklarında Lukka, Likyalılar ve Trmm̃ ili/ Lukka, Lycians, Trmm̃ ili in Ancient Near Eastern Sources”, in: Lukka’dan Likya’ya: Sarpedon ve Aziz Nikolaos’un Ülkesi/ From Lukka to Lycia: The Country of Sarpedon and St. Nicholas, Işkan H. / Dündar, E. (éds.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları, Istanbul, 2016, 80-99.

Gander, M., “The West”, in: Handbook of Hittite Geography and Landscape, Ullmann, L. Z. / Weeden, M. (éds.). Brill.

Garstang, J., “Arzawa ve Lugga Memleketlerine Ait Bir Harita / A Map of Arzawa and the Lugga Lands”, Belleten 5, 1941, 17-32 / 33-46.

Garstang, J. / Gurney, O. R., The Geography of the Hittite Empire (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 5). British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Londres, 1959.

Gindin, L., Troja, Thrakien und die Völker Altkleinasiens: Versuch einer historisch-philologischen Untersuchung (Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Sonderheft 104). Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 1999.

Glatz, C. / Plourde, A. M., “Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An Investigation of Costly Signaling Theory”, The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361, 2011, 33-66.

Götze, A., “Die Annalen des Muršiliš”, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 38, 1933, 1-329.

Goetze, A., Kleinasien (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft III.1.3.3.1). C. H. Beck, Munich, 1957.

Goetze, A., “Anatolia from Shuppiluilumash to the Egyptian war of Muwatallish”, Cambridge Ancient History 3rd Ed. II.2, 1975, 117-129.

Goren, Y. / Mommsen, H. / Klinger, J., “Non-Destructive Provenance Study of Cuneiform Tablets Using X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF)”, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2011, 684-696.

Grave, P. / Kealhofer, L., “Non-Destructive Characterisation of Hittite Bullae from the ‘Nişantepe Archive’, Hattuša by Portable X-ray Fluorescence” apud Schachner, A., “Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2013”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014, 2014, 137-147.

Gurney, O., “Hittite Geography: Thirty Years On”, in: Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp (Anadolu medeniyetlerini araştırma ve tanıtma vakfı yayınları 1), Otten, H. et al. (éds.), Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara, 1992, 213-221.

Güterbock, H., “Das dritte Monument am Karabel”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17, 1967, 63-71.

Haider, P., “Troia zwischen Hethitern, Mykenern und Mysern. Besitzt der Troianische Krieg einen historischen Hintergrund?”, in: Troia: Mythen und Archäologie (Grazer Morgenländische Studien 4), Galter, H. (éd.). RM Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft, Graz, 1997, 97-140.

Haider, P., “Vom Nil zum Mäander. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Pharaonenhof und dem Königreich Arzawa in Westkleinasien”, in: Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Sonderschriften – Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom 32), Scherrer, P. / Täuber, H. / Thür, H. (éds.). Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Wien, 1999, 205-229.

Haider, P., “Westkleinasien nach ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches”, in: Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, Ulf, C. (éd.). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2004, 174-192.

Hansen, O., “KUB XXIII. 13 - A Possible Contemporary Bronze Age Source for the Sack of Troy/ Hisarlık”, The Annual of the British Scool at Athens 92, 1997, 165-167.

Hansen, O., “Tawagalawas – the Historical Teukros?”, NABU 2000/20. Harmanşah 2015

Harmanşah, Ö., Place, Memory, and Healing: An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments. Routledge, Londres, 2015.

Hashimoto, K. et al., “Provenance Study of Pottery from Boğazköy, Turkey by Heavy Mineral Analysis: a Preliminary Report”, apud Schachner, A., “Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2012”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2013, 2013, 177-186.

Hawkins, J. D.: “Tarkasnawa, King of Mira: ‘Tarkondemos’, Boğazköy Sealings and Karabel”, AnSt 48, 1998, 1-31.

Hawkins, J. D., “Karabel, ‘Tarkondemos’ and the Land of Mira. New Evidence on the Hittite Empire Period in Western Anatolia”, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 23, 1999, 7-14.

Hawkins, J. D., “Urhi-Tešub, tuhkanti”, in: Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie: Würzburg, 4. – 8. Oktober 1999 (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45), Wilhelm, G. (éd.). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2001, 167-179.

Hawkins, J. D., “The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the Hittite Texts”, apud Easton, D. et al., “Troy in Recent Perspective”, AnSt 52, 2002, 94-101.

Hawkins, J. D., “The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective”, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 14, 2009, 73-83.

Hawkins, J. D., “A New Look at the Luwian Language”, Kadmos 52, 2013, 1-18.

Hawkins, J. D., “The Political Geography of Arzawa (Western Anatolia)”, in: Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Stampolidis, N. / Maner, Ç. / Kopanias, K. (éds.). Koç University Press, Istanbul, 2015, 15-35.

Hawkins, J. D. / Weeden, M., “The Hieroglyphic Rock Inscription of Malkaya: A New Look”, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 17, 2008, 241-249.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., Arzawa. Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen (THeth 8). Heidelberg, 1977.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil I)”, Or NS 52, 1983, 81-97.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil II)” Or NS 55, 1986, 47-62.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Zur Gleichsetzung der Namen Ilios-Wiluša und Troia-Taruiša”, in: Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, Ulf, C. (éd.). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2004, 146-168.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Aḫḫiyawa: Land der homerischen Achäer im Krieg mit Wiluša?”, in: Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, Ulf, C. (éd.). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2004, 193-214.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Ist die Identität von Ilios und Wiluša endgültig erwiesen?”, SMEA 46, 2004, 29-57.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Pijamaradu”, RlA 10, 2005, 561-562.

Heinhold-Krahmer, S., “Zur Lage des hethitischen Vasallenstaates Wiluša im Südwesten Kleinasiens”, in: De Hattuša à Memphis: Jacques Freu in honorem (Kubaba Série Antiquité), Mazoyer, M. / Aufrère, S. H. (éds.). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2013, 59-74.

Herbordt, S., “Lesung der Inschrift”, apud Peschlow-Bindokat, “Eine hethitische Grossprinzeninschrift aus dem Latmos. Vorläufiger Bericht”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2001, 368-378.

Herbordt, S., Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins (Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19). von Zabern, Mayence, 2005.

Herbordt, S. / Bawanypeck, D. / Hawkins, J. D., Die Siegel der Grosskönige und Grossköniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa (Boğazköy-Hattuša 23). Zabern, Philipp von, Mayence, 2011.

Herda, A., “Karkiša-Karien und die sogenannte Ionische Migration”, in: Die Karer und die Anderen: Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, Rumscheid, F. (éd.). Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, 2009, 27-108.

Hertel, D., Troia. Archäologie, Geschichte, Mythos (Becksche Reihe 2166). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2008.

Hiller, S., “Two Trojan Wars? On the Destructions of Troy VIh and VIIa”, Studia Troica 1, 1991, 145-149.

Hoffner, H. A, Jr., Letters from the Hittite Kingdom (Society of Biblical Literature Writings rom the Ancient World 15). Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2009.

Högemann, P., “Der Untergang Troias im Lichte des hethitischen Machtzerfalls (14.-12. Jahrhundert v. Chr.)”, in: Das Ende von Großreichen, Altrichter, H. / Neuhaus, H. (éds.). Palm & Enke, Erlangen, 1996, 9-37.

Högemann, P., “Ist der Mythos von Troia nur ein Mythos und die ‘Ionische Kolonisation’ nichts als eine wahre Geschichte?”, in: Mythen in der Geschichte, Altrichter, H. / Herbers, K. / Neuhaus, H. (éds.). Rombach, Fribourg-en-Brisgau, 2004, 117-139.

Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J., “Sidelights on the Aḫḫiyawa-Question from Hittite Vassal and Royal Correspondence”, Jaabericht Ex Oriente Lux 28, 1983-84, 33-79.

Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J., “The Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliyas IV and its Geographical and Historical Relations”, ZA 82, 1992, 233-270.

Hrozný, B., “Hethiter und Griechen”, Archiv Orientální 1, 1929, 323-343.

Huxley, G., Achaeans and Hittites. Vincent-Baxter Press, Oxford, 1960.

Işık, F. / Atıcı, M. / Tekoğlu, R., “Die nachhethitische Königsstele von Karakuyu beim Karabel-Pass. Zur kulturellen Kontinuität vom bronzezeitlichen Mira zum eisenzeitlichen Ionia”, in: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien VII (Asia-Minor-Studien 66), Schwertheim, E. (éd.). Habelt, Bonn, 2011, 1-33.

Jasink, A. M. / Marino, M., “The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom Dynasty”, in: VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5-9 settembre 2005 (SMEA 49), Archi, A. / Francia, R. (éds.). Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, Rome, 2007, 407-426.

Kerschner, M., “Die nichtlokalisierten chemischen Gruppen B/C, E, F, G und ihr Aussagewert für die spätgeometrische und archaische Keramik des nördlichen Ioniens und der Äolis”, in: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 3), Akurgal, M. et al. (éds.). Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Vienne, 2002, 72-92.

Kerschner, M., “On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery”, in: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (The British Museum Research Publication 162), Villing, A. / Schlotzhauer, U. (éds.). British Museum Company, Londres, 2006, 109-126.

Kerschner, M. / Mommsen, H., “Neue archäologische und archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töpferzentren der Ostägäis”, Il Mar Nero 6, 2004-2006, 79-93.

Kınal, F., Géographie et Histoire des Pays d’Arzava (Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi yayınları 89). Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara, 1953.

Klinger, J., Die Hethiter (Beck’sche Reihe Wissen 2425). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2007.

Kohlmeyer, K., Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichszeit. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, 1983.

Kolb, F., Tatort ‘Troia’: Geschichte, Mythen, Politik. Schöningh, Paderborn, 2010.

Laroche, E., Les hiéroglyphes hittites I. L’écriture. Éditions du CNRS, Paris, 1960.

Laroche, E., Les noms des Hittites (Études Linguistiques 4). Klincksieck, Paris, 1966.

Latacz, J., Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Koehler & Amelang, Leipzig, 6ème édition, 2010.

Lepsius, R., “Bericht (no title given)”, Bericht über die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1840: 39-41.

Luckenbill, D., “A Possible Occurrence of the Name Alexander in the Boghaz-Keui Tablets”, Classical Philology 6, 1911, 85-86.

MacFarlane, C., Constantinople in 1828. A Residence of Sixteen Months in the Turkish Capital and Provinces. Saunders and Otley, Londres, 1829.

Mayer, L. / Garstang, J., Index of Hittite names: Section a: Geographical. Part 1 (Britisch School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 1). [s.n.], Londres, 1923.

Melchert, H., “Introduction”, in: The Luwians (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/68), H. C. Melchert (éd.). Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2003, 1-7.

Melchert, H., “Prehistory”, in: The Luwians (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/68), H. C. Melchert (éd.). Brill, Leyde – Boston, 2003, 8-26.

Mellaart, J. / Murray, A., Beycesultan III.2. Late Bronze Age and Phrygian Pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age small Objects (Occasional Publications British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 12). British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Londres, 1995.

Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums. Zweiter Band. Erste Abteilung. Die Zeit der ägyptischen Grossmacht. Cotta, Stuttgart, 1928.

Niemeier, W.-D., “Mycenaeans and Hittites in War in Western Asia Minor”, in: Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’Âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Laffineur, R. (éd.). Université de Liège, Liège, 1999, 141-155.

Niemeier, W.-D., “Westkleinasien und die Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur ionischen Wanderung: Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen”, in: Frühes Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September - 1. Oktober 1999 (Milesische Forschungen 5), Cobet, J. et al. (éds.). von Zabern, Mayence, 2007, 37-96.

Niemeier, W.-D., “Hattusas Beziehungen zu West-Kleinasien und dem mykenischen Griechenland (Aḫḫijawa)”, in: Ḫattuša - Boğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients (Colloquien der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 6), Wilhelm, G. (éd.). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2008, 291-349.

Niemeier, W.-D., “Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in Western Asia Minor. New Excavations in Bronze Age Miletus-Milawanda”, in: The Greeks in the East (British Museum Research Publication 157), Villing, A. (éd.). British Museum Publications, Londres, 2008, 1-36.

Niemeier, W.-D., “Milet und Karien vom Neolithikum bis zu den ‘Dunklen Jahrhunderten’: Mythos und Archäologie”, in: Die Karer und die Anderen: Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, Rumscheid, F. (éd.). Rumscheid, Bonn, 2009, 7-25.

Oreshko, R., “Кубанта: ‘Великая Владычица’ западной Анатолии?/Kubanta: the ‘Great Queen’ of Western Anatolia?”, Индоевропейское Языкознание и Классическая Филология 16, 2012, 660-670.

Oreshko, R., “Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Western Anatolia: Long Arm of the Empire or Vernacular Tradition(s)?”, in: Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 64), Mouton, A. / Rutherford, I. / Yakubovich, I. (éds.). Brill, Leyde, 2013, 345-420.

Oreshko, R., “Geography of the Western Fringes. Gar(a)giša/ Gargiya and the Lands of the Late Bronze Age Caria”, in: Karia Arkhaia: La Carie, des origines à la période pré-hékatomnide, Henry, O. / Konuk, K. (éds.).

Otten, H., Die hethitischen Königssiegel der frühen Großreichszeit (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 7). Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur – F. Steiner, Mayence – Stuttgart, 1995.

Page, D., History and the Homeric Iliad (Sather Classical Lectures). University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1959.

Pantazis, V., “Wilusa: Reconsidering the Evidence”, Klio 91. 2009, 291-310.

Pavúk, P., “Between the Aegeans and the Hittites. Western Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium BC”, in: Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Stampolidis, N. / Maner, Ç. / Kopanias, K. (éds.). Koç University Press, Istanbul, 2015, 81-113.

Peschlow-Bindokat, A., “Eine hethitische Großprinzeninschrift aus dem Latmos”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2001: 363-378.

Peschlow-Bindokat, A., “Die Hethiter im Latmos. Eine hethitisch-luwische Hieroglypheninschrift am Suratkaya (Beşparmak/Westtürkei)”, Antike Welt 33, 2002, 211-215.

Peschlow-Bindokat, A., Herakleia am Latmos: Stadt und Umgebung: eine karische Gebirgslandschaft (Homer archaeological guides 3). Homer Kitabevi, Istanbul, 2005.

Phythian-Adams, W. J., “Hittite and Trojan Allies”, Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 1, 1922, 3-7.

Poetto, M., L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’Anatolia sud-occidentale (Studia Mediterranea 8). Iuculano, Pavie, 1993.

Popko, M., “Hethiter und Ahhijawa: Feinde?”, in: Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer (StBoT 51), Cohen, Y. / Gilan, A. / Miller, J. L. (éds.). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2010, 284-289.

Raimond, É., “La problématique lukkienne”, Colloquium Anatolicum 3, 2004, 93-146.

Roosevelt, C., “Lidyalılardan Önce Lidya/Lydia Before the Lydians”, in: Lidyalılar ve Dünyaları/The Lydians and their World (Yapı Kredi yayınları 3055), Cahill, N. (éd.). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm bakanlığı kültür varlıkları ve müzeler genel müdürlüğü, Istanbul, 2010, 37-73.

Schachermeyr, F., Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v Chr. (Die ägäische Frühzeit 5). Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienne, 1982.

Schachner, A., “Gedanken zur Datierung, Entwicklung und Funktion der hethitischen Kunst”, AoF 39, 2012, 130-166.

Schmauder, M., “Troia/Wilusa – Ein bedeutender spätbronzezeitlicher Handelsplatz”, Praxis Geschichte 5, 2007, 40-44.

Schmitz, L., “On the so called Monument of Sesostris in Asia Minor”, Classical Museum 1, 1844, 231-237.

Schürr, D., “Zwei lydische Götterbezeichnungen”, Incontri Linguistici 34, 2011, 71-80.

Seeher, J., “Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrücken – Hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des herrscherlichen Macht- und Territorialanspruchs”, AoF 36, 2009, 119-139.

Siebler, M., Troia. Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Philipp Reclam, Leipzig, 2001.

Simon, Z., “Die ANKARA-Silberschale und das Ende des hethitischen Reiches”, ZA 99, 2009, 247-269.

Simon, Z., “Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht: Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen”, in: Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20-25 July 2008, Wilhelm, G. (éd.). Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 2012, 687-697.

Singer, I., “Purple-Dyers in Lazpa”, in: Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction. September 17-19, 2004, Collins, B. J. / Bachvarova, M. R. / Rutherford, I. (éds.). Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2008, 21-43.

Smolenski, T., “Peuples septentrionaux de la mer sous Ramsès II et Minéptah”, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 15, 1915, 49-93.

Sommer, F., Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1932.

Sommer, F., Aḫḫijavāfrage und Sprachwissenschaft (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 6). Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1934.

Starke, F., “Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend”, Studia Troica 7, 1997, 447-487.

Starke, F., “Ḫattuša, II. Staat und Grossreich der Hethiter”, Der Neue Pauly 5, 1998, 186-198.

Starke, F., “Kleinasien C. Hethitische Nachfolgestaaten”, Der Neue Pauly 6, 1999, 518-533.

Starke, F., “Mirā”, Der Neue Pauly 8, 2000, 250-255.

Starke, F., “Troia im Machtgefüge des zweiten Jahrtausends vor Christus. Die Geschichte des Landes Wiluša”, in: Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit, Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (éd.). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 2001, 34-45.

Starke, F., “Šēha”, Der Neue Pauly 11, 2001, 345-347.

Starke, F., “Wiluša”, Der Neue Pauly 12, 2, 2002, 513-515.

Steiner, G., “Die AḫḪḫiyawa-Frage heute”, Saeculum 15, 1964, 365-392.

Steiner, G., “The Case of Wiluša and Aḫḫiyawa”, BiOr 64, 2007, 590-611.

Steiner, G., “Namen, Orte und Personen in der hethitischen und griechischen Überlieferung”, in: Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Ulf, C. / Rollinger, R. (éds.). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 2011, 265-291.

Strobel, K., “Neues zur Geographie und Geschichte des alten Anatolien. Eine Einführung mit einem Beitrag zur hethitischen Geographie des westlichen Anatolien”, in: New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium B.C. (Eothen 16), Strobel, K. (éd.). LoGisma, Florence, 2008, 9-61.

Teffeteller, A., “Singers of Lazpa: Reconstructing Identities on Bronze Age Lesbos”, in: Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 64), Mouton, A. / Rutherford, I. / Yakubovich, I. (éds.). Brill, Leyde, 2013, 567-589.

Treuber, O., Geschichte der Lykier. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1887.

Ullmann, L., Movement and the Making of Place in the Hittite Landscape. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Columbia University, New York, 2010.

Ullmann, L., “The Significance of Place: Rethinking Hittite Rock Reliefs in Relation to the Topography of the Land of Hatti”, in: Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place, Harmanşah, Ö. (éd.). Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2014, 101-127.

Ünal, A., “Two Peoples on Both Sides of the Aegean Sea. Did the Achaeans and the Hittites Know Each Other?”, in: Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C. (Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 4), Takahito, H.I.H. M. (éd.). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1991, 16-44.

Vermeule, E., “Response to Hans Güterbock”, American Journal of Archaeology 87, 1983, 141-143.

Waelkens, M., “Sagalassos and Pisidia During the Late Bronze Age”, in: Sagalassos V: Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997 (Acta archaeologica lovaniensia 11.A-B), Waelkens, M. / Loots, L. (éds.). University Press, Louvain, 2000, 473-485.

Weber, G., “Neue Kämpfe um Troia. Genese, Entwickling und Hintergründe einer Kontroverse”, Klio 88, 2006, 7-33.

Weber, G., “Neue Kämpfe um Troia – Der Streit in den Medien”, in: Der Traum von Troia: Geschichte und Mythos einer ewigen Stadt, Zimmermann, M. (éd.). C. H. Beck, Munich, 2006, 165-178.

Welcker, F., “Mittheilungen aus Griechenland und Kleinasien”, Rheinisches Musseum für Philologie 2, 1843, 427-444.

Woudhuizen, F., “Stamp Seal from Beycesultan”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 40, 2012, 1-10.

Woudhuizen, F., “Geography of Western Anatolia”, in: Homère et l’Anatolie 2 (Kubaba Série Antiquité), Faranton, V. / Mazoyer, M. (éds.). L’Harmattan, Paris, 2014, 119-136.

Woudhuizen, F., “The Geography of the Hittite Empire and the Distribution of Luwian Hieroglyphic Seals”, Klio 97, 2015, 7-31.

Yakar, J., Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Monograph Series 17). Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv, 2000.

Exhibition Catalogues

Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (éd.), 2001: Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

Kelder, J. / Uslu, G. / Şerifoğlu, Ö. F. (éds.), 2012: Troy: City, Homer and Turkey. W Books, Amsterdam.

Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2002: Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter. Theiss, Stuttgart.

Latacz, J. et al. (éds.), 2008: Homer: Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst. Hirmer, Munich.

Audiovisual Sources

The Hittites: A Civilization That Changed the World, documentary, 120 min., production Cinema Epoch. Troja – Die wahre Geschichte, documentary, 45 min., production ZDF, first aired: 29th Dec. 2009.

Versunkene Metropolen: Brennpunkt Hattusa, documentary, 45 min., production: ZDF, first aired: 1st July 2007.

Notes

1 See Smolenski 1915 for an overview and e.g. the identification of Lukka and Lycia by de Rougé 1867: 96-97, the skepticism by Treuber 1887: 50, and the enthusiasm by Meyer 1928: 302, more generally see Mayer/ Garstang 1923; Hrozný 1929; Garstang 1941.

2 E.g. Luckenbill 1911; Phythian-Adams 1922; Forrer 1924a; Forrer 1924b; Hrozný 1929: 333-334; Barnett 1953; Page 1959: 97-117; Cornelius 1973: 40, 166, 218, 229, 263-274, 279-280, 343 n. 11, 346-348 n. 48, 49, 61; Schachermeyr 1982: 93-112; Huxley 1960: 29-48.

3 E.g. Vermeule 1983; Bryce 1986: 11-41; Hiller 1991; Börker-Klähn 1994: 319-323; Cline 1996; Cline 1997; Hansen 1997; Gindin 1999; Hansen 2000; Beekes 2002; Högemann 2004: 121-129; Raimond 2004: 93-94; Jasink/Marino 2007; Herda 2009: 31-60, 129-135; Latacz 2010. For a detailed view on the various name equations, though sometimes too critical, see Steiner 2011.

4 See preceding note and particularly, Högemann 2004; Herda 2009; Niemeier 2007: 60-90; Niemeier 2008a: 295-331; Niemeier 2008b: 16-21; Latacz 2010.

5 For an overview of the research see Steiner 1964; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 349-352; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 146-156; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004b: 196-210; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 29-36; Gander 2015.

6 As Forlanini 2012: 134 rightly pointed out, for this area of Anatolia it is too early to combine philological and archaeological evidence on a large scale, which would be the next important step. The combination of the two by Pavúk 2015: 95, 101-103 is clearly biased. The borders of the western Anatolian ceramic groups in his fig. 9, p. 95 agree just as well or even better with the reconstruction presented here than with the current one, see esp. the large group comprising the Hermos valley and the Aiolis (the area argued here to be Arzawa) and the one in the Meander valley (our Seha River Land).

7 For an overview of the controversy see Cobet/Gehrke 2002, Weber 2006a and Weber 2006b.

8 See in particular Latacz 2010 and Kolb 2010.

9 Particularly Starke 1997, but see also Starke 1998; Starke 1999; Starke 2000; Starke 2001a; Starke 2001b; Starke 2002.

10 Particularly Hawkins 1998, but see also Hawkins 1999; Hawkins 2002; Hawkins 2015.

11 E.g. Bryce 2003; Melchert 2003a: 5-7; Melchert 2003b: 37; Bryce 2005: 41-60; de Martino 2006; Klinger 2007: map; Strobel 2008; Bryce 2011; de Martino 2011: 181-187; Alparslan 2015 and various more.

12 E.g. Högemann 1996; Niemeier 1999: 141-155; Waelkens 2000; Yakar 2000: esp. 303-372; Benzi 2002: 355-360; Niemeier 2007: 37-96; Herda 2009; Breyer 2010: 334-338; Latacz 2010; Roosevelt 2010: 56; Teffeteller 2013; Pavúk 2015: esp. 95, 101-103 and others.

13 Brandau/Schickert/Jablonka 2004; Siebler 2001; Exhibition Catalogue: Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: das Volk der 1000 Götter, Stuttgart 2002, Exhibition Catalogue: Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart 2001, Exhibition Catalogue: Homer: Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst, Munich 2008, Exhibition Catalogue: Troy, City, Homer and Turkey, Amsterdam 2013. Even in various television documentaries only the geographical reconstruction of Hawkins and Starke was shown, see Versunkene Metropolen: Brennpunkt Hattusa; Troja – Die wahre Geschichte; The Hittites: A Civilization That Changed the World.

14 Schmauder 2007.

15 See e.g. Haider 2004; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c; Hertel 2008; Pantazis 2009; Heinhold-Krahmer 2013.

16 See e.g. Peschlow-Bindokat 2002; Herda 2009; Latacz 2010: 364-365; Woudhuizen 2015: 9; Oreshko, forthcoming.

17 Forlanini 2012: 133. Interestingly in recent years a more critical approach has gained more supporters, cf. the statements of Bryce 2007; Heinhold- Krahmer 2013; Hawkins 2013; Alparslan/Doğan-Alparslan 2015; Hawkins 2015: 30.

18 See above n. 9 and 10.

19 See Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c.

20 Starke 1997: 452.

21 Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 328-329, 337-340; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 162; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 46-51; Hawkins 1998: 22-23; Freu 2014: 84; Hawkins 2015: 26.

22 Following a suggestion by Houwink ten Cate 1992: 254 n. 28.

23 Starke 1997: 450 and 469 n. 14.

24 Poetto 1993: esp. 75-84, vitis(regio) – Wiyanawanda – Οι’νóανδα, (mons)Pa-tara/i – Pttara – Πάταρα, Lu-ka (regio)-zi – Λυκία, Pi-na-ala/i(urbs) – Pinali(ya) – Pinale – pnr – Πίναρα, A-wa/i+ra/i-na-’(regio) – Awarna – Arnña – ’wrn (– Ξάνθος), TALA-wa(regio) – Talawa – Tlawa – Τλῶς.

25 Starke 1997: 450.

26 Starke 1997: 450.

27 Gander 2010, Gander 2014 and Gander 2016.

28 Starke 1997: 450.

29 Starke 1997: 451.

30 Hawkins 1998: 2-10.

31 Hawkins 1998: 15, 23.

32 Hawkins 1998: 23.

33 Hawkins 1998: 2, 8 (my own emphasis).

34 The identification of Mira with Beycesultan by Woudhuizen 2012 and Woudhuizen 2015 on account of an Middle Bronze Age stamp seal found there, is not convincing. The seal does not bear a hieroglyphic inscription. The hieroglyphic script did not exist at this early date, see Güterbock apud Mellaart/Murray 1995: 119.

35 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004; Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011.

36 Arnold/Neff/Bishop 1991: 85: “Ethnographic data from a worldwide sample of resource distances have demonstrated that most potters travel no more than 7 km to obtain their raw materials, and many go no more than 1 km.” Cf. also the recent results concerning pottery and bullae found in Hattusa by Hashimoto et al. 2013; Grave/Kealhofer 2014.

37 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 694.

38 Mommsen, e-mail from 8.7.2015.

39 Mommsen, e-mail from 8.7.2015.

40 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 686.

41 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 694, Mommsen e-mail from 8.7.2015.

42 Goren/Mommsen/Klinger 2011: 686.

43 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004: 47.

44 Artzy/Mommsen/Asaro 2004: 45-46.

45 See Kerschner 2002: 84-92.

46 See Kerschner 2006: 115: “The pottery workshops of provenance group G/g were situated most likely at Kyme. Neighbouring Larisa may possibly have had a share in G/g, too.” and Kerschner/Mommsen 2004-2006: 90: “... ist der Schluss unausweichlich, dass die Herkunftsgruppe G in der äolischen Polis Kyme zu lokalisieren ist.

47 For the Arzawa letters EA 31 and 32 see Hawkins 2009.

48 KUB 23.11 II 1-12 // KUB 23.12 1’-3’, see Carruba 2008: 34-37. Stefano de Martino informs me that he thinks “that the Seha River land did not reach the coast when Arzawa was alive. Thus it is possible that Tarhundaradu resided in a town of northern Ionia when the EA letter was written.” (e-mail from 27.8.2015).

49 Kınal 1953: 19; Goetze 1957: 228; Laroche 1966: 272; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 345; Freu 1980: 276, 286-289; Forlanini/Marazzi 1986: map; Freu/ Mazoyer 2008: 112-113; Freu 2008a: 126; Freu 2008b: 92; Gander 2010: 208; Freu 2014: 84; Woudhuizen 2014: 121 n. 367; Woudhuizen 2015: 10; Gander, forthcoming.

50 Of course it would be best to compare only pottery found in a kiln or mud bricks, since only then we can be sure that the clay actually stems from the area (kind reference by Stefano de Martino, e-mail from 27.8.2015).

51 The rediscovery of this relief, already known to Herodotus (Hdt. II 106) is usually assigned to the Rev. George Cecil Renouard and dated to 1839 (e.g. Friedrich 1937: 383; Bittel 1939-41: 181; Hawkins 1998: 4 n. 14) however, it seems that already in or before 1817 Renouard and Thomas Burgon had visited Karabel, cf. the letter of Rev. Henry John Rose apud Schmitz 1844: 230-232. Renouard’s stay in Smyrna is usually dated to 1810-1814, see Boase/Matthew 2006. Also Lepsius knew already in January 1838 of the relief, see Lepsius 1840: 39. Before that various unnamed travelers had visited it or heard about it, see MacFarlane 1829: 464 and Welcker 1843: 430-432.

52 For a northerly location: Curtius 1876: 51; Güterbock 1967: 70-71; Bittel 1967: 22-23; Haider 1997: 107; Haider 1999: 673; Pantazis 2009: 297; for a southerly location: Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 48 with n. 38, Gurney 1992: 221 and Starke 1997: 451.

53 Hawkins 1998: 24. See also Welcker 1843: 430: “Die Felswand, in welcher die Figur eingehauen ist […] zur rechten Seite des Wegs, nicht weit von dem Ausgange des herrlichen Engpasses der gegen anderthalb Stunden diesseits von Nymphi ausläuft.

54 See Bittel 1939-41: 186: “Der Blick des Wanderers […] fällt sofort nach Überschreiten der Passhöhe unmittelbar auf die breite Felswand mit dem Relief. (My own emphasis).

55 However, on the (in)visibility of the Hittite rock reliefs, see now Ullmann 2014.

56 Hawkins 1998: 24: “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.

57 Curtius 1876: 50.

58 Güterbock 1967.

59 Güterbock 1967: 70-71: “Von den zwei Möglichkeiten, daß der Block B erst in nachhethitischer Zeit von einem ursprünglich Platz auf der Berghöhe ins Tal gerollt oder aber an seiner jetzigen Stelle im Tal bearbeitet worden sein kann, hat schon Bittel [i.e. Bittel 1939-41: 186, 193 n. 33] die zweite bevorzugt, ohne allerdings die erste ganz auszuschließen. Jetzt ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß beide Blöcke so von oben herabrollen, daß sie nebeneinander und beide aufrecht, mit der Schrift und Skulptur in ursprünglicher Richtung unten ankommen, so gering, daß man sie ausschalten muss. Beide Steine, B und C, lagen also schon im Tal, als die alten Steinmetze sie bearbeiteten”. See also Kohlmeyer 1983: 20.

60 Güterbock 1967: 68, Kohlmeyer 1983: 23 and Hawkins 1998: 9.

61 Curtius 1876: 50-51, Güterbock 1967: 70-71 and Bittel 1967: 22-23.

62 For the function of Hittite rock reliefs see now Ullmann 2010, esp. 241-244 (for Karabel) and Ullmann 2014, but cf. also Simon 2012: 687-689.

63 Seeher 2009: 122-124 and 134-136.

64 Oreshko 2013: 346 and Herbordt 2001.

65 Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 366, Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 214 and Peschlow-Bindokat 2005: 88-89.

66 See also Schürr 2011: 72-73 n. 14.

67 Harmanşah 2015: 114-116.

68 See below n. 82.

69 Herbordt 2001: 372-376.

70 Herbordt 2001: 375; Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 366; Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 212-213; Peschlow-Bindokat 2005:84-89.

71 Bryce 2005: 475-476 n. 58; Ehringhaus 2005: 92-94; Forlanini 2007: 285; Freu/Mazoyer 2008: 187; Niemeier 2008a: 301; Strobel 2008: 20; Herda 2009: 48 n. 116, 52, 55 n. 145, 66, 70; Seeher 2009: 130; Latacz 2010: 364; Freu 2014: 80.

72 Cf. Herbordt 2001: 375.

73 See the comment by Schürr 2011: 72 n. 14. More cautious about the identification of Ku-x-ia and Kupantakurunta already Pantazis 2009: 298-299; Glatz/Plourde 2011: 52; Hawkins 2013: 15; Hawkins 2015: 21.

74 Herbordt 2001: 375. For the usual forms of PA see Laroche 1960: 177, no. 334.

75 Herbordt 2001: 375.

76 Oreshko 2013: 355-356.

77 Malkaya see Hawkins/Weeden 2008: 244-245, the sign is further attested in Tarsus 4 and 5 and SBo II 127.

78 Its identification as kuni(ya) by Oreshko 2013: 357 is possible, but no more than that.

79 As has been done e.g. by Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 212-213, Herda 2009: 52 and Latacz 2010: 364-365.

80 See the argument of Hawkins 2001: 174 n. 33 concerning the seal BoHa 23, no. 16-18 with the inscription rex+filia magnus: “Here the Hieroglyphic title is probably better understood as ‘Great Daughter of the King’ i.e. ‘Great Princess’, rather than ‘Daughter of the Great King’, where the writing of ‘Great’ over ‘King’ (magnus + rex + infans (+femina)) would be expected”, cf. also Otten 1995: 14, 34 Abb. 14-20, Herbordt/Bawanypeck/ Hawkins 2011: 70-71, 112-115, no. 16-18, but see Simon 2009: 264 n. 31.

81 For the title of Urhi-Teššup see Hawkins 1999; Herbordt 2005: 204-205 no. 504-508; Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005: 278, 306; Hawkins apud Herbordt/Bawanypeck/Hawkins 2011: 95-96.

82 The supposition by Oreshko 2013: 400-409, who assumes a local origin and tradition of the western Anatolian hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions cannot be addressed in full here, but in my opinion clearly goes too far. At least in Karabel and Torbalı the inscriptions are accompanied by reliefs which show a strong Hittite influence. The appearance of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions along with the representation in Hittite style strongly speak for a close relationship between these monuments and the art and traditions of the Hittite Empire, cf. also Ullmann 2010: 244-245 concerning Karabel, Akpınar and Suratkaya: “What is interesting about these two carvings and the one at Karabel is that aside from using Luwian hieroglyphic script and similar iconography as in the core region, there is also an attempt to situate the carvings in a way that was similar to the practices in north- central Anatolia. The carvings and their placement emphasize that a Hittite identity based on the use of space and place did exist and was practiced in the core and periphery.

83 Hawkins 2015: 21. Cf. Hawkins 2013: 15.

84 See Schürr 2011: 72 n. 14.

85 Oreshko 2013: 365-366.

86 Of these specific names only Miramuwa is attested, see Laroche 1966: 119 no. 807, however the formation of toponym + ziti or toponym + Kurunta/Runtiya is well attested, cf. Laroche 1966: 262-279 and 282-283. Anthroponyms containing the element Mira- (be it the toponym or not) are also attested in later periods, particularly in Pamphylia and Cilicia, see LGPN 5B: 298, s.v. Μιρας, Μιρασητας and Μιρασητιανή (kind reference by Diether Schürr).

87 Cf. Herbordt 2005: 392-393; Dinçol/Dinçol 2008: 81-89.

88 So also Hawkins 2015: 21.

89 Karabel C was found in 1940, see Güterbock 1967: 63-64. The LATMOS inscriptions were found in 2000, see Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 363 and Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 211.

90 Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 2.

91 Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 2-4.

92 Reading of the inscription according to Tekoğlu apud Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 22-25: magnus.rex Tar[kasna?]-wa/i Mi+ra-a reg[io] *24-pa [] SUPER? CAPERE[…].

93 See the ideas of Hawkins 1998: 18-21; Starke 1998: 193-194; Starke 1999: 531; Starke 2000: 251-254.

94 Oreshko 2012: 663-665; Oreshko 2013: 373-381; Forlanini 2012: 134.

95 Schachner apud Işık/Atıcı/Tekoğlu 2011: 11 n. 62 “Die Stele von Karakuyu aber ist ein Beispiel echt hethitischer Monumentalkunst. Deshalb würde ich das Relief noch in das ausgehende 13. oder früheste 12. Jh. datieren, also in eine Zeit, in der die hethitische Kunst ihren stärksten Einfluss auf Anatolien hatte. Cf. also Schachner 2012: 152.

96 The identification of Lazpa with Lesbos, though convincing, is not entirely certain and mostly based on the phonetic similarity between the two names. It is, however, almost universally accepted today, but see Steiner 2007: 592; Freu 2008b: 124; Steiner 2011: 266, 270-271.

97 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 51, 53, 63; Starke 1997: 453-454; Singer 2008: 21; Hoffner 2009: 293; Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 144.

98 For Piyamaradu see Heinhold-Krahmer 1983, Heinhold-Krahmer 1986 and Heinhold-Krahmer 2005.

99 Usually this Kassu is connected also to the attack on Wilusa, see Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 175 Anm. 237 and Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 41. However, it seems that Kassu’s arrival pressed Kupantakurunta to intervene in the conflict, see Gander 2010: 173-174.

100 For the first line two translations are given, since they are both possible, but differ in sense, the first is taken from Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 141, the second from Hoffner 2009: 294.

101 See e.g. Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 141.

102 See e.g. Hoffner 2009: 294; similarly Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 40 “When [Piym]aradus had humiliated me, he set Atpas [agai]st me(?): he (Piyamaradus or Atpas) attacked the country of Lazpa. The hesitation of Houwink ten Cate as to the agens of the last sentence seems unjustified. Nothing seems to indicate a change of the subject.

103 Similarly de Martino 2006: 169.

104 Singer 2008: 21, 32.

105 Singer 2008: 31-32.

106 See now Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 192-195.

107 Cf. preceding note.

108 See also Woudhuizen 2015: 10.

109 Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 163-164 and Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 51.

110 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 46.

111 Houwink ten Cate 1983-84: 46.

112 KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79 I 7-8, see Houwink ten Cate 1983-84, 39-40, Hoffner 2009: 294 and Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 140-143.

113 See Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: “Piyamaradu inflicted a humiliating defeat upon Manapa-Tarhunta, and then appointed his son-in-law Atpa as his superior, thus the de facto ruler of his kingdom”.

114 See above I.2.

115 Translation after Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 29.

116 See also the discussion in Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 97-99.

117 Forrer 1924b: 113 and Forrer 1926: 45.

118 Sommer 1932: 307-313.

119 Götze 1933: 234-237.

120 S. e.g. Kınal 1953: 16; Garstang/Gurney 1959: 84-85; Cornelius 1973: 177; Goetze 1975: 120-122; Ünal 1991: 31; Niemeier 1999: 150; Bryce 2005: 193; Waelkens 2000: 476; Niemeier 2008a: 315; Niemeier 2008b: 17; Freu 2008a: 82; Niemeier 2009: 15-16; Pavúk 2015: 91. See however Freu 2014: 92; Hawkins 2015: 22 who are very cautious.

121 Translation after Beckman/Bryce/Cline 2011: 39.

122 Sommer 1934: 89 n. 1 was quite sceptical about the restorations of Goetze and designated it as “sehr fraglich”.

123 Sommer 1932: 309.

124 See Freu/Mazoyer 2008: 29; Gander 2010: 152; Forlanini 2012: 139-140; Gander, forthcoming. Cf. also Popko 2010: 284-285 who, however, argues based on this evidence that Gulla and Malaziti are to be interpreted as Arzawan generals.

125 Stefano de Martino (e-mail from 27.8.2015) informs me that he thinks “that Uhha-ziti had already lost real control of the Meander valley when Mursili moved towards Milawanda (probably because of the rebellion of his subordinated local rulers such as Mashuiluwa), although he had not yet been fully defeated”. This is not impossible, however, we do not have any positive evidence for it.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Position of Karabel B in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Humann/ Curtius 1876: 50
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 194k
Titre Fig. 2: Position of Karabel B and C in relation to Karabel A as drawn by Bittel 1937-41: 184, Abb. 2 and Güterbock 1967: 64, Abb 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 142k
Titre Fig. 3a: View in southerly direction from the rock of Karabel
Crédits photo taken by the author
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 266k
Titre Fig. 3b: View in northerly direction from the rock of Karabel
Crédits photo taken by the author
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 235k
Titre Fig. 4: The rock shelter with the LATMOS inscriptions seen from below
Crédits photo taken by the author
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 285k
Titre Fig. 5: The inscription LATMOS 1
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 429k
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 818 octets
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 1,1k
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 774 octets
Titre Fig. 6: The inscription on the stele of Karakuyu-Torbalı
Crédits photo taken by the author
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 207k
Titre Fig. 7: Map of western Asia Minor with sites and regions mentioned in the text
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3522/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 250k

Auteur

Zurich University

© Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 2017

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access