Oreshko the Achaean Hides-final-libre

8122019 Oreshko the Achaean Hides-final-libre

httpslidepdfcomreaderfulloreshko-the-achaean-hides-final-libre 115

DOI 101515kadmos-2013-0002 Kadmos 2013 52(1) 19ndash33

Rostislav Oreshko

lsquoThe Achaean Hides Caged in Yonder

Beamsrsquo The Value of Hieroglyphic LuwianSign 429 Reconsidered and a New Light onthe Cilician Ahhiyawa

1 The Luwian-Phoenician bilingual CcedilİNEKOumlY was discovered in 1997 in a field ca30 km to the south of Adana and published by Tekoğlu and Lemaire three yearslatersup1 Although much shorter and more fragmentary than the KARATEPE bilin-gual CcedilİNEKOumlY closely follows it in lexica and phrasing a fact which enables one

to reconstruct a major part of the text almost completely In their historical con-tents the two texts are not wholly identical but here also demonstrate a remark-able concurrence The author of the CcedilİNEKOumlY inscription presents himself in thetext as wai+rai-i-ka- (w[r(y)k ] in Phoenician) and is in all probability identi-cal with the aacute-wai+rai-ku- (rsquowrk in Phoenician) mentioned in KARATEPE sect 2 asthe patron of Azatiwadasup2 Moreover the name of Mopsos (mu-ka-sa- in HLuwand mpš in Phoenician) whose appearance in KARATEPE (sectsect 21 58) engenderedmuch discussion about the possible connection of the Cilician ruling house with

the lsquoAchaean colonizationrsquosup3 is also present in CcedilİNEKOumlY W(a)rika claims to bethe descendant (INFANSNEPOS-si- in HLuw literally lsquograndsonrsquo (ham(a)si-))or to belong to the lsquoclanrsquo (rsquošpḥ in Phoenician) of Mopsos However there is onesignificant difference between the two bilinguals in CcedilİNEKOumlY the Luwian cor-

983089 TekoğlundashLemaire 2000983090 The authors of the editio princeps identify the author of the CcedilİNEKOumlY inscription withaacute-wai+rai-ku- of KARATEPE and both of them with Urikki mentioned in Assyrian sourcesnoting however the difficulties of bringing together the two hieroglyphic writings (TekoğlundashLemaire 2000 973ndash974) The identity of the referents of both HLuw names is generally accepted(eg Forlanini 2005 113 JasinkndashMarino 2007ndash2008 408ndash409 Hawkins 2009 165 Lanfranchi2009 128 BeckmanndashBrycendashCline 2011 265) but not without dissenting voices (Lipiński2004 119ndash123 and following him Yakubovich 2010 152ndash153) Although there are three graphicdiscrepancies in the CcedilİNEKOumlY writing of the name as compared with KARATEPE (absence of theinitial a- presence of an additional -i- specifying +rai and a-stem of the word) all of them caneasily be explained especially if one takes into consideration that the name is of foreign originas all scholars seem to agree The discrepancy observed in writings indicates rather that thetwo texts were composed in different scribal traditions a fact that has bearing first of all on therelative chronology of the inscriptions983091 For the literature on the Mopsos problem preceding the discovery of CcedilİNEKOumlY s Vanschoon-winkel 1990 with the literature on pp 199ndash200 (notes 1 and 2) For the recent literature s below



20 Rostislav Oreshko

respondence to the Phoenician lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym rendering the name of thecountry and the people ruled by W(a)rika and the lsquohouse of Mopsosrsquo is notlsquoAdanawarsquo as expected from KARATEPE (aacute-TANA-wai-(URBS)) but Hiyawa (hi-

ia-wai-(URBS)) As the Luwian part of CcedilİNEKOumlY demonstrates the phenomenonof aphaeresis which results in the name of Assyria appearing in the inscriptionas su+rai-(ia-)(URBS) and the name of the author of the inscription as wai+rai-i-ka- in contrast with aacute-wai+rai-ku- in KARATEPE the editors of the inscriptionreasonably concluded that hi-ia-wai- represents in all probability nothing elsethan the aphaeretic form of Ahhiyawa⁴ The latter is attested in the cuneiformHittite texts and refers according to the prevalent communis opinio in one wayor another to the Achaeans ie the Mycenaean Greeks and their country⁵ Theappearance of the name Hiyawa in CcedilİNEKOumlY has given a powerful new impetus

to the discussion of the Greek connection with the Cilician Mopsos which hadbeen practically exhausted after the thorough and sober analysis of the mate-rial presented by Jacques Vanschoonwinkel in 1990⁶ The evidence of CcedilİNEKOumlYhas been seen by many scholars as a corroboration of the view that both thereport of Herodotus transmitting the ancient name of the Cilicians as Ὑπαχαιοί (lsquomix-Achaeansrsquo according to Kretschmer⁷) and the Greek mythological traditionabout the lsquocolonization activitiesrsquo of the soothsayer Mopsos in Cilicia after thefall of Troy contain a kernel of truth and the latter might be indeed identical

with the Mopsos mentioned in both bilinguals⁸ However some others took thisevidence with a great deal of scepticism pointing out first of all that the nameHiyawa seems to be attested in Cilicia much earlier than the presumable comingof Achaeans in the early Iron Age and therefore its similarity with Ahhiyawa issimply a coincidence⁹ Indeed taken as it is ndash isolated slightly ambiguous andconfronted with some (seeming or real) counterevidence ndash the mention of Hiyawain CcedilİNEKOumlY appears to be at least inconclusive with regard to a putative coloniza-tion of Cilicia by Achaeans and the acceptance or rejection of its Aegean linksremains rather a matter of personal belief

983092 TekoğlundashLemaire 2000 981ndash984983093 This is not the place to go into details on the Ahhiyawa problematic in general A useful brief sum-mary with some basic bibliography can be found in BeckmanndashBrycendashCline 2011 1ndash6 and 267ndash283983094 Vanschoonwinkel 1990983095 Kretschmer 1933 222983096 Cf Forlanini 2005 111ndash114 Lemaire 2006 JasinkndashMarino 2007ndash2008 Oettinger 2008 andOettinger 2011 Hawkins 2009 165ndash166 Loacutepez-Ruiz 2009 Yakubovich 2010 151ndash156 Roumlllig 2011122 Singer 2012 459ndash461983097 Lane Fox 2008 206ndash226 Gander 2010 50ndash55 and especially Gander 2012 Hajnal 2011 247ndash249Simon 2011 259ndash260



The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign 429 Reconsidered 21

2 However one important consequence of the appearance in CcedilİNEKOumlY of hi-ia-wai- as the Luwian correspondence to Phoenician lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym seems tohave passed unnoticed It concerns the Luwian part of KARATEPE whose interpre-

tation due to the availability of the Phoenician counterpart and the long periodof study by different scholarssup1⁰ is frequently taken for granted as completelyestablished somewhat prematurely in fact As noted in the Phoenician part ofKARATEPE both lsquomq rsquodn lsquoplain of Adanarsquo and dnnym lsquoDanuniansAdaneansrsquo cor-respond indiscriminately to HLuw aacute-TANA-wai- (nine occurrences sectsect 2ndash6 2431 32 37) and only once Phoenician lsquomq rsquodn corresponds to HLuw aacute-ta-na-wai- (sect 37) The second sign of the sequence aacute-TANA-wai- listed under number 429in Laroche 1960 (henceforth 429) is taken to be a unique sign attested only inthe given inscription and only in the writing of the given toponymethniconsup1sup1

First of all on the basis of the Phoenician correspondence rsquodn and dnnym andadditionally on the assumption that aacute-429-wai- represents a graphic variant ofaacute-ta-na-wai the value of the sign 429 was already defined in the first publica-tion of the inscription by H Th Bossert as DANAsup1sup2 and to my knowledge neverquestioned However the issue whether aacute-429-wai- indeed simply represents agraphic variant of aacute-ta-na-wai- has been never seriously explored and the cor-rectness of this assertion is open to doubt On the other hand the discovery ofCcedilİNEKOumlY allows one to propose an alternative reading of the sign If in CcedilİNEKOumlY

lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym corresponds to Hiyawa then in KARATEPE which does notdemonstrate any trace of aphaeresis the same Phoenician words might theoreti-cally correspond to Ahhiyawa It is quite obvious that formally aacute-429-wai- fitsno worse as the writing for Ahhiyawa than that for Adanawa Consequently bothTANA and HIYA appear to be equally feasible as the reading for 429 The ques-tion is whether it is possible to find indications which would favour one or theother reading

3 One can start by pointing out several facts which to an extent discredit thehabitual reading TANA without however being fully conclusive First thephonetic sequence tana or dana is a very common one as in Luwian as inother languages It is attested fairly frequently in the extant HLuw corpus andis always written simply with two phonetic signs rendering the syllables tdaand na respectively For the sequence -ta-na- one can adduce the following exam-

983089 For the literature preceding Hawkinsrsquo edition in CHLI s Hawkins 2000 46ndash48983089983089 S Laroche 1960 223983089983090 S literature ibid




ples (ldquoVACUUSrdquo)ta-na-t- for tannatai- lsquoemptyrsquosup1sup3 (314)ha-sa-ta-na-ti-i (abl)lsquoby force()rsquosup1⁴ (ldquoVASrdquo)aacute-ta-na-sa-ma-ti lsquoby justicersquo attested in KARATEPE itself(sect 18) as well as the not quite clear 263-ta-na-sa

5 sup1⁵ CENTUM(-)ta-na-ti (abl)

and 187-kwai-ta-na-ti (abl)sup1⁶ As examples for the sequence -taacute-na- there are(DOMUSSUPER)ha+rai-sagrave-taacute-na-za (dat pl)sup1⁷ and aacute-taacute-na-wai-na-asup1⁸ and forthe sequence -tagrave-na- one can point out hu-pi-tagrave-tagrave-na-na (accsg)sup1⁹ In view of thisevidence is seems quite strange that one would use for this simple sequence nor-mally written phonetically a special sign in one and the only inscription A solu-tion would be however to assume that the sign 429 is either a logogram for thewhole stem underlying Adanawa or renders a longer phonetic cluster danawawith Aacute and WAI being only phonetic complements It would however remainunclear why then one has not taken the opportunity to use the sign in the writing

of the lexeme aacute-taacute-na-wai-na-a (KARKAMIŠ A13d sect 3) whatever it might meanOn the other hand in KARATEPE we have one certain phonetic writing for

Adanawa which as mentioned was claimed to be nothing more than an alterna-tive writing for aacute-429-wai- The relevant sentence (sect37) reads

|BONUS+RAI-ia-ma-la-ha-wai SOLIUM- MAI-ta |aacute-429-wai-saacute(URBS)|aacute-ta-na-wai-za-ha(URBS) TERRA+LA+LA-za

lsquoand the aacute-429-wai- and the plain of Adana(wa) dwelt peacefullyrsquo with thePhoenician correspondence being w-nḥt lb l-dnnym w-l-kl lsquomq rsquodn lsquo(and there

was) peace of heart to the dnnym and to all the plain of Adanarsquo It is noteworthythat in the Phoenician text there is a clear contrast between ethnicon dnnym andtoponym lsquomq rsquodn which one would expect also for the HLuw text It is true thatthe other two attestations of the latter Phoenician toponym seem to discredit thiscontrast and speak for the identity of aacute-429-wai- and aacute-ta-na-wai- giving asthe correspondence to gbl lsquomq rsquodn lsquoborders of the plain of Adanarsquo aacute-429-wai-niacute-

983089983091 KARKAMIŠ A11b+c sect 12 MARAŠ 8 sect 3 MARAŠ 1 sect 4 KARAHOumlYUumlK sect 3 KARKAMIŠ 12 sect 6983089983092 TELL AHMAR 6 sect 22 (cf also 314-sa-ta-na-ti in sect 6)983089983093 KARAHOumlYUumlK sect 17983089983094 Both in TELL AHMAR 6 sect 22 Substantiation of the slightly modified transliteration of somesigns in comparison with that of CHLI ( MAI instead of MI kwai instead of REL hu(wa) insteadof HWI and avoidance of the blank sign acute) is given in chapter 3 of my PhD thesis (Studies inHieroglyphic Luwian Towards a Philological and Historical Reinterpretation of the SUumlDBURGInscription Berlin 2012 pp 53ndash58) now in preparation for publication983089983095 KARKAMIŠ A11b+c sectsect 20 33983089983096 KARKAMIŠ A13d sect 3 It is noteworthy that formally the lexeme is completely identical withaacute-ta-na-wai-(URBS) of KARATEPE and one wonders whether it is not Adana (or Adanean) whichis meant Unfortunately the broken context does not permit one to define with certainty even thesyntactic function of the lexeme (cf Hawkins 2000 115ndash116)983089983097 BOYBEYPINARI 2 sect 7




zi(URBS) FINES+hi-zi (sect32) and to rsquorṣ lsquomq rsquodn lsquoland of the plain of Adanarsquo aacute-429-wai-za(URBS) (TERRA+LA+LA)waacuteiacute+rai-za (sect 6) However the discovery ofCcedilİNEKOumlY clearly demonstrated that Hiyawa lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym act as synonyms

and consequently the interchange between aacute-ta-na-wai- and aacute-429-wai- indifferent contexts should not necessarily require their formal (phonetic) iden-tity They can be only synonyms One should rather ask why would one use inone and the same sentence two different writings for the same word And whyhaving allegedly written Adanawa nine times as aacute-429-wai- one would switchover without any obvious reason and write it phonetically on the tenth time Amore logical explanation would be that in neutral contexts one used aacute-429-wai-lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym indiscriminately ndash as they are roughly synonymous ndash but inthe case when it was necessary to emphasize the contrast between the ethnicon

and the toponym standing side by side one would use two different words Thustaken by its face value the evidence of sect37 can be interpreted as in fact speakingagainst the identity of aacute-429-wai- and aacute-ta-na-wai-

4 Both considerations put forward above represent indirect negative argumentswhich are not very strong and could be bypassed if necessary However thereis in addition a more decisive positive argument for the interpretation of thesign 429 as HIYA which is produced by conducting a careful re-examination and

comparison of its graphical form The sign demonstrates an extraordinary graph-ical variability within the textsup2⁰ and appears in three different forms (s fig 1)sup2sup1

A B C

Fig 1 Three forms of the sign 429 in KARATEPE

The cage-like variant (A) represents the standard variant of the sign and is attestedin nine of twelve casessup2sup2 Variant (B) is attested two times in Hu (20 and 32 sectsect 4and 6 respectively) and the most deviant variant (C) is attested once at the begin-

983090 More precisely within two variants one the same text Hu (Lower Gate) and Ho (Upper Gate)983090983089 Cf Laroche 1960 223 Variant (3) given there as attested in 14acute (= Ho 14) is as far as I cansee erroneous since the relevant section of the text on Ho is completely broken off (cf Hawkins2000 49 and Ccedilambel 1999 pls 91 and 94)983090983090 Hu 10 14 22 125 154 162 198 and Ho 22 and 154 (sectsect 2 3 5 24 31 32 37 and Ho sectsect 5 and31 respectively)




ning of Ho (10 sect 2) Besides the structurally close but obviously different signs427 and 429 the known Hieroglyphic Luwian repertoire does indeed not seemto contain anything directly comparable with the principal variant of the sign

429 However the assumption that the sign might have the phonetic value HIYAleads one to compare the sign form with the signs having a close value The signHI (413) attested widely both in the Empire period and in Iron Age inscriptions(and used in the writing of Hiyawa in CcedilİNEKOumlY) has obviously nothing to dowith 429 In contrast the other sign having the same or a close value HIacute (306)hitherto attested in different forms only in the Empire period inscriptions dem-onstrates several remarkable points of similarity with 429 (s fig 2)sup2sup3

A B C D

Fig 2 Forms of the sign HIacute (306) A Standard variant B KARGA C SBo II 178 D ME 30c

Even if one takes the standard variant of HIacute attested on most of the seal impres-sions found in Hattusasup2⁴ it is not difficult to notice the structural similarity of thesign with the variant (B) of 429 both represent a row of vertical elements withthree-part segmentation Variant (B) of HIacute attested on the KARGA stelesup2⁵ shows

983090983091 Cf Laroche 1960 157983090983092 Besides SBo I 43 and 44 cited in Laroche 1960 157 (MAGNUS-hiacute-TASU-pa Urhi-Teššub)this variant of the sign is attested also on two seals published in Bittel et al 1975 nos 35 and36 (pp 68ndash69 PN La-hiacute ) on BoehmerndashGuumlterbock 1987 Kat 129 (pl XII) as well as on newseal impressions of Urhi-Teššub and on those of Henti (hiacute-ti-i(a)) from the Nişantepe archive(HerbordtndashBawanypeckndashHawkins 2011 Kat 521-523 and Kat 141 respectively) Variant (3) givenby Laroche as attested on the seal impression RS 1870 forming part of the title of Massana-Ura(s Ugaritica III fig 87 and pp 156ndash157) can hardly be HIacute The sign is rather a somewhat effacedSCRIBA and the sign above it is BONUS983090983093 S Gelb 1939 pl LV Contra Laroche 1960 157 and Meriggi 1975 309 the preserved part of theepigraph can be read rather as [ MA] RAI ()-[-]ta(URBS) la-hiacute MAGNUSDOMUSMANUS Thesequence la-hiacute represents the same PN as attested on Bittel et al 1975 nos 35 and 36 on the sealimpression from Emar ME 30c and in the later corpus as Ila-hi-ia- (KULULU lead strip 3 register1) and stands just before the title (the dextroverse orientation of the latter is indicated by thepreserved part of MANUS the sinistroverse orientation of la in la-hiacute is apparently a scribal lapsehe has forgotten to switch the direction after the passage to the next line) The sign ASINUS TA represents only the last sign of the city name The traces before it can be identified tentatively asthe lower part of MARAI (462) and it is not excluded that there were some further signs above




that the central fat part of the sign could have a different shape and that the lsquocogsrsquoseen of the variant (A) can mutate into horizontal lsquostrapsrsquo binding three centralelements which explains the development of the horizontal lines of the variant

(A) of 429 Variant (C) of HIacute attested on SBo II 178 clearly demonstrates how theupper lsquohooksrsquo of variants (A) and (B) of the sign could develop into circles repre-sented in the variant B of 429 But especially illuminating is the most unusualvariant of HIacute (D) attested on a seal impression from Emar (ME 30c)sup2⁶ its inter-pretation being warranted by the cuneiform counterpart of the hieroglyphicepigraph (HLuw La-hiacute ) I La-hiacute-ia The sign looks quite different from its Empireperiod counterparts from central Anatolia but it is strikingly similar to the stand-ard variant of 429 representing thus a lsquobridgersquo between it and the variant (C) ofthe same sign with only four circles As far as one can judge in this variant we

have a development of the bottle-like central part seen in variant (B) of HIacute intotwo circles It is also noteworthy that this variant is found in Syria ie muchcloser geographically to the find spot of KARATEPE than Hattusa Thus takinginto consideration the basic structural similarity of HIacute and 429 and all the differ-ent forms they could assume there seem to be all grounds for the conclusion thatgraphically 429 represents nothing other than the late regional development ofthe Empire period sign HIacute Then the main stages of development of the sign canbe represented graphically as follows

Fig 3 Presumable evolution of the sign HI(YA) (429=306)

It is not difficult to demonstrate that the original and fuller phonetic value of thesign HIacute was precisely HIYA as assumed above for 429 First as noted the cunei-

ASINUS If MARAI is the first sign of the city name one wonders if the city name cannot refer toMarista or Marassantiya toponyms thinkable for the region where the stele was found983090983094 Gonnet 1991 206 and pl VI (no 72c) It is not quite clear to me why Gonnet gives both theoriginal photo and her drawing upside down preferring to read the signs lsquodu bas vers le hautrsquoIt is also noteworthy that LA and HIacute seem to have been written in ligature The upper tips of HIacuteobviously terminated originally with the same lsquohooksrsquo as the other variants of the sign




form counterpart of the hieroglyphic La-hiacute on ME 30c is I La-hiacute-ia There is clearlyno space on the seal impression to accommodate the restoration of the sign I(A) there as Gonnet proposed and one has to conclude that the sign HIacute alone renders

both last syllables of the namesup2⁷ The same conclusion is implied by the fact thatthe same name appears in the later writing as Ila-hi-ia- (KULULU lead strip 3 reg-ister 1) giving the same equation HIacute = hi-ia as suggested by CcedilİNEKOumlY-KARATEPEcorrespondence hi-ia-wa = (aacute-)429-wai-sup2⁸ As a result the entry of the Larochersquossign list 429 has to be merged to 306 and the phonetic value HI(YA) can now beascribed both to HIacute and the former TANA

5 In conclusion of the epigraphic analysis it is appropriate to add several con-siderations concerning the etymology of the sign HI(YA) As stated the value of

the second sign in aacute-hi(ya)-wai-(URBS) is most probably simply phonetic HI(YA)However there is also an alternative slightly different possibility of interpreta-tion implied by the nature of HLuw writing which uses the same signs both inphonetic and logographicideographic function The question remains why hasthe Empire period sign HI(YA) been preserved only in the writing of the name ofAhhiyawa and appears in no other late inscription The answer that the phoneticcluster hiya it renders is very rare (the simple phonetic writing -hi-ia- is foundelsewhere indeed only in the already cited Ila-hi-ia- and CcedilİNEKOumlY) does not seem

to me fully satisfactory More likely would be the interpretation that the sign ismore intimately connected with the name Ahhiyawa itself ie it is in fact a logo-

gram rendering metaphorically the whole underlying stem or a major part of it Inthis case WAI and Aacute would be phonetic complements While Ahhiyawa taken asa whole seems to have no assonant stems in Luwian or Hittite for the part hiyawa there can be found in Hittite a rather obvious assonant stem hēu-hēyaw- lsquorainrsquowith the derivative hē(ya)waniya- lsquoto rainrsquo almost exactly corresponding to theaphaeretic form of the adjective ahhiyawanai- common in KARATEPEsup2⁹ Sincethe lexeme for lsquorainrsquo belongs to the most basic vocabulary there is every reasonto assume that the stem hēu-hēyaw- would be present in Luwian in the identical

983090983095 Gonnet 1991 206983090983096 It is not clear whether in the two other cases in the writings of the names of Urhi-Teššub andHenti (s above fn 24) the sign should be interpreted in the same way and thus possibly reflectsthe original form of these Hurrian names (Hiyanti and Urhiya-Teššub) or it was chosen forsome other (eg aesthetic) reasons The assumption of the form urhiya- as original seems to besupported by the Hurrian names Urhiya and Urhiyana (s Lebrun 2010 1 with fn 2)983090983097 It is noteworthy however that the Hitt cun writings for Ahhiyawa and for lsquorainrsquo are differentURUaḫ-ḫi-ia-(u-)wa vs ḫeacute-e-ia-wa-aš (gen sg) vel sim cf writings listed in del MontendashTischler1978 sv Aḫḫijawa and Kloekhorst 2008 sv hēu-




or very close form Pictographically the sign HI(YA) fits it seems fairly well for alogogram for lsquorainrsquo The vertical elements of the standard Empire period variantcan be naturally interpreted as streams of rain with the bulging parts hinting

probably on the separate drops In the Empire period variant (B) the middle partsseem to represent vessels through which the streams flow possibly lsquorain-drainsrsquoHitt hēyawalla- What is more significant in such a pictographic interpretationthe unusual development of the variant from Emar and the later developmentsof the sign become clear the circular elements are intended at all probability torepresent separate drops and the whole sign the multitude of drops rather thanstreams If the proposed interpretation is right then the sign can be ascribed thelogographic value of PLUVIA It is noteworthy that the proposed association ofthe name Ahhiyawa with hēu-hēyaw- lsquorainrsquo in the writing system also has some

bearing on the linguistic aspect of the problem of equation Ahhiyawa ~ ἈχαιϝοίThis association might have influenced the phonetic form which the foreign eth-nonym has assumed in Anatolian languages In particular it might be responsi-ble for the transformation of the middle cluster -αιϝ - into -iyaw- which representsone of the major issues concerning the equation Ahhiyawa ~ Ἀχαιϝοί

6 The reinterpretation of aacute-429-wai- as aacute-hi(ya)-wai- changes profoundlythe ethno-political and historical perspective of KARATEPE Instead of trivial

lsquoAdanawarsquo there prove to be nine attestations of the country name and ethniconaacute-hi(ya)-wai-(URBS) in the inscription which exactly corresponds to the Hittitecuneiform (KUR) URUAhhiyawa and only once there appears a narrower topo-graphical term lsquothe plain of Adanawarsquo (aacute-ta-na-wai- TERRA+LA+LA-) Ahhiyawahitherto lsquocaged in yonder beamsrsquosup3⁰ of the sign 429 now establishes itself as themain Luwian designation of the country and the people of Cilicia Pedias in the8th c BC Needless to say this sudden increase in the attestations of the CilicianAhhiyawa seriously impacts the lsquobalance of powersrsquo in the lsquoMopsos-questionrsquo(and to a degree also in the lsquoAhhiyawa-questionrsquo itself) and calls for a revision ofsome basic points of it Without venturing to re-address the whole complex of thequestions concerning Cilician Mopsos and Cilician Ahhiyawa I restrict myself tostating two clearest inferences of the proposed re-reading

First as the main and in fact the sole Luwian designation of the countrycomprising all or a substantial part of Cilicia Pedias Ahhiyawa proves obviouslyto be the counterpart of the contemporary Assyrian name of the same region

983091 The citation is taken from the English translation of the Aeneid (Verg A 245 hoc inclusiligno occultantur Achivi) by Theodore C Williams




QaweQuesup3sup1 In view of this identity in meaning the idea of the etymological con-nection between the names QaweQue and Ahhiyawa proposed ndash quite presci-ently ndash long ago by Kretschmersup3sup2 and resuscitated recently by the discovery of

Hiyawa in CcedilİNEKOumlYsup3sup3 now obtains solid support but of course not quite inthe sense intended originally by Kretschmer (who argued for the location of theBronze Age Ahhiyawa in Cilicia) Despite the fact that the details of the process arenot obviously clear we ought to postulate the development Ahhiyawa gt Hiyawa gtQawa gt Que The question is what is the transitional form from Hiyawa to QawaWhile the rendering of the Luwian velar fricative x in Assyrian by the stop qposes no problems the development of the vocalic cluster -iya- gt -a- does not rep-resent something usual since the expected result would be rather -i- Even if weassume that the writings aacute-hi(ya)-wai- or hi-ya-wai- render something like (a)

xyawa- this would not solve the problem since the development of the clusterxy to q is unknown and looks unlikely on phonological groundssup3⁴ A morelikely interpretation would be to assume that aacute-hi(ya)-wai- or hi-ya-wai- conceala form with the first open vowel ie something like (a)xeyawa or (a)xēyawaThe interpretation (a)xeywa cannot be excluded as well Needless to say thephonological interpretation he is no less possible for both HI(YA) and HI than hisup3⁵ Such a phonological interpretation would be concordant both with the factthat such a form is arguably closer to the original Ἀχαιϝοί and with the assump-

tion that the nucleus of the stem of Ahhiyawa was possibly associated folk-ety-mologically with lsquorainrsquo (Hitt hēu-hēyaw- lsquorainrsquo s above) Under assumption thatthe Luw form of the ethnicon was (a)xeyawa it is not too difficult to envisagea synharmonic development -eya- gt -aya- gt -aa- gt -ā- If the form was (a)xeywa(which is closer to Ἀχαιϝοί) we could assume the disappearance of the glide -y- in pre-consonantal position and synharmonic levelling Qewa gt Qawasup3⁶

983091983089 For a survey of Assyrian sources s Hawkins 2000 41ndash43 and Hawkins 2006ndash2008983091983090 Kretschmer 1933 233ndash238983091983091 TekoğlundashLemaire 2000 984983091983092 Cf similarly Simon 2011 261 fn 19983091983093 Cf the writing of the name Henti (cun f Ḫeacute-en

6-ti-i) by HLuw hiacute-ti-i(a) (cf HerbordtndashBawany-

peckndashHawkins 2011 69) The reading Henti and not Hinti is however a matter of conventionsince the value of the vowel is not clear in the absence of plene writing For the phonetic valueof HI cf eg the writing hi-pa-tuacute (GUumlRUumlN sect 1) for Hebat (cun D Ḫeacute-paacutet ) for which an openrealization of the first vowel (e or aelig) is corroborated by the Empire period HLuw writingha-pa983091983094 One can also notice that the alleged connection of QawaQue with Qode mentioned in BronzeAge Egyptian sources has convincingly been refuted in Simon 2011 recently




7 The second implication of the mass appearance of Ahhiyawa in KARATEPE ismore significant Now there is no more place for doubts that Hiyawa of CcedilİNEKOumlYrepresents the aphaeretic form of Ahhiyawa Consequently due to the full and

impeccable phonetic correspondence which cannot be based on coincidencethis country name and ethnicon is to be associated with the Ahhiyawa of thecuneiform Hittite texts referring to the Mycenaean Greeks which is moreoveralso attested in the aphaeretic form Hiyawasup3⁷ As a result it is not possible anymore to maintain the view that the Cilician Hiyawa represents the name of a localcitycountry which only by chance resembles Ahhiyawa and has nothing to dowith it historicallysup3⁸ And yet in the hypothesis of the lsquoindigenous Hiyawarsquo inCilicia there remain a few important points to be elucidated

Besides general doubts concerning the possibility of deriving Ahhiyawa from

Ἀχαιϝοί by means of historical linguisticssup3⁹ one of the strongest arguments forHajnal against the connection of the Hiyawa of CcedilİNEKOumlY with Ahhiyawa was thefact that Hiyawa appears to be attested in Cilicia as early as the middle Hittiteperiod⁴⁰ Indeed in the Annals of Arnuwanda I (first half of the 14th c BC) in a listof settlements which also mentions URU Adaniya there appears a fragmentary cityname URU Ḫiya[hellip] (KUB 2321 obv II 6)⁴sup1 It was claimed that the most likely restora-tion of the latter name would be URU Ḫiya[wa]⁴sup2 The appearance of URU Adaniya andURU Ḫiya[hellip] in a relative proximity is indeed surprising and evokes immediately

KARATEPE with its juxtaposition of Ahhiyawa and Adanawa However there isan obvious and stark discrepancy in the Annals of Arnuwanda I it is manifestly

983091983095 S the full text of the two letters from Ugarit most recently published in BeckmanndashBrycendashCline 2012 253ndash262 (AhT 27A and 27B) In these two texts Hiyawa quite clearly refers not to theCilician Ahhiyawans but to the mainland Greece or Aegean Ahhiyawans (ie the MycenaeanGreeks) who have some (presumably trade) bases in Lycia (s already Singer 2006) If onebelieves that PADMEŠ indeed refer to metal (and not to food-rations) which looks extremelyplausible a scenario in which the Ugaritic ships are ordered for a Hittite emissary (Satalli) so thathe could organize the shipment of supposedly large quantities of metal to Lycia for the people

from Cilicia looks absolutely senseless Lycia quite clearly represents here a station on the wayfrom Ugarit to the Aegean used as the meeting point with the counterparty coming from thewest (or simply based locally) It is important to emphasize this fact once again since it seemsthat it has not been properly taken into consideration in some recent works when adducing theUgarit evidence in the discussion of the identity of the Cilician Hiyawa (Gander 2010 48ndash51 andfollowing him Simon 2011 259 Gander 2012 284ndash286)983091983096 For the literature in which this view is presented s above fn 9983091983097 Hajnal 2011 250983092 Hajnal 2011 251983092983089 For a recent new edition of the text s Carruba 2008 65ndash81983092983090 Carruba 2008 66 Yakubovich 2010 151 fn 92 Hajnal 2011 251




a settlement ndash a town or a village and moreover quite an insignificant onejudging from the fact that it is mentioned nowhere else in cuneiform corpus ndashwhile AhhiyawaHiyawa of KARATEPECcedilİNEKOumlY is the ethnicon and the county

name whose capital was at all appearances Adanawa⁴sup3 It seems to me difficultto propose any historically plausible scenario in which the name of a small townthat after its single mention in one text remained in complete oblivion for morethan 600 years and suddenly re-appeared as the name of the whole region ofCilicia Pedias and its people What is more there is no certainty whatever thatURU Ḫiya[hellip] should be restored as URU Ḫiya[wa]⁴⁴ The 8th c BC attestation of HLuwHiyawa cannot be used as a hint for a restoration since it represents a function-ally and chronologically different entity It is true that Hiyasna the only otherpossible candidate offered by cuneiform texts does not fit geographically⁴⁵ but

the very existence of another name beginning with hiya- is eloquent enough Inthe Cilician context it might be another Hiyasna since doublets of the names arenot rare in Anatolia and elsewhere or something else based on the same stemsuch as eg Hiyassa or Hiya(wa)nda Attested nowhere else in the contempo-rary Hittite sources as an Anatolian toponym Hiyawa possess no exclusive rightfor the place in the list⁴⁶

The second alleged indication on the existence of a Bronze Age Hiyawa inthe Cilician region is even less probative The localization of the land ḫw attested

once in a topographical list from the time of Ramesses II which was consideredby E Edel as the Egyptian form of the country name rendered by the Assyriansas QaweQue⁴⁷ and subsequently hailed as a plausible match to HLuw Hiyawa⁴⁸remains completely uncertain Its position in the list between rather obscure(despite Edelrsquos efforts) locality rsquortpḫ and the west Anatolian Arzawa hardly helpsto specify its location with any precision Needless to say the phonetic corre-

983092983091 This discrepancy violates quite obviously the principle of the lsquorelative funktionale Identitaumltrsquoinsisted on by Hajnal himself (Hajnal 2011 242)983092983092 Contra Carruba 2008 66 there is not the slightest trace of a sign after ia The tablet is simplybroken off there (s photos of the tablet on httpwwwhethportuni-wuerzburgde)983092983093 Cf Yakubovich 2010 151 fn 92 and Hajnal 2011 258 n 41983092983094 Even if the name of this settlement were Hiyawa this alone would still hardly proveits connection with Ahhiyawa of KARATEPE An equally possible interpretation would beto see in it a local name based on the stem hēu-hēyaw- lsquorainrsquo as probably is the name of amountain URSAG Ḫeacute-i-ia-x mentioned in KUB 4645 Rs14acute (s Gander 2012 286ndash287) cf numeroustoponyms in modern Turkey based on yağmur lsquorainrsquo Yağmurlu in the provinces of Bursa TokatKahramanmaraş and Manisa Yağmur near Amasya Yağmurlar in Manisa province etc983092983095 Edel 1975 64ndash65983092983096 Gander 2009 53 with fn 219 and Simon 2011 260




spondence between ḫw and Hiyawa is too slender to make a point of it Finallyit should be noted that the Egyptian designation of the Late Bronze Cilicia is wellknown it is ḳ(3)-3-w3-d-n which is the rendering of the most usual Hittite name

of the region Kizzuwadna There is hardly any reason to look in the Egyptiantexts for another name of the same entityThus the existing textual material does not provide any firm support for the

existence of a Bronze Age Cilician Hiyawa On the contrary on the basis of therevised evidence of KARATEPE one can now confidently assert that the Hiyawaof CcedilİNEKOumlY goes back indeed to Ahhiyawa the Hittite name for the MycenaeanGreeks Since the Hittite cuneiform texts provide persuasive enough evidencethat the Bronze Age Ahhiyawa should be sought on the western fringes of theHittite Empire ie basically in the Aegean and the mainland Greece and not in

Cilicia the appearance of Ahhiyawa in KARATEPE and CcedilİNEKOumlY as a designationof a local entity can be interpreted only as the result of a transfer of the term atsome point following the fall of the Hittite Empire at the beginning of 12th centuryBC The only way to explain the transfer of the name is to assume that it wasbrought by migrating people⁴⁹ However scarce is at present archaeological evi-dence for such an event one has no choice than to postulate that at some pointCilicia Pedias was conquered by the newcomers from Greece who gave subse-quently their name to this region which was kept long after the Aegean cultural

traits had been absorbed by the local Hurro-Luwian substratum

Literature

Beckman Gary ndash Bryce Trevor ndash Cline Eric 2009 The Ahhiyawa Texts AtlantaBittel Kurt ndash Guumlterbock Hans G ndash Neumann Guumlnter ndash Neve Peter ndash Otten Heinrich ndash Seidl

Ursula 1975 Boğazkoumly V Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und 1971 Ausgrabungen derDeutschen Orient-Gesellschaft und des Deutschen Archaumlologischen Institutes Berlin

Boehmer Rainer M ndash Guumlterbock Hans G 1987 Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von BoğazkoumlyGrabungskampagnen 1931ndash1939 1952ndash1978 (Boğazkoumly-Hattuša 14) Berlin

Ccedilambel Halet 1999 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions Volume II Karatepe-AslantaşBerlinndashNew York

Carruba Onofrio 2008 Annali Etei del Medio Regno (Studia Mediterranea 18) PaviaEdel Elmar 1975 Neue Identifikationen topographischer Namen in den konventionellen

Namenszusammenstellungen des Neuen Reiches in SAK 3 49ndash73

983092983097 It is noteworthy that this means that Ahhiyawa is first and foremost an ethnicon and not ageographical or political designation which once again corroborates the full validity of Forrerrsquosinitial equation Ahhiyawa = Ἀχαιϝοί




de Fidio Pia 2008 Mycenaean History in Duhoux Yves ndash Morpurgo-Davies Anna (eds) ACompanion to Linear B Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World Volume 1 (Bibliothegravequedes Cahiers de lrsquoInstitut de Linguistique de Louvain 120) Louvain-la-Neuve Paris andDudley 81ndash114

Forlanini Massimo 2005 Un peuple plusieurs noms Le problegraveme des ethniques au ProcheOrient ancien Cas connus cas agrave deacutecouvrir in Soldt Wilfred H (ed) Ethnicity in AncientMesopotamia Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre assyriologique internationale Leiden1ndash4 July 2002 Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Leiden 111ndash119

Gander Max 2010 Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Laumlnder HeidelbergGander Max 2012 Ahhiyawa ndash Hiyawa ndash Que Gibt es Evidenz fuumlr die Anwesenheit von

Griechen in Kilikien am Uumlbergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in SMEA 54 281ndash309Gelb Ignace J 1939 Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments (OIP 45) ChicagoGonnet Hatice 1991 Les leacutegendes des empreintes hieacuteroglyphiques anatoliennes in Arnaud

Daniel Textes syriens de lrsquoacircge du bronze reacutecent (AuOr Supplementa 1) Barcelona

198ndash214Hajnal Ivo 2011 Namen und ihre Etymologien ndash als Beweisstuumlcke nur bedingt tauglich in UlfChristoph ndash Rollinger Robert (eds) Lag Troia in Kilikien Der aktuelle Streit um HomersIlias Darmstadt 241ndash263

Hawkins J David 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions Volume I Inscriptions ofthe Iron Ages BerlinndashNew York

Hawkins J David 2006ndash2008 Que A Geschichte in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11191ndash195

Hawkins J David 2009 Cilicia Amuq and Aleppo New Light in a Dark Age in Near EasternArchaeology 724 164ndash173

Herbordt Suzanne ndash Bawanypeck Daliah ndash Hawkins J David 2011 Die Siegel der Grosskoumlnigeund Grosskoumlniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattuša (Boğazkoumly-Hattuša XXIII) DarmstadtndashMainz

Jasink Anna M ndash Marino Mauro 2007ndash2008 The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que KingdomDynasty in Archi Alfonso ndash Francia Rita (eds) VI Congresso Internazionale di IttitologiaRoma 5ndash9 settembre 2005 Rom 407ndash426

Kloekhorst Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon LeidenKretschmer Paul 1930 Zur Frage der griechischen Namen in den hethitischen Texten in

Glotta 18 161ndash170Kretschmer Paul 1933 Die Hypachaumler in Glotta 21 213ndash257

Lane Fox Robin 2008 Travelling Heroes Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of HomerLondonndashNew YorkLanfranchi Giovanni B 2009 A Happy Son of the King of Assyria Warikas and the Ccedilinekoumly

Bilingual (Cilicia) in Mikko Luukko ndash Saana Svaumlrd ndash Raija Mattila (eds) Of God(s) TreesKings and Scholars Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola FinnishOriental Society Helsinki 127ndash150

Laroche Emmanuel 1958 Eacutetudes sur les hieacuteroglyphes hittites 6 Adana et les Danouniens inSyria 35 263ndash275

Laroche Emmanuel 1960 Les hieacuteroglyphes hittites 1 Lrsquoeacutecriture ParisLebrun Reneacute 2010 Un haut dignitaire hittite agrave la cour de Ramesses II in Lebrun Reneacute ndash

Tavernier Jan Syro-Anatolica Scripta Minora VIII in Le Museacuteon 123Lemaire Andreacute 2006 La maison de Mopsos en Cilicie et en Pamphylie agrave lrsquoeacutepoque du Fer (XIIendash

VIe s av J-C) in Res Antiquae 3 99ndash107




Lipiński Edward 2004 Itineraria Phoenicia (OLA 127) LeuvenLoacutepez-Ruiz Carolina 2009 Mopsos and Cultural Exchange between Greeks and Locals in

Cilicia in Dill Ueli ndash Walde Christine (eds) Antike Mythen Medien Transformationenund Konstruktionen Berlin 487ndash501

Meriggi Pietro 1975 Manuale di eteo geroglifico Parte 22 Testi ndash 2a

e 3a

Serie Tavole ndash 2a

e3a Serie Romadel Monte Giuseppe F ndash Tischler Johann Die Orts- und Gewaumlssernamen der hethitischen Texte

(Reacutepertoire Geacuteographique des Textes Cuneacuteiformes 6) Wiesbaden 1978Oettinger Norbert 2008 The Seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a Historical Figure in Collins Billie

Jean ndash Bachvarova Mary ndash Rutherford Ian C (eds) Anatolian Interfaces ndash Hittites Greeksand Their Neighbours Oxford 63ndash66

Oettinger Norbert 2011 Invasion und Assimilation von Griechen in Kilikien Konsequenzen ausden Berichten uumlber MopsosMuksas in Matthaumlus H ndash Oettinger N ndash Schroumlder S (eds)Der Orient und die Anfaumlnge Europas kulturelle Beziehungen von der spaumlten Bronzezeit bis

zur fruumlhen Eisenzeit Wiesbaden 127ndash133Roumlllig Wolfgang 2011 raquoUnd ich baute starke Festungen an allen Enden auf den Grenzen laquoZur Bedeutung der Inschriften und Reliefs vom Karatepe-Aslantaş in Ulf Christophndash Rollinger Robert (eds) Lag Troia in Kilikien Der aktuelle Streit um Homers IliasDarmstadt 115ndash133

Simon Zsolt 2011 The Identification of Qode Reconsidering the Evidence in MynaacuteřovaacuteJana (ed) Egypt and the Near East ndash the Crossroads Proceedings of an InternationalConference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age PragueSeptember 1ndash3 2010 Prague 249ndash269

Singer Itamar 2006 Ships Bound for Lukka A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS

942530 and RS 942523 in AoF 33 242ndash262Singer Itamar 2012 The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of Taita in Galil Gershon ndashGilboa Ayelet ndash Maeir Aren M ndash Kahn Danacuteel (eds) The Ancient Near East in the 12thndash10th Centuries BCE Culture and History Proceedings of the International Conference held at theUniversity of Haifa 2ndash5 May 2010 (AOAT 392) Muumlnster 451ndash471

Tekoğlu Recai ndash Lemaire Andreacute 2000 La bilingue royale louvito-pheacutenicienne de Ccedilinekoumly inCRAIBL 2000 961ndash1007

Vanschoonwinkel Jacques 1990 Mopsos leacutegendes et reacutealiteacute in Hethitica 10 185ndash211 Yakubovich Ilya 2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language LeidenndashBoston

Rostislav Oreshko Universitaumlt Hamburg Archaumlologisches Institut Edmund-Siemers-Allee 120146 Hamburg DeutschlandE-Mail fauhsramblerru




respondence to the Phoenician lsquomq rsquodn and dnnym rendering the name of thecountry and the people ruled by W(a)rika and the lsquohouse of Mopsosrsquo is notlsquoAdanawarsquo as expected from KARATEPE (aacute-TANA-wai-(URBS)) but Hiyawa (hi-

ia-wai-(URBS)) As the Luwian part of CcedilİNEKOumlY demonstrates the phenomenonof aphaeresis which results in the name of Assyria appearing in the inscriptionas su+rai-(ia-)(URBS) and the name of the author of the inscription as wai+rai-i-ka- in contrast with aacute-wai+rai-ku- in KARATEPE the editors of the inscriptionreasonably concluded that hi-ia-wai- represents in all probability nothing elsethan the aphaeretic form of Ahhiyawa⁴ The latter is attested in the cuneiformHittite texts and refers according to the prevalent communis opinio in one wayor another to the Achaeans ie the Mycenaean Greeks and their country⁵ Theappearance of the name Hiyawa in CcedilİNEKOumlY has given a powerful new impetus

to the discussion of the Greek connection with the Cilician Mopsos which hadbeen practically exhausted after the thorough and sober analysis of the mate-rial presented by Jacques Vanschoonwinkel in 1990⁶ The evidence of CcedilİNEKOumlYhas been seen by many scholars as a corroboration of the view that both thereport of Herodotus transmitting the ancient name of the Cilicians as Ὑπαχαιοί (lsquomix-Achaeansrsquo according to Kretschmer⁷) and the Greek mythological traditionabout the lsquocolonization activitiesrsquo of the soothsayer Mopsos in Cilicia after thefall of Troy contain a kernel of truth and the latter might be indeed identical

with the Mopsos mentioned in both bilinguals⁸ However some others took thisevidence with a great deal of scepticism pointing out first of all that the nameHiyawa seems to be attested in Cilicia much earlier than the presumable comingof Achaeans in the early Iron Age and therefore its similarity with Ahhiyawa issimply a coincidence⁹ Indeed taken as it is ndash isolated slightly ambiguous andconfronted with some (seeming or real) counterevidence ndash the mention of Hiyawain CcedilİNEKOumlY appears to be at least inconclusive with regard to a putative coloniza-tion of Cilicia by Achaeans and the acceptance or rejection of its Aegean linksremains rather a matter of personal belief

983092 TekoğlundashLemaire 2000 981ndash984983093 This is not the place to go into details on the Ahhiyawa problematic in general A useful brief sum-mary with some basic bibliography can be found in BeckmanndashBrycendashCline 2011 1ndash6 and 267ndash283983094 Vanschoonwinkel 1990983095 Kretschmer 1933 222983096 Cf Forlanini 2005 111ndash114 Lemaire 2006 JasinkndashMarino 2007ndash2008 Oettinger 2008 andOettinger 2011 Hawkins 2009 165ndash166 Loacutepez-Ruiz 2009 Yakubovich 2010 151ndash156 Roumlllig 2011122 Singer 2012 459ndash461983097 Lane Fox 2008 206ndash226 Gander 2010 50ndash55 and especially Gander 2012 Hajnal 2011 247ndash249Simon 2011 259ndash260






























A B C









A B C D






































































Literature




































e 3a










































A B C









A B C D






































































Literature




































e 3a

































A B C









A B C D






































































Literature




































e 3a





















A B C









A B C D






































































Literature




































e 3a


















A B C D






































































Literature




































e 3a















































































Literature




































e 3a






































































Literature




































e 3a




























































Literature




































e 3a


















































Literature




































e 3a








































Literature




































e 3a






























Literature




































e 3a





















Literature




































e 3a









































e 3a



















e 3a













Documents

Oreshko the Achaean Hides-final-libre