¹ Hawkins, J. D. and Davies, A. Morpurgo, Of Donkeys, Mules and Tarkondemos (Mír Curad. Studies Calvert Watkins [Innsbruck, 1998], pp.243–260)Google Scholar.

² Güterbock, H. G., The Hittite seals in the Walters Art Gallery, no.4, the ‘Tarkondemos’ seal (Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 36 [1977], pp.11–16)Google Scholar.

³ Nowicki, H., Zum Herrschernamen auf dem sogenannten ‘Tarkondemos’-Siegel (Serta Indogermanica. Fs Günter Neumann [Innsbruck, 1982], pp.227–232)Google Scholar.

⁴ The necessity to emend the Cuneiform writing of Mira seems to have led to the assumption that the uncertainly read Cuneiform of the name could also be emended at will. But in fact our reading required virtually no emendation, just a small internal vertical in -ša- (not strictly necessary), and a small second diagonal for -na-.

⁵ Proposed new readings in bold type. The element tarkasna- is attested in the PN Tarkasnalli (Laroche, Noms, no. 1283), and the same word is apparently a common noun in Cun. Luwian texts (Starke, , StBoT 30, p.249Google Scholar [iii 1], also KUB XXXI, 71Google Scholar iii 14). The noun is spelled -ga-aš-ša-na-, while the PN is normally -ga-aš-na-, once -ga-aš-ša-na-.

⁶ The bullae Bo.388/z, 385/z, 386/z, 387/z, 1004/z were excavated in 1967 (i.e. /z) in a group with other bullae in the fill fallen into Magazine 32 in the Great Temple precinct. They were published by Güterbock in Bittel, et al. , Boǧazköy V [Berlin, 1975], pp.51–53Google Scholar; also Boehmer, —Güterbock, , BoHa XIV, nos. 263–4Google Scholar. Güterbock at once saw their importance to the Tarkondemos problem and also adduced his reading of KARABEL Cl published in 1967 (see below I.3.2 and n.16).

⁷ loc. cit., pp.249–255. The problem is tied up with the Late Hieroglyphic writings tarkasna- and tarkasni-.

⁸ loc. cit., pp.248ff.

⁹ Actual surviving royal seals of the Hittite kingdom are almost non-existent. The Ugarit seal of Mursili II is somewhat suspect (Salvini, , Syria 67 (1990), pp.423–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar, defending the piece, with bibliography of the doubts). The Louvre seal AO 29722 is an obvious forgery: published by Salvini, , Syria 67 (1990), pp.257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar; repudiated by Hawkins, , Syria 67 (1990), pp.735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Salvini, , Syria 67 (1990), pp.743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amiet, ibid., p.749 ff.; Salvini, , SMEA 29 (1992), pp.149–154Google Scholar.

¹⁰ KARABEL C1-2 inscriptions found by Güterbock in 1940, revisited in 1952, and again in 1966, when they were cleared photographed and squeezed, for publication in 1967: Güterbock, , Ist. Mitt. 17 [1967], pp.68–71Google Scholar, with pls.1.2, 2. For KARABEL B and C in general see Kohlmeyer, op.cit. (n.12), pp. 19–25; he saw them in 1977 but reports (p. 19, 3.2) that by 1982 they had been destroyed by road-building.

¹¹ The best kindly supplied by Dr. Hatice Gonnet, taken in April 1994.

¹² For previous attempts, bibliography, and a recent reconsideration, see Kohlmeyer, K., Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15 [1983], pp.12–28, 113–117Google Scholar Taf. 1–15. Cf. also Rossner, E.P., Die hethitischen Felsreliefs in der Türkei [2nd ed., 1988], pp.46–52Google Scholar.

¹³ Visits on two successive days, 11 and 12 September 1997, from 1–3p.m. and 8–11.30a.m. respectively. The sun does not reach the inscription until after 11a.m., being kept off latterly by the trees, which cast a dappled shadow between 10 and 11a.m. After that the light is fair but becomes flat in the early afternoon.

¹⁴ KARABEL A was discovered in 1839 by Renouard and published by Kiepert in 1843: see Messerschmidt, , CIH (1900), p.37Google Scholar (correct the date from 1859 to 1839 from Wright, , EH₂, p. 156Google Scholar). The Tarkondemos seal is said to have been bought in Izmir by an Istanbul merchant. It was first published by Mordtmann in 1863: see Messerschmidt, , CIH, p.42Google Scholar.

¹⁵ op.cit. (n.12), pp.19–21 with fig.5, 118f. Taf. 6, 7.3.

¹⁶ op.cit. (n.10), p.67f.

¹⁷ ibid., p.68f.

¹⁸ Asia [Istanbul, 1946], p.72Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See above, n.6.

²⁰ See above, n.2.

²¹ Manuale II/3, no.4–5, pp.261–263, Tav.I.

²² op.cit. (n.12), pp.21–25 with figs. 6, 7.

²³ Laroche, Noms, no. 1144, equating the Cun. PN^I.DLIŠ-^DKAL with Hier. sa+US-ka-CERVUS₂-ti attested on KÖYLÜTOLUYAYLA 1.3 and SBo II, nos. 8, 30, 67. Many new attestations of the name have appeared among the 1990/91 bullae from the Boǧazköy Nişantepe archive (see e.g. Neve, , Antike Welt 23, Sondernummer 1992, p.60Google Scholar Abb. 162, upper right). Note how the first element of the name is arranged in the angle formed by CERVUS₂ and -ti. Other such writings with the second element CERVUS₂-ti placed with CERVUS₂ standing in front of the first element include the names Sarpa-CERVUS₂, Huwa-CERVUS₂ and Halpa-CERVUS₂.

²⁴ Sources and bibliography recently summarized by Heinhold-Krahmer, S., RlA VIII/3–4 (1994)Google Scholar, s.v. Mira; attestations listed in del Monte, and Tischler, , RGTC VI (1978)Google Scholar, and VI/2 (Supplement, 1992), s.v.; fullest discussion in Heinhold-Krahmer, S., Arzawa (THeth 8; Heidelberg, 1977), pp.179–219Google Scholar.

²⁵ Goetze, A., Die Annalen des Mursilis (Leipzig, 1933), years 3–4 and 12Google Scholar. Ten-Year Annals, years 3–4: see now Grélois, , Hethitica IX (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988), pp.58–66, 677–83Google Scholar; Extended Annals, year 12, ten Cate, Houwink, Fs Meriggi 2 (Pavia, 1979), pp.267–292Google Scholar.

²⁶ Friedrich, J., Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches I–II (Leipzig, 1926, 1930Google Scholar), nos. 2, 3, 4 (Targ., Kup., Man.); recent translations with updated items of bibliography, Beckman, G., Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Georgia, 1996), nos.10–12Google Scholar.

²⁷ Friedrich, , SV II, no.5Google Scholar (Alakš.); Beckman, HDT, no.13.

²⁸ Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, pp.136–147, 211–219Google Scholar.

²⁹ Sources: Goetze, A., Madduwattaš (MVAeG 32/1; Leipzig, 1928Google Scholar); Otten, H., StBoT 11 (Wiesbaden, 1969Google Scholar); recent translation, Beckman, HDT, no.27. Kupanta-^DKAL is mentioned obv. 30, 45, 49, 55–57, 75–83, rev. 2, 43. His participation in the same events is reported in the annals of Arnuwanda I, where he is entitled LÚ ^URUar-za-u-wa (KUB XXIII, 21Google Scholar ii 16—iii 1). See also below, nn. 149, 151.

³⁰ For the geographical range, see below, V.5.2 and nn. 153–156.

³¹ e-di-iz-ma IŠ-TU KUR URU ŠAP-LI-TI LÚ KÚR ^URUar-za-u-wa-aš ú-it nu a-pa-a-aš-ša KUR.KUR^MEŠha-at-ti har-ga-nu-ut nu-z[a ^URU]tu-u-wa-nu-an ^URUu-da-an-na ZAG-an i-ia-at, ‘But from this side, from the Lower Land the Arzawan enemy came, and he too ravaged the Hatti lands and made Tuwanuwa and Uda his frontier’ (Decree for the hekur of Pirwa, , KBo VI, 28 obv. 8–9Google Scholar).

³² VBoT nos. 1–2. See recently Moran, W., The Amarna Letters (Johns Hopkins U.P., 1992Google Scholar), nos.31, 32 (translations and notes by V. Haas).

³³ nu ha-ad-du-ša-aš-ša KUR-e i-ga-it (VBoT 1, obv. 27); for egai-ligai-, ‘freeze, become paralysed’, see Puhvel, , HED 2 (1984)Google Scholar, s.v. eka-; Friedrich-Kammenhuber, , HWb² (II/9–10) (1988Google Scholar), s.v. egai-, igai-, rejecting the interpretation of Starke, , ZA 71 (1981), pp.221–231, esp. p.225Google Scholar, igait<ta>, ‘is at peace’; also Haas (loc.cit, preceding n.) points out, this is likely to be quite inappropriate to the contemporary political situation.

³⁴ The full greetings formula in ll.3–10 is normally found only in letters between Great Kings who are acknowledged equals: Hagenbuchner, (THeth 15, pp.49–55)Google Scholar, who terms it the ‘extended Amarna-formula’, states that Hittite scribes employed it exclusively in correspondence between equals, yet the only examples which she lists (p.51f.) in letters other than those written by Ramesses II are the present letter, one from Hattusili III to Kadašman-Enlil, and one from a Hittite king to Mashuitta, for which see below, IV.4.1 and nn.100, 101.

³⁵ DS frag. 15. The fragments of the Deeds relating to Arzawa are thoroughly reviewed by Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, Kap.IV; see there, pp.62–64.

³⁶ DS frags. 18–20, reviewed with additional material by Heinhold-Krahmer, op.cit, pp.64–72.

³⁷ ibid., pp.79–81.

³⁸ ibid., pp.72–74, with circumstantial references implying the existence of a treaty between Suppiluliuma and Uhhaziti.

³⁹ Evidenced by two fragments brought together by Houwink ten Cate as discussed by Heinhold-Krahmer, ibid., pp.76–79. That Hapalla was attacked from the Lower Land is important for its localization, for which inner Pisidia is indicated. A position south of the angle formed by the Karakuş and Sultan Daǧları would explain Hapalla's proximity to but separation from Kuwaliya and Pedassa: see below, V.5.2 and nn.153, 155.

⁴⁰ Basically still Goetze, , AM (1933)Google Scholar, comprehensively reviewed by Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, Kap. VA. The present summary is based on Heinhold-Krahmer's presentation of the evidence.

⁴¹ KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar i 23–26 = AM, pp.36–39; for the various interpretations of these fragmentary lines see Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, pp.97–100Google Scholar, prudently preferring that of Goetze.

⁴² Introducing year 3 in the Ten-Year Annals, preserved only in exemplar B, KBo XVI, 1 ii 29–40Google Scholar = AM, pp.38–41 (old line numbering). The passage is fragmentary but reference to these refugees recurs: Ten-Year Annals, , KBo III, 4Google Scholar ii 10–12 = AM, p.464; Extended Annals, , KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iii 27–33 = AM, p.52f. The group of refugee Hittite subjects Attarimma, Hu(wa)rsanassa and Suruta is of geographical significance: see further below, V.5.3.

⁴³ KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar ii 1–14 = AM, pp.44–49. The Ten-Year Annals which do not detail the itinerary replace the river Sehiriya with Mount Lawasa. For the significance of the itinerary, see below, V.1.

⁴⁴ Ten-Year Annals, only: KBo III, 4Google Scholar ii 22–32 = AM, p.50f. The historically very important recognition of gursauwananza as ‘islands’ (dat.plur.) is relatively recent: Starke, , KZ 95 (1981), pp.142–152Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ KBo III, 4Google Scholar ii 33–40 = AM, p.57f.; Extended Annals, , KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iii 34–50 = AM, pp.54–57 (description of Mount Arinnanda, ll.39–45 — for the significance for identification, see below, V.2.4 and n.130).

⁴⁶ Principally Ten-Year Annals, , KBo III, 4Google Scholar ii 47–82 = AM, pp.60–65.

⁴⁷ Ten-Year Annals, , KBo III, 4Google Scholar iii 10–21, parallel to more detailed Extended Annals, , KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iv 14–33 = AM, pp.66–73. A parallel but damaged account in the Manapatarhunda treaty is restored from the Annals account. For the location of this event at the north end of the Karabel pass, see below, V.4.3.

⁴⁸ Extended Annals, , KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iv 34–49 = AM, pp.72–75.

⁴⁹ Summarized in Ten-Year Annals, , KBo III, 4Google Scholar iii 23–26, more detail but broken in Extended Annals, , KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iv 50–54 = AM, pp.72–75; latter passage supplemented by join of KBo XVI, 104Google Scholar, Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, p.123fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ See above n.26, nos.2 (Targ.), 4 (Man.); no.3 (Kup.) dates to the installation of Kupanta-^DKAL in Mira in year 12 and accounts for the absence of a Mashuiluwa treaty (annulled). For these treaties see Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa pp.88–91, 130–135Google Scholar. The treaties also have useful reference to Mursili's settlement: e.g. Targ. §9 (Beckman, , HDT—§8Google Scholar), [nam-ma-z]a-kán ka-a-aš-ma ŠÀ-BI KUR-TI-IA 3 LÚ^MEŠEL-LU-TIM zi-ik ^Itar-ga-aš-na-al-li-iš^Imaš-hu-i-lu-w[a-aš…], ‘[Now] behold in my land there are three ‘free men’, you Targasnalli, Mashuiluw[a and Manapatarhunda]’; Kup. §3, exactly parallel to the Ten-Year Annals statement except for Mashuiluwa, KUR^URUmi-ra-a-ma KUR ^URUku-wa-li-ia A-NA ^Imaš-hu-u-i-lu-wa EG[IR-pa] AD-DIN nu-uš-ši É A-BI-ŠU ^GIŠGU.ZA A-BI-ŠU-ia [EGIR-pa] AD-DIN, ‘and the lands of Mira and Kuwaliya I gave [back ] to Mashuiluwa, and his father's house and his father's throne I gave [back] to him’ (Starke emphasizes the evidence of this passage that Mashuiluwa's claim was to the throne of Arzawa itself and that Uhhaziti was one of the usurping brothers — see below, n.57). Cf. also Man. §10 (Beckman, , HDT —§7Google Scholar).

⁵¹ Account in Kup. §§4–6, more detailed but broken in Extended Annals: see the reconstruction and comparison of texts by ten Cate, Houwink, Fs Meriggi 2 (1979), pp.267–292Google Scholar.

⁵² Kup. §4. Alakš. §17 (Beckman, , HDT— §14Google Scholar) explicitly states that Kupanta-^DKAL, thus also his father and uncle who adopted him, was of the Arzawan royal line: nu ^Iku-pa-an-ta-^DKAL-aš MÁŠ LÚ ŠA LUGAL KUR ^URUar-za-u-wa IŠ-TU MÁŠ MUNUS-TI-ma-aš ŠA LUGAL KUR ^URUha-at-ti, ‘Kupanta-^DKAL (is) (from) the male line of the King of Arzawa, and he (is) from the female line of the King of Hatti’.

⁵³ See below, V.2.2. and n.124, on the proximity of Mira and Pedassa.

⁵⁴ For the bearing on the location of Masa, see below, V.8.6–7.

⁵⁵ Kup. §8, esp. ll.C27–28, ZAG^HI.A-uš-ma A-NA PA-NI PÉŠ.TUR-wa ma-ah-ha-an e-šir ki-nu-na-ia-at tu-uk QA-TAMMA a-ša-an-du, ‘as the frontiers were in the time of Mashuiluwa, so now let them be for you’.

⁵⁶ See above, n.50.

⁵⁷ See above, n.28. Starke now puts a somewhat different slant on the same evidence, arguing that Mira itself was really the core of the state: Studia Troica 7 (1997), p.452Google Scholar with nn.44–46.

⁵⁸ To establish this she has to discard some restorations, which have been taken to show that Mursili established rump Arzawa as another ‘Arzawa land’ under Piyama-^DKAL, son of Uhhaziti, . In Alakš. §4Google Scholar, Friedrich, SV II, p.52 f. 1.A30, followed Forrer's restoration KUR ^URUar-za-u-w[a A-NA ^ISUM-ma-^DKAL ID-DIN…], ‘the land Arzawa [to Piyama-^DKAL he gave…]’, followed by ‘[Mira]-Kuwaliya [to Mashuiluwa, the Seha River land and] Abbawiya [to Manapatarhunda] and Hapalla [to Targasnalli].’ But Heinhold-Krahmer convincingly restored the alternative [nu-za ma-ah-ha-an] KUR ^URUar-za-u-w[a hu-u-ma-an tar-ah-ta…], ‘[When he had conquered the entire] land Arzawa’. Similarly another passage of Alakš. (§17: Beckman, , HDT— §14Google Scholar) was also restored with the name of [Piyama]-^DKAL, but this too is now to be rejected: see below, II.4.2 and n.68.

⁵⁹ Principally the relationship of Kupanta-^DKAL and Mashuiluwa to the royal line of Arzawa (above, n.52); the way in which Mira already seems to be part of Arzawa at the beginning of Mursili's campaign; and the greater importance accorded in the Arzawa treaties to the king of Mira over the other rulers. Mashuiluwa, is actually described as ‘man of Arzawa’ (AM, p. 140 1.56)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ By establishing that Mira, known to adjoin Hatti in the neighbourhood of Pedassa, Aura and the Astarpa river, extended under Tarkasnawa as far as the Cayster valley and Ephesos, which may be recognized as the core of Arzawa and its capital Apasa: see below, V.4.1–2.

⁶¹ See Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, pp. 127–129Google Scholar.

⁶² Kup.§2; Extended Annals, beginning of year 12, KBo IV, 4Google Scholar iv 56–60 = AM, p. 140f.

⁶³ Man. §§1–2; Extended Annals, year 4, KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iv 14–18 = AM, pp.66–69.

⁶⁴ Alakš., see above, n.27; note the additional readings provided by Otten, , MIO 5 (1957), pp.26–30Google Scholar, based on a copy made by Winckler at the time of the tablet's discovery.

⁶⁵ Alakš. §§2–3 cover the Arzawa campaigns of ‘Labarna’, Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma. The discrepancy between this report of peaceful relations with Tudhaliya and the inclusion of the land Wilusiya in the list of hostile countries of Assuwa, (KUB XXIII, 11 ii 19Google Scholar) has been noted: Gurney, , CAH (3rd ed., 1973), p.676 f.Google Scholar; cf. Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, p.273fGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Alakš. §§4–5, badly damaged, unnumbered in Beckman HDT, who does however include ll.A30–33, but unfortunately adheres to the old Forrer-Friedrich restoration of 1.30, for which, as Heinhold-Krahmer has demonstrated, there is no supporting evidence (Arzawa, p. 137f.). See above, n.58.

⁶⁷ KUB XIX, 5Google Scholar with joined frag. KBo XIX, 79Google Scholar; recently edited and elucidated by ten Cate, Houwink, JEOL 28 (1983–1984), pp.38–64Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Alakš. §17 (Beckman, , HDT— §14Google Scholar), KUB XXI, 1 iii 31–33Google Scholar; 1.32 is supplemented from Winckler's copy to give the name [(^Ima-an-pa)]-^DKAL (Otten, loc. cit. n.64, p.29 with n.9). This eliminates the Forrer-Friedrich restoration of [Piyama]-^DKAL (son of Uhhaziti), but leaves the problem of the identity of Manpa-^DKAL. Heinhold-Krahmer has argued convincingly that this is simply an error for Manpa-^DU/IM, i.e. Manapatarhunda, (Arzawa, pp.152–157)Google Scholar, and most scholars follow her: e.g. Houwink ten Cate, loc.cit. (preceding n.), p.62 and n.79. Beckman however still prefers Piyama, -^DKAL (HDT, pp.85, 118Google Scholar with n.20). Urahattusa is generally accepted to have been the contemporary king of Hapalla.

⁶⁹ Sauskamuwa treaty: KUB XXIII, 1Google Scholar (+ XXI 43) ii 15–30 = Kühne, and Otten, , StBoT 16, p. 104Google Scholar. Muwatalli gave him his sister DINGIR^MEŠ-IR (Matanazi), in marriage. The statement that Mursili gave her to Manapatarhunda as É.GE₄. A (see following n.) is problematic.

⁷⁰ There is no direct evidence for these two assumptions, except the statement, difficult to interpret because fragmentary, of KUB XXI, 33Google Scholar ll.12–13, relating to the giving of DINGIR^MEŠ-IR by Mursili to Manapatarhunda as bride/daughter-in-law (É.GE₄.A): for this passage see Freu, Hittites et Achéens (L.A.M.A. XI; Nice, 1990), p.22 n.23 with bibliography.

⁷¹ Houwink ten Cate considers this use of him as a warning may point to an ultimate disgrace of Masturi (loc. cit., (n.67), p.67). If so, the disgrace would have occurred in Tudhaliya's own reign since Masturi still king of the Seha River land appears as a witness on the Bronze Tablet (below, n.80). But this would not fit well with the recent interpretation of the ‘sins of the Seha River land’, dated to Tudhaliya's reign: see IV.2.2, 3 and nn.94–98.

⁷² See now Edel, E., Die äg.-heth. Korrespondenz aus Boǧazköy (Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), no.28 (vol.I, pp.74–77Google Scholar; vol.II, pp.125–131).

⁷³ Singer, , An.St. 33 (1983), p.209f.Google Scholar; Heinhold-Krahmer, Or. 52 (1983), pp.95–97Google Scholar; Popko, , AoF 11 (1984), pp.199–203Google Scholar; van den Hout, , RA 78 (1984), pp.89–92Google Scholar; Starke, , Studia Troica 7, p.453Google Scholar. Contra (dating to Muwatalli): Freu, Hittites et Achéens (1990, see n.70), pp.32–38; Ünal, Two Peoples on both sides of the Aegean Sea (1991, see n.111), p.33f.; Smit, D.W., KUB XIV 3Google Scholar and Hittite History (Talanta 22/23 (1990/1991), pp.79–111Google Scholar. Crucial to a decision is the identity of ^I.DKAL (col.i 73). Since the discovery of the Bronze Tablet, his identity as Kurunta king of Tarhuntassa is highly likely, which would ensure a dating to Hattusili III. Contrary to Ünal's argument, Kurunta was certainly not tuhkanti to Muwatalli. The case of the charioteer Dabalatarhunda (col.ii 57–61, 70–76) is very significant: contrary to the argument of Freu, his Luwian name would hardly disqualify him from marrying into the family of the queen, as he is stated to have done, if that queen were Puduhepa. The statement that the queen's family is very great (1.73f.) can surely only refer to Puduhepa. Also the clause (col.ii 56) ‘and further in no way [did I act] contrary to (handas) my brother’, which occurs as a repeated theme in the Apology of Hattusili (Halt, iii 38Google Scholar, 61, iv 29, 60), points to Hattusili's authorship.

⁷⁴ See below, V.5.4 and n.158.

⁷⁵ Following the elimination of Tawagalawa from the central role independently by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer, loc.cit., n.73.

⁷⁶ ‘Freebooter’ — see Gurney, , The Hittites (revised ed., 1990), p.39Google Scholar; Singer, , An.St. 33, p.210Google Scholar; followed by myself, StBoT Bh.3, p.56 n.199. Starke, attractively but speculatively, suggests that he was son of Piyama-^DKAL son of Uhhaziti, (Studia Troica 7, p.453Google Scholar and nn.63–65).

⁷⁷ Taw. col. i 7f., 14f.

⁷⁸ Without being explicitly stated, this emerges from the narrative of the Hittite king's instructions sent to Iyalanda and his subsequent arrival there, followed by his diversion to Millawanda, communications sent to Piyamaradu and Atpa, and Piyamaradu's departure by boat.

⁷⁹ Piyamaradu's operations between Iyalanda and Attarimma and his base in Millawanda are located on the southern border of Mira-Arzawa by the identification with Miletos and its environs (see below, V.6.1–4); cf. the location of the events of the Milawata letter, below, V.7.4.

⁸⁰ Otten, , StBoT Bh. 1 (1988)Google Scholar. The bibliography on this remarkable document is rapidly increasing: see van den Hout, , StBoT 38 (1995), p.326Google Scholar. An English translation is now available, Beckman, , HDT, no. 18C, with bibliography, p.175Google Scholar.

⁸¹ col.iv 32; cf. above n.69.

⁸² col.iv 36; Alantalli / Alaltalli (I) appears in DS frags. 18, 19 — see Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, p.369fGoogle Scholar. For Alantalli II, see van den Hout's prosopography of the witnesses on the Tablet, Bronze, StBoT 38, pp.142–149Google Scholar. He now identifies him with the Alantali appearing on KUB VI, 47 1.9Google Scholar, his restorations of which are individually very plausible but result in finding Kupanta^DKAL still on the throne of Mira at the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliya IV, the grandson of the king (Mursili II) who originally installed him. Kupanta-^DKAL would have been improbably old. Also he would have had to have survived into the reign of Tudhaliya, , written KUB VI 47Google Scholar, died and been succeeded by Alantalli, all before the issue of the Bronze Tablet.

⁸³ See above, II.3.3 and n.52; II.3.4 and nn.57–58.

⁸⁴ If this is indeed the Hier. writing of Alantalli, it in no way affects the etymology of the name discussed by van den Hout, (StBoT 38, p. 147f.Google Scholar).

⁸⁵ KUB XIX, 55Google Scholar + KUB XLVIII, 90Google Scholar joined to lower reverse and edited by Hoffner, , AfO 19 (1982), pp.130–137Google Scholar. The conquest of Awarna and Pina(li) by Tudhaliya IV on his Lukka campaign, recorded on YALBURT (blocks 12–13), also the EMİRGAZİ block (B 1.3), now securely dates this letter, with its references to the ‘hostages of Awarna and Pina(li)’ (left edge), to his reign: so already Masson, E., Journal des Savants 1979, p.37Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Written ^IKI.KAL.BAD-ZA: for reading kuwalana- (for kuwATna-), see RIA VI, s.v. Kuwatna-muwa, Add.; Starke, , StBoT 31, p.234ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ See van den Hout, , RA 78 (1984), p.91Google Scholar; contrary to his speculations there (with n.25), there is no difficulty in translating: ‘and Kurunta will bring them to (you) my son’.

⁸⁸ Lit. ‘soldier-servant’, ÌR-TUM ku-la-wa-ni-eš: for the latter word see Starke, , StBoT 31, p.236Google Scholar; Puhvel, , HED 4 (1997)Google Scholar, s.v. kulawan(n)i-.

⁸⁹ Nature of the action uncertain: verb written DU-u-en, ‘we DU-ed’. Hoffner read DU as TÚM (loc.cit., p. 132f. with nn.10, 17, 18) = Akk. (t)abālu, ‘carry off’. Güterbock, in Mellink, , Troy and the Trojan War (Bryn Mawr, 1986), p.38 n.17Google Scholar, preferred GIN, ‘establish, fix.’ Gurney suggests a badly written RA, = Hitt. walh-, ‘smite’ (Fs Sedat Alp (1992), p.220fGoogle Scholar. n.58).

⁹⁰ The city ‘Pina’ recorded on the tablet can now be seen as an abbreviation for the place written in Hieroglyphic on YALBURT (also paired with Awarna) as Pinali: for reading of final syllable see Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, p.115Google Scholar.

⁹¹ See especially Singer, , An.St. 33 (1983), pp.214–216Google Scholar; Bryce, , An.St. 35 (1985), pp.13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Güterbock loc. cit. (preceding n.); Freu, Hittites et Achéens (1990), pp.39–44; Starke, , Studia Troica 7 (1997), p.454Google Scholar

⁹² The recipient of the Milawata letter was undoubtedly a king, and while both Bryce and Freu (cf. also below, n.107) speak of Millawanda as being the seat of a king, there is no evidence to support this assumption.

⁹³ See below, V.7.4.

⁹⁴ KUB XXIII, 13Google Scholar. Note that this text was once thought to be part of the Tudhaliya Annals before these were transferred from Tudhaliya IV to Tudhaliya I/II. See e.g. Garstang, and Gurney, , Geography, p.120fGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁵ The subject of 1.5 is missing but assumed to be the man deported in 1.8. For a new treatment of the text see Güterbock, , Fs Sedat Alp (Ankara, 1992), pp.235–243Google Scholar. The interpretation of appa ep- as ‘rely on’ has been advocated by Güterbock in his recent treatments, especially loc. cit., pp.235, 240f. A similar proposal was made independently by D. Easton as long ago as 1980–81: in Foxhall, L. and Davies, J. K. (ed.) The Trojan War (Liverpool, 1985), p.29Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Above, n.61.

⁹⁷ So Freu, loc. cit., p.25 f. But the evidence that Masturi may have been son and direct successor to Manapatarhunda (above, n.70) would preclude the possibility.

⁹⁸ By restoring ‘[great-] grandfather’ (for Suppliluliuma) and ‘[grandfather]’ (for Mursili).

⁹⁹ As the YALBURT inscription shows him to have been in the south-west, i.e. Lukka.

¹⁰⁰ KBo XVIII 18Google Scholar, discussed by Freu, Hittites et Achéens, p.43f, with reference to Singer and Güterbock. For the name of the addressee, a late Hier. Luw. inscription PORSUK (late 8th century B.C., Tuwana) has an author named Parhwira (pa+ra/i-HWI+ra/i-) which could be seen as a rhotacized form of Parhuitta. MAŠhuitta has been analysed as Luwian by comparison with Mashuiluwa. Parhwira is likely to be Luwian though no one analysis is certainly obvious.

¹⁰¹ See abov en.34, referring to Hagenbuchner, , THeth 15, pp.49–55Google Scholar. Hagenbuchner restores Parhuitta's title as LUGAL.[GAL], ‘Great King’, on the basis of the greetings formula alone. This hardly seems justified, since the closest parallel to this letter, EA 31 addressed by Nimuwariya, Great King, King of Egypt (Amenophis III) to Tarhundaradu King of Arzawa, is precisely a Great King addressing an ordinary king.

¹⁰² Above, II.2.2 and nn.31–34.

¹⁰³ Neve, P., AA 1987, pp.401–403Google Scholar; 1991, pp.330 Abb.35a–b, 332f.

¹⁰⁴ Bahar, H., Arkeoloji ve Sanat 18/73 (1996), pp.2–5Google Scholar (Turkish), 6f. (German); A. and B. Dinçol, ibid., 8f. (Turkish); Bahar, H., Eskiçağ Konya Araştırmaları 1 (1996), pp.42–45Google Scholar (Turkish), cover an d pls. I–II, X–XV; Dinçol, A., TÜBA-AR 1 (1998), pp.27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ SMEA 38 (1996), pp.63–71Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ ibid., pp.68–70. As Singer notes, my reason for dating Hartapu to the period after the fall of Hattusa was his use of the Hittite royal aedicula, assumed to have been the sole prerogative of the Hittite king. But this now appears invalidated by the discovery of Kurunta's sealings at Boǧazköy as well as his rock relief at Hatip.

¹⁰⁷ Hittites et Achéens, p.43. Cf. above, n.92, where the absence of evidence for there being a king in Millawanda is stressed.

¹⁰⁸ Bittel and Akurgal, in Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (ed.), Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante wahrend der ‘Dark Ages’ vom 12 bis zum 9Jh.v.Chr. (Vienna, 1983), pp.25–55, 67–78Google Scholar; Mellink, , AJA 87 (1983), pp.138–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muhly and Sams, in Ward, W. A. and Joukowsky, M. S. (ed.) The Crisis Years: the 12th Century B.C. (Iowa, 1992), pp.10–26, 56–60Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Breasted, , Ancient Records of Egypt, IV §64Google Scholar; Edgerton, and Wilson, , Historical Records of Rameses III (Chicago, 1936), p.53Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ For a recent discussion of these routes in the context of a new stadion-stone, see D. French, Pre- and Early-Roman roads of Asia Minor. Stadion-stone, A Hellenistic from Ephesus (Arkeolji Dergisi 5 [1997], pp. 189–196Google Scholar).

¹¹¹ There is now an immense bibliography covering this subject. For extensive recent ones, see Ünal, A., Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Centre in Japan 4 (Wiesbaden, 1991), pp.38–44Google Scholar; Starke, F., Studia Troica 7 (1997), pp.484–487Google Scholar; and for an older and even more comprehensive one see Jewell, E., The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the second millennium B.C. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1974)Google Scholar

¹¹² London, 1959. As the background to this book published after the death of Garstang stand a number of separate geographical studies, especially (in the context of our present interest) Hittite Military Roads in Asia Minor: II. Mursil's penetration of Arzawa, (AJA 47 [1943], pp.39–47)Google Scholar. Note Gurney's recent reassessment of Geography, Hittite Geography: thirty years on (Fs Sedat Alp [Ankara, 1992], p.213 ff.Google Scholar, especially in the present context pp.217–221).

¹¹³ See above, II. 3.1.and n.43.

¹¹⁴ loc.cit. (n.112), later incorporated into the Geography.

¹¹⁵ Mursili in Aura was confronted by Piyama-^DKAL the son of the Arzawan king on the river Astarpa at Walma where the battle was fought: above, II.3.1 and n.44.

¹¹⁶ The Astarpa river is defined as the frontier of Kuwaliya in Kup. §§9–10 (Beckman, , HDT— §§9–10Google Scholar). Crossing over to Aura is prohibited.

¹¹⁷ Mashuiluwa came presumably from Mira to meet Mursili in Aura (above, II.3.1 and n.43); in year 12 when his double-dealing was detected, Mursili marching westwards summoned him to Sallapa (above, II.3.3 and n.51).

¹¹⁸ Already so identified by Garstang in 1943; maintained in Geography, p.86. The unexpressed basis for the identification was the need to find a river flowing in the right direction to serve as the Hatti-Arzawa frontier (Gurney, personal communication). Similar reasoning leads to the preference of the Çarşamba Çay over the Göksu (Calycadnos) as the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier (Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, p.53 and n.183Google Scholar).

¹¹⁹ Geography, p.91f.

¹²⁰ Macqueen identifies the Siyanta with the Porsuk and places Mira to the west of it (An.St. 18 [1968], p. 176f.Google Scholar). Forlanini however in an article locating the cult centres of KBo II 1Google Scholar in the area of western Phrygia (Midas City), has Akar Çay = Astarpa, Porsuk = Hulana and Seydi = Maliya; but though he marks Meiros at Malatça and places Mira (Mera) to the south, he does not consider the problem of the Siyanta river as the Hatti frontier of Mira. See Hethitica 13 (1996), pp.5–11, with map p.12Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Meiros marked by Forlanini (preceding n.), and see Atlante Storico 4.3, notes to Tav. XVI, (7) L'Anatolia Occidental. The Byzantine inscription identifying the site was published by Anderson, , JHS 17 (1897), p.423 no.21Google Scholar.

¹²² See above, II.3.3 and n.51.

¹²³ See below, V.5.2 and n.155.

¹²⁴ Including the territory around Ilgın and Yalburt, the site of Tudhaliya's YALBURT inscription: Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, p.51 and n.177Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ KBo IV, 10Google Scholar obv. 16–18. Bronze Tablet i 18–21. This frontier description probably commenced up in the direction of Kadınhan.

¹²⁶ See above, IV.4.3 and n.104.

¹²⁷ See above, II.3.1 and n.44.

¹²⁸ Geography, pp.84, 88f.; cf. Gurney, , Fs Sedat Alp, p.220Google Scholar

¹²⁹ West coast rather than south coast suggested particularly by Uhhaziti's flight ‘to the islands' (above, n.44); also the route through to Ephesos is incomparably much easier than to Habessos.

¹³⁰ KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iii 39–44, 16 iii 7–14 (Goetze, , AM, p.54f.Google Scholar). ‘This Mount Arinnanda is very difficult: it is going out into the sea, also it is very high, it is tangled, also it is rocky, and it is impossible to drive up with horses. The refugees held it en masse, and the troops were up there en masse, Because it was impossible to drive up with horses, I My Sun marched before the army on foot, and I went up into Mount Arinnanda on foot.’

¹³¹ Starke, , Studia Troica 7, p.451Google Scholar with n.27, following Bammer, , Ephesos. Stadt an Fluss und Meer (Graz, 1988), p. 136Google Scholar. Mount Mycale/ Samsun Daǧ, especially visible from the air and satellite photograph, is a colossal ridge of rock, over 20 km long, rising abruptly from sea level to over 1200m and jutting out into the sea, almost touching Samos.

¹³² Arzawa, pp.136–147, 211–219, 329.

¹³³ ibid., pp.329 f., 337 f., 343 f.

¹³⁴ e.g. by Goetze, Forlanini, Freu, de Martino.

¹³⁵ I am certainly not the first to advocate this location. In particular, Houwink ten Cate has so argued, following Güterbock's second reading of KARABEL C1 (Güterbock, above I.3.3 and n.19; ten Cate, Houwink, JEOL 28 [1983–1984], p.48 fGoogle Scholar. n.38). Starke also argues strongly for this geographical disposition (Studia Troica 7, p.451 ffGoogle Scholar. esp. nn.40–41). The reading of KARABEL A however provides for the first time solid geographical proof of the correctness of this view, and removes the extremely uncertain KARABEL C1 from the discussion.

¹³⁶ Identification of Appawiya / Abbaitis, , Geography, p.97Google Scholar. Appawiya is written KUR^URUap-pa-wi₅-ia (KUB XIX, 49Google Scholar i 63, iv 30; KUB XIX, 50Google Scholar iii 16 = Man. §§5, 9, 19; Beckman, , HDT— §§5, 20Google Scholar, 7); KUR a-ab-ba-ú-ia (KUB XXI, 1 1.32Google Scholar = Alakš. §4). The identification / restoration of ^URUa-ba-x [ … ] (Tawagalawa, , KUB XIV, 3 i 47Google Scholar) as Appawiya is to be discarded: this is a place between Iyalanda and Millawanda.

¹³⁷ KUB XIX, 5Google Scholar (+KBo XIX 79Google Scholar) obv. 8. Context: smiting of land of Lazpa by Atpa at instigation of Piyamaradu involves SARIPŪTI-men of Manapatarhunda and Hittite King, who claim to have ‘come across the sea’ (1.16). See ten Cate, Houwink, JEOL 28 (1983–1984), p.38 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁸ For this much discussed location see principally Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, pp.344, 350 f.Google Scholar; ten Cate, Houwink, JEOL 28, esp. pp.56–58Google Scholar; Starke, , Studia Troica 7, esp. p.454 fGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁹ Geography, p.96f; cf. Gurney, , Fs Sedat Alp, p.221Google Scholar; Starke, , Studia Troica 7, p.451Google Scholar with n.40. Professor Gurney points out to me that a further reason besides proximity to Lesbos led to the preference for the Caicos, namely that the Hermos valley had already been preempted for the location of Arzawa, (Geography, p.84Google Scholar).

¹⁴⁰ See above, II.3.2 and n.47.

¹⁴¹ Principally attested in Kup. §9 (Beckman, HDT); restored by ten Cate, Houwink on KUB XXIII, 100Google Scholar obv. 11 (JEOL 28, pp.64f.Google Scholar, 67).

¹⁴² For archaeological recognition of Bronze Age Sardis, see A. Ramage, Early Iron Age Sardis and its neighbours (in Çilingiroǧlu, A. and French, D. H. (ed.), Anatolian Iron Ages III (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1994), pp.163–172Google Scholar).

¹⁴³ Mursili's Extended Annals, B., KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar iv 35–37 = AM, p.72f. Impa and Hapanuwa are mentioned earlier in the Extended Annals in the context of Mashuiluwa's defeat of Piyama-^DKAL: KUB XIV, 15Google Scholar i 27, 30 = AM, p.38f.

¹⁴⁴ Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, p.339Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ See above, V.2.1 and n.121.

¹⁴⁶ Kuwaliya is located across the river Astarpa which forms the frontier with Hatti, (Kup. §9Google Scholar; Beckman, , HDT — §9Google Scholar). If the Astarpa is the Akar Çay, Kuwaliya would lie across the route south-west to Dinar (Apamea) on one branch of the upper Meander, and could well have included the other branch running through Çivril (Pelte), near Beycesultan. Alternatively Mira, here located generally in the area south of Kütahya (Cotiaeon) could have extended far enough south to include Beycesultan.

¹⁴⁷ Lloyd, Seton, Beycesultan III part 1 (London, 1972), ch. 2Google Scholar. The Late Bronze levels III and II lying over the immense Middle Bronze ‘burnt palace’ of level V show substantial buildings with megaron-style plans, not obviously parts of a palace complex.

¹⁴⁸ Gates, M.-H., Archaeology in Turkey (AJA 100 [1996], p.319)CrossRefGoogle Scholar reports a sounding at the north-western end of the Artemision in the 1996 season which reached a Mycenean level. Recent researches conducted by Selçuk Museum on the citadel of Ephesus have identified a wall foundation of large limestone blocks as dating to the Late Bronze Age. A report by Mustafa Büyükkolancı, archaeologist at Selçuk Museum, is published in the account of a Symposium held in the museum in 1997 (publication 1998). Work will continue in 1999.

¹⁴⁹ See above, II.2.1 and n.29. For a full recent coverage of the west in the reigns of Tudhaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I and Tudhaliya III, see de Martino, S., L'Anatolia occidentale nel medio regno ittita (Eothen, Florence, 1996), with comprehensive bibliography, pp.107–114Google Scholar, of which the most relevant items to our present inquiry are Carruba, 1977; Neu, 1986; Freu, 1987.

¹⁵⁰ See above II.5.1 and n.73.

¹⁵¹ Hoffmann, I., Einige Überlegungen zum Verfasser des Madduwatta-Textes (Or 53 [1984], pp.34–51)Google Scholar; rebutted by Freu, , Hethitica 8 (1987), p. 125ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵² Madd., §§4, 21 (Beckman, , HDT, pp.145, 148fGoogle Scholar. — §§4, 18). Cf. the remarks of Freu, , Hethitica 8, p. 126 ff.Google Scholar; but note that some of his geographical locations are unacceptable: (p. 127) Apasa is indeed Ephesos, as shown in this article; (p. 129) Bryce's identification of the Siyanta and Astarpa rivers as the river system beginning at Lake Beyşehir and ending in the Çarşamba Çay, accepted by Freu, belongs to a geographical arrangement now quite superseded (this river system not the Calycadnos should be the Hulaya river land); (p. 129) the ‘Ortakaraviran bulla’ is not likely to be authentic. Note also that the river Siyanta does not occur in the form Siyanti.

¹⁵³ Madd., §§22–23 (Beckman, , HDT, p.149Google Scholar — §§19–20). The passage suggests the proximity of the Siyanta river land, Kuwaliya and Hapalla, in spite of doubts of Heinhold-Krahmer, (Arzawa, p.347f.Google Scholar).

¹⁵⁴ Madd., §24 (Beckman, , HDT, p.149Google Scholar — §21). The land of Zumarri is restored in the list from §29 (Beckman, §26).

¹⁵⁵ Madd., §26 (Beckman, , HDT, p. 149fGoogle Scholar. — §23); cf. above, V.2.2 and nn.122, 123.

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Freu, , Hethitica 8, p. 133Google Scholar; de Martino, op.cit. (n.149), p.47f.

¹⁵⁷ See above, II.3.1 and n.42.

¹⁵⁸ Taw., i 1–62.

¹⁵⁹ Following the independent elucidations of the text offered by Singer and Heinhold-Krahmer in 1983 (above, n.73).

¹⁶⁰ For a good pair of maps showing the difference between the lower Meander valley in classical antiquity and the present day, see the Blue Guide, Turkey (2nd ed., 1995), p.230fGoogle Scholar. (fig.6) (drawn by John Fowler). They are here reproduced as fig 10, with acknowledgements.

¹⁶¹ First by Hrozný, , Ar. Or. 1 (1929), p.329Google Scholar. Forrer placed Millawanda in the Milyas, (Forschungen 1/2 [1929], p.237)Google Scholar, and some have followed him, but this location is now excluded by the geographical evidence of the Bronze Tablet. See in general Heinhold-Krahmer, , RlA VIII/3–4 (1994)Google Scholar, s.v. Milawa(n)da, with references to recent views. Archaeological investigation of Miletos shows it to have been first a Minoan settlement, then Mycenean. Its headland position and poor inland communications characterize it as in origin a naval station. For the relations of the names Millawanda-Miletos, see below, n.207.

¹⁶² First in AJA 47 (1943), p.42Google Scholar; further in Geography, p.78. The text KUB XXIII 83Google Scholar, which has the men of Dalauwa and Kuwalapassi resolving to attack the land of Iyalanda, does not necessarily place the former two places close to each other or to Iyalanda.

¹⁶³ Attarimma has been proposed as the basis for the Lycians' self-designation as Trm ili, Greek Termilai: Carruba, , Athenaeum 42 (1964), pp.286–290Google Scholar; cf. id., Fs Borchhardt (Vienna, 1996), pp.28–31. The same scholar has sought the origin of Telmessos (Lye. Telebehi) in Hitt., Kuwalapassa (Die Sprache 24 [1978], p.167)Google Scholar. But these proposals on the toponyms are philologically rather than geographically based, so Carruba is able to accept not only Telmessos / Telebehi but also Colbasa and even Olbasa as reflections of Kuwalapassa, (Fs Borchhardt, p.27)Google Scholar. It is here suggested that Attarimma might be more geographically appropriate to location at Telmessos than is Kuwalapassa. Other derivations for Trmili / Termiloi have also been offered, e.g. by Laroche, , Revue Archéologique 1976, p. 19Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁴ J. Börker-Klähn identifies Attarimma with Termessos in the extreme east of Lycia, but this seems to have been influenced by the place name appearing on the Hieroglyphic inscription KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA (11.1, 3), written ta ₅-tara/i-ma (URBS): see Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposiums (Vienna, 1993), I. pp.53–62Google Scholar. But the usage of Empire period ta ₄, and ta ₅ is highly problematic: Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, Appendix 5, pp.114–117Google Scholar. Since Hier. ta ₅-ta ₄-mi seems to represent the name Alalime, Hier. ta ₅tara/i-ma should by the same token represent the city Alatarma. Attarimma can hardly be placed at Termessos. The phonetic identification of Attarimma with Lyc. Telebe-, Greek Telme- presents no particular problem; only the addition of the possessive (ethnic?) suffix -esso- / -ehi would require explanation.

¹⁶⁵ Geography, ch.VI, where the idea of the cumulative corroboration provided by the identification of linked groups of Hittite and later toponyms is introduced (p.81f). These ‘clusters’ of Lukka-associated toponyms is further developed by Bryce, , JNES 33 (1974), esp. pp.398–401Google Scholar; Carruba, , Fs Borchhardt, pp.26f., 32f., 34fGoogle Scholar. The placing of this whole cluster in Pisidia and Pamphylia, along with Millawanda in Milyas, by Forlanini, (Vicino Oriente 7 [1988], pp.162–168)Google Scholar was rapidly invalidated by the geographical evidence provided by the Bronze Tablet, published in the same year.

¹⁶⁶ First in Garstang, , The Hittite Empire (1929), p.179Google Scholar; cf. Geography, p.79.

¹⁶⁷ Carruba, , Fs Borchhardt, p.33Google Scholar. Mutamutassa was earlier placed in Pamphylia by Forlanini along with the rest of its cluster (above, n.165), which he supported by the occurrence of Mutamutassa and Ura together in the treaty KBo XVI 47Google Scholar (Otten, , Ist. Mitt. 17 [1967], pp.55–62Google Scholar). Forlanini supposed this to be the well known Ura, the port of Tarhuntassa, located probably at Silifke (Seleucia), but since there is no way that Mutamutassa and its cluster can now be located anywhere near Tarhuntassa, we must suppose that the Ura is another place bearing this common toponym (Forlanini, Atlante Storico, Tav. XVI (7); cf. Gurney, , Fs Alp, p.219)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁸ Freu, , Hethitica 8, p. 148Google Scholar; cf. Carruba, , Fs Borchhardt, p.32 n.31Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ Geography, p.81.

¹⁷⁰ KUB XXIII, 11Google Scholar ii 2–8 = Geography, p. 121.

¹⁷¹ Poetto, , StMed 8 (Pavia, 1993), esp. pp.75–82Google Scholar; Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, pp.68–71, cf. p.49Google Scholar.

¹⁷² Above, II.3.1 and n.41.

¹⁷³ Following Goetze's interpretation: cf. Heinhold-Krahmer, , Arzawa, pp.97–100Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ See most recently , B. and Niemeier, W.-D., Milet 1994–1995 (AA 1997, pp.196, 201ff.)Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ Above, V.5.4 and n.158.

¹⁷⁶ Taw., i 49Google Scholar, reading [MA-H]AR ZAG, ‘before the frontier' (Sommer, , cf. Geography, p. 112Google Scholar). If further in Taw., ii 20f.Google Scholar, we read with Forrer nu-kán A-NA ZAG-ia pa-ra-a ti-ia-nu-un, ‘I stepped forth to the frontier’ (denied by Sommer, commentary ad loc), the Hittite king would be further emphasizing his respect for the frontier of Millawanda.

¹⁷⁷ Above, IV.2.1 and n.85.

¹⁷⁸ Cf. n.89.

¹⁷⁹ Studia Troica 7, p.454Google Scholar with reference back to n.59.

¹⁸⁰ First by Kretschmer, , Glotta 13 (1924), pp.205–213Google Scholar; further in 21 (1933), pp.213–257; 24 (1935), pp.203–251.

¹⁸¹ Principally in Taw., iii 53Google Scholar, iv 5; also in ritual text CTH 483 (listed between Arzawa, …, Talawa, and Kuntara, Iyalanda, Wilusa); oracle enquiry CTH 716 (KUB XLIX, 79 i 14Google Scholar) — see Heinhold-Krahmer, , RlA VII/5–6 (1989), s.v. Masa (p.442Google Scholar col.i).

¹⁸² Karkisa, Masa and Lukka (also Warsiyala) in relation to Wilusa: Alakš., §15 (Beckman, , HDT — §11Google Scholar); also Egyptian account of Hittite army at battle of Qadesh, grouping Drdny, Ms, Pds, 'Irwn, Krkš, Lk (Dardaniya (= Wilusa?), Masa, Pedassa, Arawanna, Karkisa, Lukka; Breasted, , Ancient Records of Egypt III, §§306, 309Google Scholar; Gardiner, , The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (1960), pp.7, 10, 57f.Google Scholar; Helck, , Beziehungen (2nd ed., 1971), p.195)Google Scholar.

¹⁸³ e.g. in the most extreme versions, in the locations of Macqueen, and Mellaart, , An.St. 18 (1968), pp.169 ff., 187 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ Philological aspects of the identification explored by Carruba, , Athenaeum 42 (1964), pp.290–294Google Scholar. See in general RlA V/5–6 (1980Google Scholar), s.v. Karer (Schmitt), and Karkisa (Heinhold-Krahmer). Note that Heinhold-Krahmer's rejection of the Karki(s)a / Caria connection is based on the parallel rejection of Lukka / Lycia, and has thus been invalidated.

¹⁸⁵ KUB XXIII, 11 ii 13–19Google Scholar; 12 ii 6–13 = Geography, p.121f.

¹⁸⁶ See above, II.3.2 and n.47. The account of the flight to Karkisa is given in the Extended Annals, and appears in a damaged passage of Man., §1.

¹⁸⁷ Taw., iii 53, iv 5Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁸ See recently Heinhold-Krahmer, , RlA VII/5–6 (1989)Google Scholar, s.v. with bibliography.

¹⁸⁹ DS frag. 13.

¹⁹⁰ Above, II.3.3 and n.51.

¹⁹¹ Alakš., §6 (restored from Otten, , MIO 5, p.27 1.45Google Scholar; Beckman, , HDT— §4)Google Scholar.

¹⁹² Above, n.187.

¹⁹³ KUB XVII 35Google Scholar (CTH 525.2) iii 9–15: see Gurney, , Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Oxford University Press, 1977), p.27Google Scholar. Cf. also Forlanini, , Hethitica 13 (1996), pp.5–11Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁴ SÜDBURG, §§1b, 4b: see Hawkins, , StBoT Bh.3, pp.22f., 29, 54fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹⁵ Poetto, , StMed 8 (Pavia, 1993), p.48 n.103Google Scholar; and in more detail recently, id., in Papers of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 1996 (forthcoming). He reads §2c: ma-sà (REGIO) AQUILA-na mu(wa)-tá (my transliteration), ‘and conquered … the land Masa'. He interprets AQUILA-ua as ara/i-na = arin, ‘forever’.

¹⁹⁶ Forlanini perhaps points to the best way forward with his remarks on Masa (loc.cit, n.193), treating this entity as a mobile population group rather than a fixed land.

¹⁹⁷ It is not my purpose here to retrace the whole vast discussion but simply to indicate the bearing of the evidence of KARABEL A on the question.

¹⁹⁸ e.g. Steiner, G., zur Ahhijawa-Frage, Neue Überlegungen (X Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler, II. Cilt (Ankara, 1990), pp.523–530Google Scholar); A. Ünal, loc.cit. (Above n.111).

¹⁹⁹ See n.202.

²⁰⁰ Above, II.3.1 and n.41.

²⁰¹ The king of Ahhiyawa is in a position to instruct Atpa in Millawanda to surrender Piyamaradu to the Hittite, king: Taw., i 48–50, 55–58Google Scholar.

²⁰² Above, II.3.1 and n.44. That he was fleeing to Ahhiyawa is not explicitly stated in the preserved text but may be generally understood from the situation. The unfortunately partially lost, later passage of the Ten-Year Annals, , KBo III, 4Google Scholar iii 1–6 (=AM, p.66f.) looks as if it would have clarified the position of a son of Uhhaziti in relation to the land of Ahhiyawa.

²⁰³ Taw., i. 58–62Google Scholar, iii 52–62.

²⁰⁴ Taw., iv 7–10Google Scholar; cf. the remark of Güterbock, , in Troy and the Trojan War, p.37Google Scholar.

²⁰⁵ Above, V.7.3 and n.176.

²⁰⁶ Above, IV.3 and nn.93–95.

²⁰⁷ Anna Morpurgo Davies writes: This statement refers to the identification of the place which the Hittites called Millawanda with the place which the later Ionians called Mίλητος. The identity of the two names has often been called in doubt or straightforwardly rejected; perhaps the most detailed account is that by Heubeck, A., in Glotta LXIII (1985), 127–32Google Scholar, who referred, as others had done before him, to the Mycenaean ethnic mi-ra-ti-ja which he read as Millatiai and interpreted as indicating women from Miletos. From Heubeck's discussion a series of points emerge: a) the Mycenaean form, written at a time when in Greek -w- was always preserved, speaks against a simple identification of Μίληατος and Mil(l)awanda; b) even if we forget about the Mycenaean evidence, on linguistic grounds it is unlikely that we can derive Μίληατος / Μίληατος from *Milwātos, as has been suggested; c) it is possible that the Cretan city Μίληατος and the Ionic city Μίληατος in origin had the same name, since the Ionic city is originally a Minoan creation and the Minoans may have used a Minoan name (which later survived in Crete) for the new foundation. This last point is crucial and in all likelihood correct, but need not lead to Heubeck's outright rejection of a link between Μίληατος, and Millawanda. If the Minoans did indeed call the place with a name similar to Μίληατος (the evidence we have is later, i.e. Mycenaean and Greek, and we must allow for some phonological differences), the Hittites would have come across a name which they did not recognize and which they might well have tried to integrate into their language by adding the suffix -wanda which is common in place-names such as Wiyanawanda. Jie's Retrograde Glossary lists some 50 -wanda names. Hittite is rich in words which start with mil-; this could have encouraged the creation of a form such as Millawanda which would have been based on an attempt to integrate the name Milatos into Hittite through a simple process of popular etymology.