Anatolian Studies 66 (2016): 67–79 doi:10.

1017/S0066154616000053
© British Institute at Ankara 2016

The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

Trevor Bryce
University of Queensland, Australia
[email protected]

It is now 42 years since my first article was published. This was in Anatolian Studies 24. The editor of
Anatolian Studies at the time was Oliver Gurney, and his letter to me accepting my article was my earliest
contact with him. Since then, Oliver was on numerous occasions a frank, perceptive and constructive
critic of my work. Over the years, he became a much valued mentor and a good friend. For these and
many other reasons, I would like to pay Oliver a small tribute by dedicating this article to his memory.

Abstract
The focus of this article is the recently published, near-duplicate ARSUZ inscriptions carved on two stelae found near
İskenderun in southeastern Turkey and dating to the later tenth century BC. Particular attention is given to the historical
section of these inscriptions, and its reference to a land called Hiyawa (Assyrian Que) in eastern Cilicia, previously
attested in only one other Iron Age inscription, the Luwian-Phoenician bilingual found at Çineköy near Adana. The
article discusses what new information can be deduced about Hiyawa, including its relationship with the land of
Adana(wa) in eastern Cilicia, the implications to be drawn from the findspot of the stelae and the much-debated question
of whether the references to Hiyawa reflect Greek settlement in southeastern Anatolia during the Early Iron Age. Fresh
attention is also given to the two Akkadian texts from the archives of Late Bronze Age Ugarit which refer to a group
called the Hiyawa-men, who were located at that time (late 13th to early 12th century) in Lukka in southwestern Anatolia.
The controversial identification of this group with Ahhiyawans/Mycenaean Greeks is re-examined within the broader
context of a comprehensive reconsideration of the Ahhiyawa-Hiyawa equation and the role played by ‘Hiyawans’ and
the land of Hiyawa in the affairs of the eastern Mediterranean world from the end of the Bronze Age through the
succeeding Iron Age.

Özet
Bu makalenin odak noktası, son zamanlarda yayınlanan, Türkiye’nin güneydoğusunda İskenderun yakınlarında bulunan
ve M.Ö. 10. yüzyılın sonlarına tarihlenen, iki stel üzerine oyulmuş neredeyse birbirinin kopyası olan ARSUZ yazıtlarıdır.
Özellikle bu yazıtların tarihsel bölümüne dikkat çekilir ve daha önce Adana yakınlarında Çineköy’de bulunmuş olan
Luvi-Fenike dillerinde yazılmış bir diğer Demir Çağı yazıtında doğrulanan ve doğu Kilikya’da bulunan Hiyawa (Asurca
Que) ülkesine atıfta bulunması üzerinde durulur. Makalede, doğu Kilikya’daki Adana(wa) ülkesiyle ilişkisi de dahil
olmak üzere, Hiyawa hakkında hangi yeni bilgilere ulaşılabileceği, stellerin buluntu yerlerinden hangi sonuçların
çıkarılabileceği ve çok tartışılan bir soru olan Hiyawa’nın Erken Demir Çağı’nda güneydoğu Anadolu’da Yunan
yerleşimini yansıtıp yansıtmadığı tartışılmaktadır. Ayrıca Ugarit’in Geç Tunç Çağı arşivlerinde bulunan iki Akad
metninde, güneybatı Anadolu’da Lukka’da o dönem yerleşmiş (13. Yüzyıl sonlarından 12. Yüzyıl başlarına kadar)
Hiyawalılardan bahsedilmektedir. Bu topluluğun tartışmalı kimliği Ahhiyawalılar/Mikenli Yunanlılar ile birlikte,
Ahhiyawa-Hiyawa denkleminin, ‘Hiyawalıların’ ve Hiyawa ülkesinin Tunç Çağı’nın sonundan başlayıp onu takip eden
Demir Çağı boyunca doğu Akdeniz dünyasında oynadığı rol daha geniş çerçevede kapsamlı bir şekilde yeniden gözden
geçirilerek incelenmektedir.

67

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

A mong the interesting features of the two recently

published, near-duplicate Hieroglyphic Luwian
inscriptions found at Uluçınar (formerly Arsuz) near
have been, or included, bars of silver. According to the
pharaoh Ramesses II, silver was the currency used by his
Hittite opponent Muwattalli II for hiring mercenaries to
İskenderun in southeastern Turkey (fig. 1; Dinçol et al. swell his ranks in the Battle of Qadeš (1274) (Gardiner
2015) is the reference they make to a land called Hiyawa. 1960/1975: 8, P50).
Only one other known Iron Age text refers to this land. It Inscriptions 3 and 4. The ARSUZ duplicate texts are
is a Hieroglyphic Luwian-Phoenician bilingual, carved on dated to the later tenth century, i.e. up to three centuries
a statue base (of the Storm-God Tarhunza), which was after the Late Bronze Age Hiyawa texts (Dinçol et al.
discovered in 1997 in the village of Çineköy some 30km 2015). They were authored or commissioned by another
south of modern Adana (Tekoğlu, Lemaire 2000). To these king called Suppiluliuma, and inscribed on two basalt
inscriptions, we can tentatively add two more ‘Hiyawa- stelae with preserved heights of 2.21m (A1 stele) and
texts’, dating to the end of the Late Bronze Age; they were 2.17m (A2 stele). Suppiluliuma is identified in the inscrip-
found among more than 400 tablets unearthed during the tions as ruler of the land of Walistin(/Walistan) (variant
1994 excavations of the ‘House of Urtenu’ in Ugarit (Ras Walastin: Weeden 2015), earlier called Palistin, and son of
Shamra) (Lackenbacher, Malbran-Labat 2005). an otherwise unattested king(?), Manana. Located in the
This gives us a provisional total of five inscriptions Amuq plain of northern Syria, Walistin/Walastin can be
attesting the name Hiyawa. In chronological order: equated with the Neo-Hittite kingdom called Pat(t)in(a)
Inscriptions 1 and 2. The Late Bronze Age texts (RS and Unqi in Neo-Assyrian texts. Sculptured reliefs on the
94.2530; RS 94.2523) are letters dealing with the same stelae feature the Storm-God bestowing his endorsement
topics, the first written by a Hittite king, the second by a upon the king. The inscriptions highlight Suppiluliuma’s
Hittite official, Penti-Šarruma, to Ugarit’s last king, military achievements, the prosperity of his reign and the
Ammurapi. The Hittite king’s name is not preserved in the protection which his patron deity accords him.
surviving portions of either text, but his identification with Of particular interest for our discussion is the ‘histor-
the last-known ruler of Hatti, Suppiluliuma II (Suppiluli- ical core’ of the text, translated thus by its editors:
yama) (ca 1207–?), is virtually beyond doubt (Lacken- §6. At what time I took up power,
bacher, Malbran-Labat 2005: 230, n.27; Singer 2006: 243). §7. This city (unnamed) opposed? me,
Written in Akkadian, the letters can thus be dated to the §8. The Storm-God put his hand on me
late 13th or early 12th century. After dealing with various §9. and I overcame,
other matters, their authors rebuke Ammurapi for his §10. and I defeated (it) at one time/for the first time.
failure to dispatch via his fleet a consignment of items §11. The city/land Adana ‘put me to the stick’ (= ‘made
designated by the logogram PAD.MEŠ to a person called me take up arms?’ – thus Yakubovich 2015b: 58)
the ‘Hiyawa-man’ in both letters and a group called the §12. and I overcame,
‘Hiyawa-men’ in the king’s letter; the ‘Hiyawa-man’ is §13. I routed? also the land Hiyawa, / or I turned? to
presumably the leader of this group. The letters tell us that the land Hiyawa,
the persons so designated were at that time located in the §14. and I made my skill pass before the city (name
land of Lukka, in southwestern Anatolia (which included unreadable).
the country called Lycia in the Classical period), presum- §15. This neither (my) fathers did,
ably awaiting receipt of the fleet’s cargo. The meaning of §16. nor did (my) grandfathers do it,
the logogram PAD.MEŠ is debatable. S. Lackenbacher and §17. but I myself did it.
F. Malbran-Labat translate it as ‘food rations’ (rations The name read as Adana in §11 is accompanied by the
alimentaires). Subsequently, Itamar Singer argued, determinative conventionally represented as URBS (‘city’)
plausibly in my opinion, that it refers to metal ingots in one of the inscriptions (A1) and by the determinative
(Singer 2006: 252–57). But the nature of these ingots, if REGIO (‘land’) in the other (A2). It was not uncommon
that is what the logogram signifies, is not specified. Were for a royal seat and the kingdom over which it ruled to have
they made of copper, bronze, tin, silver, gold (etc)? A the same name – as illustrated by Bronze Age Aleppo and
possible reason for not including this information is that Ugarit, and Iron Age Carchemish and Hamath. So too, the
the letters, probably dispatched in haste, were follow-ups alternative determinatives used for Adana in the ARSUZ
to earlier correspondence in which the nature of the goods inscriptions almost certainly signify that at this time both
was clearly spelt out; it was thus unnecessary to repeat this the land and its chief city were known by this name.
information. I suggest that the consignment of PAD.MEŠ The precise interpretation of the above passage is
was intended as payment for its recipients, in return for uncertain, but it very likely records a victory, or an alleged
services by them (or sought from them), perhaps as merce- victory, by its author Suppiluliuma (there are thus now
naries in the Hittite army. In this case, the PAD.MEŠ may several attested Neo-Hittite kings of this name as well as

68

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

Fig. 1. The Iron Age kingdoms of southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria (reproduced, with permission, from Trevor
Bryce and Jessie Birkett-Rees, Atlas of the Ancient Near East, Routledge 2016; the original map is in colour). Que
(Assyrian name) = Luwian Hiyawa, Adana(wa); Patin, Unqi (Assyrian names) = Luwian Palistin/Walistin (Walastin).

two Late Bronze Age Hittite kings) over the city/land of centuries later than the ARSUZ inscriptions. In the Luwian
Adana and the land of Hiyawa on the Cilician plain. The version of it, Warikas claims that he is a descendant of
relationship between Adana and Hiyawa at this time will Muk(a)sas, a name corresponding to mpš – i.e. Mopsos –
be discussed below. (In general on the geography of Cilicia in the Phoenician version. His kingdom is referred to as
during the Bronze Age Hittite period, see Forlanini 2013.) Hiyawa in the Luwian text and its inhabitants are called
Inscription 5. The land Hiyawa is once more attested the dnnym in the Phoenician text. The latter name is
in the Çineköy Luwian-Phoenician bilingual inscription, commonly vocalised as Danunians (a matter to which we
authored by a king called Warikas – wa/i+ra/i-i-ka- in the shall return). The Çineköy bilingual is commonly linked
Luwian version and w[ryk(s)] in the Phoenician. This king with the famous Karatepe Luwian-Phoenician bilingual
can be identified with Urikki, referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscription (KARATEPE 1), located in the Taurus region
texts as a ruler of Que in the second half of the eighth ca 100km northeast of modern Adana (Çambel 1999;
century. The name occurs also in Phoenician inscriptions Hawkins 2000: 45–68). It was discovered in 1946. The
from İncirli and Cebelireis Dağı, in the forms w┌ryks┐ and Iron Age (Neo-Hittite) small hill-top settlement there was
wryk respectively, though in the latter case it refers to a called Azatiwatayas after its founder Azatiwatas, who is
later king (cf. Gander 2012: 292–93; Yakubovich 2015a: the author of the inscription and names Awarikus (Phoeni-
42; and see below). cian ’wrk) as his overlord. The Luwian version calls
On palaeographic and orthographic grounds, the İncirli Awarikus’ kingdom Adanawa and, as in the Çineköy
inscription can be dated to the same period as the Çineköy bilingual, the Phoenician version calls its inhabitants
bilingual and almost certainly refers to the same king, dnnym. A further link between the Çineköy and
Urikki. The Cebelireis Dağı inscription dates to the second KARATEPE 1 inscriptions is the reference the latter makes
half of the seventh century, and thus refers to a much later to the ruling dynasty belonging to the ‘House of
person of this name (for discussion and references, see Muk(a)sas/mpš’. Thus in both inscriptions Muk(a)sas/mpš
Gander 2012: 292). The bilingual is thus some two is named as the ancestor of the local royal line.

69

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

Scholars agree that the Çineköy and the KARATEPE world (perhaps Mycenae, possibly Thebes or another
1 texts are to be dated within the last half of the eighth Mycenaean centre). The equation arose initially from the
century (for example Gander 2012: 293–96 on the former; Swiss scholar Emil Forrer’s much-debated identification
Hawkins 2000: 44 on the latter). But a common assump- of the Hittite-attested Ahhiyawans with the Achaians of
tion that Warikas and Awarikus are one and the same king, Homeric tradition, the literary equivalents of Bronze Age
and that the different forms of his name are simply variant Mycenaean Greeks. On the basis of the equation, informa-
renderings of it, has been the subject of much debate (for tion provided by the Ahhiyawa texts indicates that
recent contributions to this debate, see Gander 2012: 292– Mycenaean Greeks were involved politically and militarily
97 [pro-identification]; Simon 2014; Yakubovich 2015a: as well as commercially in Near Eastern affairs, particu-
42 [anti-identification]). If there were only one king, his larly those of western Anatolia, during the Late Bronze
reign would have been a long one, beginning perhaps in Age. In the late 14th century, the city and region of Miletos
the 740s, before or early in the reign of the Assyrian king (Hittite Milawata/Millawanda) became Ahhiyawan
Tiglath-pileser III (745–727), and continuing until or sovereign territory, and remained so for the next eight
shortly after 713, when Sargon II placed his kingdom decades or more (for the much greater certainty we now
directly under Assyrian rule (though he appears to have have of the geopolitical layout of the countries and cities
remained politically active for several more years, until of western Anatolia, including confirmation of the identi-
710/709; see Bryce 2012: 155–57; Gander 2012: 294–97). fication of Millawanda/Milawata with the later Classical
Regnal careers of this duration were far from unknown in Miletos [fig. 2], see Starke 1997 and Hawkins 1998, who
the Near Eastern world, and the events associated with the independently reach similar conclusions; however,
names Warikas and Awarikus could quite feasibly be Forlanini 2012 still considers the question of the historical
accommodated within a single reign. This is in fact what geography of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age to
Max Gander concludes on the basis of historical/chrono- be an open one).
logical considerations, which in his view outweigh the We learn too, from the draft of a treaty concluded by
philological arguments against equating the names. Most the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV (ca 1237–1209) with his
recently, Ilya Yakubovich (2015a: 42) has reasserted the Syrian vassal Šaušgamuwa, ruler of Amurru (AhT 2 = CTH
philological arguments against the equation. In any case, 105), of Ahhiyawan naval activity, or at least the likelihood
the question of whether or not Awarikus and Warikas are or threat of it, in the eastern Mediterranean off the
the names of different persons will have no significant Levantine coast at this time – i.e. during the last decades
bearing on the present discussion, beyond the fact that the of the 13th century. In anticipation of war with Assyria,
king(s) so called ruled over Hiyawa/Que for much of the Tudhaliya imposed a ban on Ahhiyawan ships (presumably
last half of the eighth century. the cargoes of these ships) travelling to Assyria via Amurru
(AhT 2 §15’) (G. Steiner’s 1989 proposal to restore here
A historical context for the Hiyawa texts [la-aḫ-ḫi]i-ya-u-wa-aš-ši GIŠMÁ [‘warship’] in place of
Most scholars have assumed, often with little or no discus- [Aḫ-ḫ]i-ya-u-wa-aš-ši GIŠMÁ [‘ship of Ahhiyawa’] has
sion, that the name Hiyawa can be equated with Ahhiyawa never gained traction among scholars, and now hardly ever
attested in Late Bronze Age Hittite texts. They explain the receives a mention in discussions or editions of the treaty).
shortened form as an instance of aphaeresis (a term which Though this ban has been interpreted as a trade embargo
designates the loss of a letter or syllable from the beginning on Ahhiyawan merchandise (Cline 1991), I believe the
of a word), commenting that this is a typical feature of immediate context in which it occurs, which has to do with
certain Luwian dialects (thus Singer 2006: 251; Oettinger military preparations for conflict, is more likely to indicate
2008: 64). The Ahhiyawa texts were first published as a a ban on Ahhiyawan ships being used to transport merce-
corpus by Ferdinand Sommer (1932). They have recently naries to Assyria, via one or more of the ports on Amurru’s
been republished by G.M. Beckman, T.R. Bryce and E.H. coast. We know from an earlier passage in the treaty that
Cline (= AhT), with the inclusion of a small number of texts the king of Ahhiyawa had recently been struck off the list
discovered since the Sommer publication. On the assump- of Great Kings of equal status to the king of Hatti (AhT 2
tion that Hiyawa is an aphaeresised form of Ahhiyawa, AhT §13’). This, I suggest, coincides with the loss of
includes the Luwian version of the Çineköy bilingual Ahhiyawan control over Miletos and other western
(designated as AhT 28), but was published too early to take Anatolian territories subject to its influence or authority,
account of the ARSUZ inscriptions. and the restoration of Hittite authority in the region (see
Though hard evidence has yet to be found, scholars Bryce 2010: 50).
now generally agree that the name Ahhiyawa refers to the In the wake of these developments, and probably often
Mycenaean world, sometimes in a broad generic sense and before them as well, many Ahhiyawan/Mycenaean Greeks
sometimes in reference to a specific kingdom within this may have taken to freebooting activities, operating in the

70

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

Fig. 2. The Late Bronze Age kingdoms of Anatolia, northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia (© Trevor Bryce).

eastern Mediterranean from bases along the southern in southwestern Anatolia, which to our knowledge was
Anatolian coast, or hiring themselves out as mercenaries. never considered part of the world of Ahhiyawa, would
This may explain the reference to the Ahhiyawan ships in appear to favour Gander’s argument. He suggests (2012:
the Šaušgamuwa treaty. It may also explain the references 285) that ‘Hiyawa-men’ could designate a hitherto unat-
to the Hiyawa-man and Hiyawa-men in the Ugarit letters. tested category of persons, and that this designation may
I have indicated above my agreement with Singer’s derive from the term É ḫe-e-ia, ‘guard-tower’ (attested
proposal that the consignments of PAD.MEŠ which were only in Ugarit), used to refer to some sort of guard or
to be sent by ship to the Hiyawa-men in Lukka consisted defence force. The vagueness of the term could be
of metal ingots which, I suggest, were payment for the hire explained in the same way as the lack of a specific defini-
of these men as military forces in the service of the Hittite tion of the logogram PAD.MEŠ. There was no need to
king. In his detailed 2012 article, Gander agrees that spell out who precisely the defence troops or guards or
PAD.MEŠ refers to metal bars. But he argues strongly watchmen were, since this information must have been
against linking the Hiyawa-men with the Ahhiyawans of contained in earlier dispatches to the Ugaritic king. His
the Late Bronze Age Hittite texts. He does so primarily on failure to act on the orders which they contained had
the basis that there is no probative evidence that prompted the follow-up dispatches without the need for
‘Ahhiyawa’ was ever aphaeresised as ‘Hiyawa’ in any repeating specific details.
period of the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions (Gander Alternatively, Gander offers the possibility that
2012: 286; citing also Melchert 2010: 151–53). ‘Hiyawa’ does in fact refer to the group’s country of origin,
As Gander also observes, the designation ‘Hiyawa- and that, if so, this was the country attested in the Çineköy
man’ and the plural form ‘Hiyawa-men’ (LÚ Ḫi-ya-a- inscription (and also now the ARSUZ inscriptions). But in
ú(-wi-i) and LÚ.MEŠ Ḫi-a-ú-wi-i respectively) does not his view, it has nothing to do with Ahhiyawa, i.e. with
include a place-name determinative, like KUR or URU; it Mycenaean Greeks. In support of his contention, he draws
may therefore refer to a particular category of persons, and attention to a passage from a fragmentary text of the Hittite
not to their country of origin. Indeed, the fact that the king Arnuwanda I (early 14th century), commonly referred
persons so designated were at that time located in Lukka to as Arnuwanda’s Annals (KUB 23.21; Carruba 1977:

71

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

166–71). The passage in question (obv. II 2’–11’) refers to None of this can be disproved. But I believe we can
a military campaign conducted by Arnuwanda against a establish a more historically plausible scenario by
number of cities which appear to have been located in returning to the hypothesis that the Hiyawa-men of the
southern Anatolia. This has been inferred from the Ugarit letters were a group of Ahhiyawan (i.e. Mycenaean
inclusion in the list of Adaniya, an important city of the Greek) origin. It is true that the aphaeresis of initial /a-/ is
southeastern Anatolian Late Bronze Age kingdom not otherwise attested in any Hieroglyphic Luwian texts,
Kizzuwatna and very likely located on or near the site of of either Late Bronze Age or Iron Age date. But we cannot
modern Adana. The fragmentary names of other cities exclude the possibility that aphaeresis of the name may
adjacent to Adaniya in the list – Zu]…, Sin]… and Hiya[… have occurred outside of a Luwian context, bearing in
– have been restored as Zu]nnahara, Sin]uwanda and mind that the two Ugarit letters attesting the form are
Hiya[wa]. written in Akkadian, and that in the transference of a name
The restorations of the first two of these names seem from one language to another normal philological rules do
plausible in view of their association with Adaniya in not always apply (in any case, aphaeresis occurs in a
other texts (see, for example, Forlanini 2013: 2–7, 18–20). number of instances where a personal or place name passes
But Hiya[wa] is more problematical. This reading is from one language to another; for example Greek Apol-
proposed by O. Carruba (2008: 66–67), and, although lonides > Lycian Pulenyda, Greek Iconium > Turkish
Gander admits that there is no trace of the final syllable Konya; and, as we have seen, Luwian Adanawa is equated
in the photos of the text (as also pointed out by Forlanini with dnnym, the ‘Danunians’, in the Phoenician version of
2013: 5, n.15), he considers Carruba’s reading very the Karatepe bilingual).
probable on the basis of other considerations (Gander An alternative, complementary possibility is that by the
2012: 288, n.48). In his discussion of the restoration, very end of the Bronze Age, perhaps some time after the
Gander draws attention to the fragment of a ritual text last attested appearance of the name Ahhiyawa in the
(KUB 46.45 obv. 14’) where a mountain called Hiya[…] Šaušgamuwa treaty, Hiyawa had become a common way
is named. As he points out, it is clear from the context that of referring to Ahhiyawa, or to a person or group origi-
this mountain cannot be related to a city called Hiya[…] nating from the lands which it designated, and had by the
in southern Anatolia since it was evidently located beginning of the Iron Age become the standard (and so far
somewhere in the vicinity of Tummana in northern the only known) form of the name. This proposal obviates
Anatolia. Further, as Gander also notes (2012: 288, n.50), the need for seeking to identify the unaphaeresised form
a place called Hiyasna is attested in two other Hittite texts. in the Hieroglyphic Luwian texts, as R. Oreshko (2013)
This in itself must cast doubt on how the name Hiya[…] has attempted to do, claiming to have read the name
in both KUB 23.21 and KUB 46.45 is to be completed. In ‘Ahhiyawa’ in the KARATEPE 1 inscription. Though
any case, Gander argues that Hiyawa is an indigenous Yakubovich has given Oreshko’s proposal some tentative
Anatolian name. He speculates that ‘Hiya[wa]’ of support (2015a: 39; 2015b), David Hawkins has robustly
Arnuwanda’s Annals united with Adaniya around the end rejected it (2015).
of the Bronze Age, and that the term Hiyawa(-men) in the In sum, I suggest that if ‘Hiyawa’ represents an
Ugarit letters may, after all, identify the group so attested aphaeresised ‘Ahhiyawa’, the loss of the initial syllable
by referring to their land of origin – which lay in south- may already have occurred by the end of the Late Bronze
eastern Anatolia. Age, and that the aphaeresised version survived as the only
In my view, this line of reasoning is not convincing. form of the name in the Iron Age. The extremely small
Even if we accept that Hiya[…] has been correctly restored number of texts that has survived from the last years of the
as Hiya[wa] in Arnuwanda’s Annals, we have also to Bronze Age contains no reference to either Ahhiyawa or
consider, as a consequential possibility, that the city which Hiyawa (apart from the Ugarit letters), so it is impossible
was apparently of no great significance at the time the at present to prove or disprove what I propose. Of course,
Annals were composed in the early 14th century, and if a text attesting the name Ahhiyawa and dating to
receives no further mention in the surviving Hittite texts, Suppiluliuma II’s reign, or any time after it, does subse-
nonetheless formed a union with Adaniya before the end quently turn up, that would weaken the hypothesis that
of the Bronze Age, and in the following era actually gave Hiyawa was a later form of the name – though it would
its name to a major kingdom in southeastern Anatolia. not completely eliminate it. In any case, the lack of
Indeed, if we equate its name with ‘Hiyawa’ of the Ugarit evidence for the aphaeresis of initial /a-/ in the Hiero-
letters, then it would follow that the land which was to glyphic Luwian texts does not on its own provide a suffi-
become the Iron Age kingdom of Hiyawa, or at least a city ciently compelling reason for discarding the equation
of that name, was already called Hiyawa by the end of the between Ahhiyawa and Hiyawa. New discoveries may
Bronze Age. decide the matter for us one way or the other.

72

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

Quite apart from this, since in the Çineköy bilingual Nougayrol et al. 1968: 87–89, no. 24). By dispatching his
su+ra/i in the Luwian version and ’šr in the Phoenician entire fleet to the coast of Lukka (as well as his army to
both represent Assyrian Aššur, and if Gander and other the land of Hatti), Ammurapi had left his own kingdom
scholars are right in equating Warikas in the Çineköy highly vulnerable to enemy attack, and it is difficult to
inscription (Luwian wa/i+ra/i-i-ka-sá and Phoenician believe he would have put it at such risk except in response
w[ryk(s)]) with Awarikus in the KARATEPE 1 inscription to an urgent demand from his overlord. Just possibly, the
(Luwian a-wa/i+ra/i-ku-sa-wa/i and Phoenician ’wrk), letters to Ammurapi from the Hittite court explain
then can we not by analogy admit the possibility of an Ammurapi’s action: his overlord had ordered him to send
equation between ‘Hiyawa’ and ‘Ahhiyawa’? Incidentally, his fleet to the coast of Lukka, to deliver their cargo to the
the name ’wrk is also attested in a Phoenician inscription Hiyawa-men on what must have been considered a
from Hassanbeyli, which can be dated to the same period mission vital to the defence of the Hittite realm. Admit-
as the Karatepe, Çineköy and İncirli inscriptions (see tedly, it would be a remarkable coincidence if among the
Gander 2012: 292, with references), and was found within very few surviving texts dating to Suppiluliuma II’s reign
the same region. (which may have lasted ten years or more), the ‘Hiyawa
Let us return to the question of the Hiyawa-men letters’ and Ammurapi’s letter to the Alasiyan king refer to
located, according to the Ugarit letters, in the land of precisely the same event. But even if we take a sceptical
Lukka. We have noted that the letters had been sent to the view of such a coincidence, there is no doubt that all the
Ugaritic vassal ruler Ammurapi on the orders of the last letters to and from Ammurapi belong within the context of
Hittite king, Suppiluliuma II. There is one other surviving the crises increasingly affecting the Hittite world, and the
inscription of this king in which the land Luk(k)a appears. Aegean and Near Eastern worlds in general, in the final
This is the so-called SÜDBURG inscription (Hawkins years of the Late Bronze Age.
1995) discovered in 1988 in Chamber 2 of the Südburg Within this context, I would like to make some sugges-
cult complex, Hattusa. In this (Hieroglyphic Luwian) text, tions regarding the role the Hiyawa-men played in the
Suppiluliuma claims a series of conquests which took him events of the period. The land of Lukka where they had
into western Anatolia, and included Luk(k)a (§§1b and 4a). located themselves had provided bases during the pharaoh
Taken at face value, his claim appears to indicate the Akhenaten’s reign (1352–1336) from which the local inhab-
temporary re-establishment of Hittite authority over a itants launched piratical raids in the eastern Mediterranean,
number of western Anatolian lands, including particularly against the coastal cities of Cyprus and Egypt
Wiyanawanda, Tamina, Masa, Lukka and Ikuna (EA 38: 7–18). The Hittites now sought to harness the
(/Ikkuwaniya?; probably = Iconium, modern Konya). In services of the Hiyawa-men in Lukka by paying them to
the course of this enterprise, Suppiluliuma may have had fight on their side both by land, probably in one or more of
his first contact with the Hiyawa-men in Lukka, perhaps the increasingly vulnerable frontier zones of their kingdom,
making with them at that time, or later, an arrangement and by sea. Perhaps too such stateless Ahhiyawans (if that
which was linked with the orders he dispatched to the king is what they were) were among the contemporary waves of
of Ugarit. If we accept Gander’s first (and preferred) Sea Peoples, in particular those identified by the name
proposal that these Hiyawa-men were guard-troops or ’Iq3w3š, commonly vocalised as ‘Akaiwasha’ or ‘Ekwesh’
defence forces of some kind, without reference to their in Egyptian records of the pharaoh Merneptah (1213–1203)
actual place of origin, we could speculate that they were (ARE III §579; this suggested equation, referred to by
established there by Suppiluliuma in an attempt to keep almost all scholars who deal with the Sea Peoples, remains
the region secure in the wake of his western campaign, and incapable of proof or disproof; for a recent treatment of it,
that the PAD.MEŠ were consignments of rations, see Kelder 2010: 125–26).
equipment or payment for their sustenance and to ensure Let us note also the claims made by both Tudhaliya IV
their continuing loyalty – or to resecure their services on a and (his son and second successor) Suppiluliuma II that
mercenary basis if, by then, Suppiluliuma no longer had they conquered Alasiya, and Suppiluliuma’s claim that he
control over the region where they were located. conducted several naval operations against enemy forces
It is attractive to link these letters, as Gander and others off the Alasiyan coast (see Bryce 2005: 321–23, 332–33,
have done, with Ammurapi’s well-known letter to the king with references). From where did the manpower and ships
of Alasiya (Cyprus) in which he describes his kingdom’s for these operations come? Very likely Achaian Greeks,
plight: ‘My father, the enemy’s ships have been coming including the Lukka-based Hiyawa-men, who may well
and burning my cities and doing terrible things in my have been experienced seafarers (no doubt engaging in
country. All my troops and chariots are in the land of Hatti, mercenary and buccaneering enterprises as well as
and all my ships are in Lukka. My land has been left mercantile expeditions), were among the forces recruited
defenceless!’ (adapted and condensed from RS 18.147 = by these tail-end Hittite kings for their battles both on

73

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

Alasiya and off its coast. They may well have played an How, then, do we account for the apparent use of two
important role in the victories claimed by the Hittites. The Hieroglyphic Luwian names for the same country? As we
opportunities that bases on the Lukka coast provided for have noted, a common response to this question is that
profitable seafaring ventures, especially of a military Hiyawa represents the settlement of a new population
nature, were quite possibly among the reasons why the group in southeastern Anatolia at the end of the Bronze
Hiyawa-men had come to this part of southwestern Age or the beginning of the Iron Age, in the region tradi-
Anatolia in the first place. tionally called Adana. Coupled with this is the proposal
Following the repulse of the Sea Peoples’ naval forces that the name Hiyawa indicates the installation in the
from the coast of Egypt by Ramesses III (1184–1153), a region of a ruling dynasty of Mycenaean Greek origin – a
number of these peoples found new places to settle, like proposal based on the conclusions that Hiyawa is an
the Peleset who are generally believed to have occupied aphaeresised form of Ahhiyawa, and that Ahhiyawa is the
the region in the southern Levant which came to be called Hittite name for the Mycenaean world. Support for this
Philistia. Perhaps in this context too, new settlements were line of reasoning is found in the claim by Warikas in his
established in southeastern Anatolia, in the region tradi- Çineköy inscription that he was a descendant of Mukasas
tionally called Adana(wa)/Adaniya (a name dating back at (in the Luwian version; = mpš in the Phoenician). So too
least to the Hittite Old Kingdom), later Cilicia in the KARATEPE 1 inscription, Awarikus is said to
Pedias/Campestris, ‘Plain Cilicia’ (on the form ‘Adanawa’, belong to the ‘house of Mukasas/mpš’ (§XXI). These
see Yakubovich 2015b: 57). And perhaps it was then that names equate with Moxos/Mopsos in Classical sources.
the name Hiyawa first came to be applied to this region – According to Classical tradition, a legendary Greek seer
or at least to part of it. of this name lived in the period of the Trojan War, and later
We have noted that before the discovery of the ARSUZ founded a number of cities in southern Anatolia.
inscriptions, ‘Hiyawa’ was known only from the Luwian There have been several recent discussions of the
version of the Çineköy inscription, at least in its Hiero- Mopsos tradition, and the sources in which the name and
glyphic Luwian form. In the Phoenician version of the text, the tradition are attested. N. Oettinger (2008) concludes
the land is identified by the name applied to its inhabitants, that linguistic examination of these sources supports the
the dnnym, generally vocalised as ‘Danunians’. This name mythological tradition that Mopsos was of Greek origin
was also used of the land’s inhabitants in the Phoenician and only later went to Cilicia. However, a different conclu-
version of the KARATEPE 1 inscription, along with ’dn sion is reached by Gander, who provides the most compre-
for the land itself. The name has been linked with (a) the hensive treatment to date of these sources (2012:
land of Danuna mentioned in the mid 14th-century Amarna 297–302). In support of his view that Hiyawa was of
correspondence (EA 151: 52), (b) one of the Sea Peoples indigenous origin, Gander makes the point that similar
represented as dnyn in the Egyptian record (ARE IV: §§65– names were known in both Greece and Asia Minor, and
66), (c) the biblical tribe of Dan and (d) a Greek population concludes that the definitive identification of them
group called the Danaoi. Overall, the most likely explana- probably first arose in the course of the spread of Greek
tion of the term is the one enunciated by Hawkins (2000: influence through Asia Minor. But, in my view, the most
40) that ‘Danuna/Dnyn, if correctly identified with the convincing analysis of the Mopsos tradition is that of
dnnym, are the Phoenician and Egyptian terms for the Yakubovich (2015a: 36–38). His conclusion, which he
inhabitants of Adana and the Cilician plain’ (cf. bases on both philological arguments and the application
Yakubovich 2015a: 38). of historical linguistic methodology, is that, although the
Thus, despite the appearance of Hiyawa as the earliest attestation of the name Mopsos may come from
kingdom’s name in the Luwian version of the Çineköy Anatolian sources, linguistic considerations plead for a
inscription, it is clear that the traditional name Adana for Greek origin. This is in support of his reassertion of the
the land remained current down to the last decades of the proposal, as already enunciated by others, of a Greek
eighth century. However, we now know that the country migration into Cilicia at the end of the Bronze Age.
was also referred to as Hiyawa as early as the later years He further supports this proposal by referring to the
of the tenth century – the period of the ARSUZ inscrip- large influx of Late Helladic IIIc pottery, commonly dated
tions. Indeed, the country may have been so called from to the 12th and 11th centuries, which made its way into the
the time of the upheavals associated with the end of the Cilician plain at this time, whereas only small numbers of
Bronze Age. From the mid ninth century onwards, and earlier Late Helladic IIIa–b potsherds have been found in
perhaps much earlier, Assyrian kings referred to the the region. Unfortunately, this part of his argument rests
country as Que, almost certainly an Assyrianised version on shaky archaeological foundations – as indeed is clear
of Hiyawa (Hiyawa > *Qawe > Que) (cf. Dinçol et al. from the article by G. Lehmann (2007) which he cites.
2015: 67). Lehmann mentions Cilicia fairly briefly in this article

74

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

(2007: 510–13, 521), and plays down the effect that we cannot assume that this was the case also in the late
migration may have had on changes in the material culture tenth century, the period of the ARSUZ inscriptions.
of the region in the Early Iron Age. Following on the Importantly, however, these inscriptions confirm that a
earlier work of Susan Sherratt and others (see, for example, land called Hiyawa did exist at this time. Indeed, it may
Sherratt and Crouwel 1987), Lehmann emphasises the already have done so two centuries or more earlier.
continuing cultural exchange with Cyprus which is made Let us return to the ‘historical section’ of the inscrip-
evident by the Late Helladic IIIc pottery of the Levant and tions. Suppiluliuma, who authored or commissioned them,
Cilicia and is more indicative of close links with Cyprus refers to what are apparently three events in the following
than with the Aegean, though the latter are not excluded sequence: (1) his conquest of an unnamed city, (2)
(for Cypriot connections with the Near East in general in something done to him by the city/land Adana and his
this period, see now Sherratt 2015). At best, the archaeo- conquest of it and (3) his apparent conquest of the land
logical evidence adduced by Yakubovich for Greek Hiyawa.
migration into Cilicia at the end of the Bronze Age remains How do we explain the separate references to Adana
tenuous. and Hiyawa within the same passage, in succeeding lines?
Even so, and despite Gander’s detailed and well-artic- Prior to the discovery of the ARSUZ inscriptions, I raised
ulated arguments to the contrary, the hypothesis that the the question of why Assyrian-attested Que was called by
name Hiyawa reflects a Greek presence in the Cilician one name, Adanawa, in the Luwian version of the Karatepe
plain from at least the Early Iron Age onwards remains inscription, and by another, Hiyawa, in the Luwian version
alive and well, in my opinion. We should also note in this of the Çineköy inscription (Bryce 2012: 154). Further to
context the claim made by Herodotus (7.91) that the this, Yakubovich commented that it would be unique in the
Cilicians were originally called Hypachaians, i.e. ‘latter- Neo-Hittite world to use two different names for the same
day Achaians’. Though his claim is frequently cited, it principality in the same language and within the same
seems rarely to have been given more than passing consid- tradition (Yakubovich 2015a: 39). Hawkins had earlier
eration by supporters of either side of the debate. Admit- sought to explain the difference by proposing that Hiyawa
tedly many of Herodotus’ claims are fanciful and referred to the country and Adana(wa) to (its chief) city
far-fetched. But it may well be that there is a grain of truth (2009: 166). And subsequently, in response to Yakubovich’s
in what he says here, especially as it neatly complements comment above, he observed that though this may be
the theory that the name Hiyawa reflects late unique, it is hardly surprising: ‘Adana(wa) is the name of
Ahhiyawan/Mycenaean settlement in the same region – the city (old) and Hiyawa is the name of the land (more
settlement which became established under the rule of a recent). Elsewhere when the names of the city and the land
dynasty of Achaian/Mycenaean origin, according to the differ they may be used interchangeably; cf. Gurgum/
theory. And, as Yakubovich notes, Mopsos’ specific Marqas, Kizzuwatna/Kummanni, etc.’ (Hawkins 2015: 54).
connection with Cilicia is reflected in the local Hellenistic Yakubovich responded to this by arguing that if Adana was
toponyms Mopsoukrene and Mopsouestia (2015a: 36). In simply the (chief) city of the country Hiyawa, and not an
any case, if Assyrian Que derives from Hiyawa, then it is alternative name for it, ‘it is difficult to see how one could
clear that the Assyrians chose to identify the land by the “turn” (i.e. rout?) the land once having overcome its capital,
name associated with its current ruling dynasty rather than as one would rather expect the opposite order of events’
by its traditional name Adana. (Yakubovich 2015b: 57). In other words, it is more logical
That leads us back to the question of the apparently to assume that an invader would first have to conquer the
alternative names applied to the country in its own texts – territories and settlements belonging to a land before
Hiyawa and Adana(wa) – and the possible circumstances attacking and capturing its chief city.
in which one name was used instead of the other. At this But in fact the comprehensive conquest of a land did
stage, I would like to make an important point that bears not always precede the capture of its capital. This is illus-
directly on the discussion to follow. As we have noted, the trated by the Hittite king Mursili II’s subjugation of the
Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions date to the last decades entire land of ‘Arzawa Minor’ (ca 1319) after his seizure
of the eighth century, two centuries after the ARSUZ of its capital Apasa (following his defeat, on the periphery
inscriptions. The political context of the two sets of of Arzawan territory, of an army sent against him by the
inscriptions, two centuries apart, may have differed consid- kingdom’s ruler Uhha-ziti; AhT 1A: §§17–18), and by the
erably, especially given the many (sometimes sweeping) Assyrian king Shalmaneser III’s sack of the Aramaean state
socio-political changes, often initiated by military activity, Bit-Adini only after his abortive attempt to seize its capital
that characterise this period. We can conclude from the Masuwari (Til Barsip) during his second invasion of the
later inscriptions that Adana and Hiyawa were by this time land (857) (RIMA 3: A.O.102.2.ii.13b–16a, pp. 17–18; see
alternative names for the same region and kingdom. But Bryce 2012: 223). These illustrative episodes demonstrate

75

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

the weakness of attempting to use the order of events in the It is possible that by the last decades of the eighth
historical section of the ARSUZ texts as support for century Phoenician did have a superior status to Luwian
claiming that Adana was not the capital of Hiyawa but an as the official language of the kingdom, as Yakubovich
alternative name of the land. More plausible is the possi- concludes. But, even if this were the case then, it need not
bility that the inscription does not present a strictly sequen- have been so two centuries earlier. We have no direct
tial narrative, but rather in §13 refers to the conquest of the evidence of what the primary language, or the official
land of Hiyawa by way of summing up Suppiluliuma’s language, of Hiyawa was at the time of the ARSUZ
campaign in the region, as recorded in the preceding lines. inscriptions. Like that of the other Neo-Hittite kingdoms,
Alternatively, Yakubovich suggests that §13 summarises a it was probably Luwian. This had become established as
second (my italics) campaign in this region: ‘I rose up and the official language of royalty in all the kingdoms covered
routed also the land Hiyawa’ (2015b: 58). by the term ‘Neo-Hittite’ in the centuries following the
His suggestion gives rise to a further line of thought. collapse of the Bronze Age kingdoms in the region. And it
At this point in its history, it is possible that (a) the country was indeed the official language adopted by the ‘Taita
called Hiyawa did not include the territory belonging to dynasty’ (as attested in the Aleppo inscriptions) which
Adana or (b) its leaders had taken over a part of Adana’s established its seat probably on the site now called Tayinat
territory and established there a ruling dynasty of their own (almost certainly the Assyrian-attested Kinalua) in the late
– one of Greek origin. In either case, the majority of the second millennium – a dynasty which may also have
new kingdom’s population would almost certainly have consisted of intruders (Philistines?) into the region
continued to be of local ‘Adanean’ or ‘Danunian’ origin (Hawkins 2009; 2011). Tayinat (Kinalua) was the chief
(cf. the evolution of the Bronze Age Hittite kingdom, when city of the kingdom Walistin/Walastin (formerly Palistin;
an intrusive dynasty of Indo-European origin established = Assyrian Patin, Unqi). Use of the Luwian language as a
its rule over an indigenous Hattian population; see Bryce kingdom’s official language was one of the means of
2005: 12–15). If this theory is correct, then at this time ‘legitimising’ the status of the kingdom’s ruling dynasty. I
Hiyawa and Adana(wa) were politically separate, albeit think it not at all unlikely that for this reason the early
neighbouring lands, separately ‘conquered’. It was only kings of Hiyawa also used Luwian initially as their official
later that the two were amalgamated – under a Hiyawan written language, irrespective of what their native
ruling dynasty. language was. A further reason for their doing so was that
Thus, after establishing a principality on the south- if they were Achaians, and therefore Greek-speakers, they
eastern coast of Anatolia adjacent to and perhaps would not have had a written language of their own which
occupying part of the territory of Adana, Hiyawa’s rulers they could use. To judge from the surviving texts, the only
subsequently extended their control over (the rest of?) known script of Mycenaean Greece, so-called Linear B,
Adana. They used the name Hiyawa for the whole of their was used only for basic record-keeping. It was totally
kingdom (at least on some occasions), as did the Assyrians. unsuited for more complex communications, including
But the traditional name Adana was retained in a number accounts of a king’s military and other achievements. In
of contexts, as illustrated by the Phoenician versions of any case, by the time the country of Hiyawa came into
both the Çineköy and the Karatepe bilinguals, and also by existence, Linear B had almost certainly ceased to be used
the Luwian version of the latter. Almost certainly the by any Greek-speakers – and even if it did continue to this
continuing use of the traditional name indicates that the time, the settlers who gave the new name to the land were
kingdom’s indigenous Luwian element remained ethni- very likely illiterate. For political reasons, Luwian may
cally and culturally significant, if not dominant, within it. well have been the original official language of the
Nonetheless, Yakubovich argues, on philological, soci- kingdom of Hiyawa – and for practical reasons as well,
olinguistic and epigraphic grounds, that Phoenician because almost certainly the inscriptions of the time would
became the primary official language of the region, noting, have required the services of literate Luwian-speaking
among other things, that in the Karatepe and Çineköy inhabitants of the region to carve them.
bilinguals the Luwian texts clearly occupy a subordinate By the last decades of the eighth century, however, the
place on the monuments (Yakubovich 2015a: 44–50). He Hieroglyphic Luwian script was giving way throughout
concludes that Phoenician was adopted by the rulers of the Neo-Hittite world to Phoenician as the main written
Hiyawa as the kingdom’s primary language, for the medium of communication. This may well account for
practical reason that Phoenician had the status of an inter- what Yakubovich concludes was the primacy of Phoeni-
national lingua franca. Luwian, however, continued to be cian in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions. For
recognised as the kingdom’s ‘secondary language’, in practical reasons, Phoenician was now the foremost of the
acknowledgement of the region’s traditional inhabitants, two languages used in these and no doubt other inscrip-
who no doubt still made up the bulk of its population. tions of the region. But the fact that Hieroglyphic Luwian

76

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

carved on public monuments was still used at all in this Before addressing this question, let us first say
late period, even if relegated to an inferior status, could something about inscribed victory monuments like these
well demonstrate not a gesture towards a subordinate which were intended for public display. The erection in
population group, but a continuing wish to maintain the conquered territories of stelae and statues with inscriptions
long-established traditions of the region – including espe- recording a conqueror’s victory over them is well attested
cially the use of Luwian in hieroglyphic inscriptions as the in Iron Age, especially Assyrian, inscriptions. To cite a few
traditional language of royalty. The Karatepe inscription examples: (1) Around 870, the Assyrian king Ashur-
of Azatiwatas, clearly a great respecter of the old traditions nasirpal II erected on the Amanus range ‘a memorial to his
and a loyal supporter of the royal family whose sover- valour’ (RIMA 2: A.O.101.1.iii 90, p.219), no doubt an
eignty he acknowledged and helped maintain, is a signal inscribed stele or statue, recording his achievements on his
example of this. western campaign. (2) In 858, his son Shalmaneser III,
Related to the above is another suggestion made by after defeating a coalition enemy force in the region of
Yakubovich which merits further consideration. While Sam’al, advanced to the foot of the Amanus range, and had
noting that scholars are in broad agreement that the Greek erected there a colossal statue of himself, inscribed with
alphabet was based on the Phoenician script and arose from an account of his exploits (RIMA 3: A.O.102.2.i. 49–51a,
Phoenician contact with the Greek world, Yakubovich p.16). It was a monumental statement of his conquest of
raises the possibility that the alphabet emerged not from the entire region from the Euphrates to the shores of the
sporadic or informal encounters between Greeks and (say) Great (i.e. Mediterranean) Sea. (3) In 839, Shalmaneser
Phoenician merchants, but rather was first developed in a conducted a comprehensive operation against Que after
chancery context in the Cilician region, where ‘Phoenician his passage through the Amanus range. To mark his
scribes rubbed shoulders and shared knowledge with their victory, he ordered two statues of himself to be erected,
Greek disciples’ (Yakubovich 2015a: 50). This proposal is one in a city at the eastern end of the kingdom, the other
of course purely speculative. But it does provide a basis in a city at the western end, both inscribed with a record
for further consideration of the nature and mechanics of of his achievements (RIMA 3: A.O.102.10.iv.30–33, p.55;
the transmission of the Phoenician script throughout the Bryce 2012: 239). (4) In 805, Adad-nirari III claimed
Greek world. victory over an enemy coalition and, in its immediate
The historical passage in the ARSUZ inscriptions aftermath, ordered a stele to be erected, with his victory
raises another question. Did Suppiluliuma actually conquer recorded upon it, on the boundary between the Neo-Hittite
the cities and the land(s) to which he refers in this passage? states of Kummuh and Gurgum (RIMA 3: A.O.104.3,
It was, and still is, not unknown for military leaders to p.205).
make false or exaggerated declarations of victories over So too, the Neo-Hittite king, Suppiluliuma, ruler of
their enemies. Ramesses II’s claims, emblazoned on the Walistin/Walastin, had two victory stelae carved to
walls of five Egyptian temples, to have routed the Hittite commemorate his apparent conquests in Adana and
forces at Qadeš is a case in point (Gardiner 1960/1975; see Hiyawa. Doubtless, he intended the duplicate stelae to be
Bryce 2005: 234–41). So what of the claims made by set up in these lands, perhaps one in (the city of?) Adana,
Suppiluliuma in the ARSUZ inscriptions? The findspot of the other somewhere in Hiyawa (if Adana and Hiyawa
the stelae which record them is significant. B. Dinçol et al. were at this time separate lands) – or at either end of these
(2015) are undoubtedly right to conclude that this findspot lands, just as Shalmaneser III was later to do in his
simply indicates the place where the monuments were conquest of the same region. Presumably the stelae were
abandoned in transit to an unreached destination or desti- being transported to their intended destinations in the wake
nations. The possibility that they were originally erected of Suppiluliuma’s Cilician campaign. But the fact that they
where they were found can, I believe, be safely dismissed. were abandoned en route almost certainly indicates one of
Firstly, to set up two almost identical stelae in the same two things: either (1) that Suppiluliuma failed to conquer
place would make no sense. Secondly, if they were the region and his campaign was aborted or (2) that his
intended for erection in, or on the borders of, the land(s) campaign was in fact successful, but the conquered lands
whose conquest they record, the implication would be that rebelled and re-established their independence before the
these lands extended well into what we believe to have stelae could be set up in them. Either one of these possi-
been the territory of their alleged conqueror. Since this is bilities would account for the stelae’s abandonment en
very unlikely, their abandonment leads us to question route.
whether the victories they record actually occurred (that In the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Hittite
said, the region subject to Hiyawa/Que may have grown, Empire, several of the emerging Neo-Hittite kingdoms
or fluctuated, significantly throughout the Iron Age; ‘Que’ may have sought to build small empires of their own,
on fig. 1 simply indicates its likely core territory). provoking conflict with other states in the process.

77

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Anatolian Studies 2016

Notable among these, very likely, were the kingdom of (RIMA 2: A.O.87.3.26–28, p.37, A.O.87.4.28–30, p.42).
Carchemish and the kingdom of Palistin/Walistin And although Assyria lost any authority it had in the
(Walastin) over which Suppiluliuma ruled – as did the region after Tiglath-pileser’s death – which gave
‘Taita dynasty’ some decades before him. From inscrip- Suppiluliuma, in the long interval that followed, the
tional evidence, Hawkins (2011: 51) concludes that Taita opportunity for his campaign to expand his Tayinat-based
held sway over a substantial dominion which incorporated kingdom into eastern Cilicia – it had by the ninth century
the Amuq plain and extended at least as far east as the begun to reassert its military dominance over the Neo-
territory of Aleppo and southwards along the Orontes Hittite and Aramaean states west of the Euphrates.
river to the environs of modern Hama. Suppiluliuma Disputes sometimes arose between these states over how
sought to extend his kingdom northwestwards into the far their territories extended. But, by and large, all main-
lands of Adana and Hiyawa in what was later called tained their independence, were probably at peace with
Cilicia Pedias. Ultimately, none of the local ‘empire- one another most of the time and sometimes united,
builders’ succeeded. Already in the late 12th to early 11th unsuccessfully, against the armies of Assyrian kings, from
century, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I conducted a Ashurnasirpal II (883–859) onwards. By the end of the
campaign west of the Euphrates and claimed to have eighth century, all had been absorbed into the provincial
imposed his sovereignty over ‘the entire land of Hatti’ structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

References
Abbreviations
AhT = Beckman, G.M., Bryce, T.R., Cline, E.H. 2011: The Ahhiyawa Texts. Leiden/Boston, Brill
ARE = Breasted, J.H. 1906: Ancient Records of Egypt. Chicago, University of Chicago Press
CTH = Laroche, E. 1971: Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris, Klincksieck
EA = Moran, W. (ed.) 1992: The El-Amarna Letters. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press
KUB = Figulla, H.H. et al. (eds) 1921–: Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. Berlin, Akademie Verlag
RIMA 2 = Grayson, A.K. 1991: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2. Assyrian Rulers of the
Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). Toronto, University of Toronto Press
RIMA 3 = Grayson, A.K. 1996: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 3. Assyrian Rulers of the
Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC). Toronto, University of Toronto Press
RS = Tablets from Ras Shamra

Bryce, T.R. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281329.001.0001
— 2010: ‘The Hittite deal with the Hiyawa-Men’ in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, J. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica. Studies on the
Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 47–53
— 2012: The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218721.001.0001
Çambel, H. 1999: Corpus of Luwian Hieroglyphic Inscriptions II. Karatepe-Aslantaş. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter
Carruba, O. 1977: ‘Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte I’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 18: 137–74
— 2008: Annali etei del medio regno. Pavia, Italian University Press
Cline, E.H. 1991: ‘A possible Hittite embargo against the Mycenaeans’ Historia 40: 1–9
Dinçol, B., Dinçol, A., Hawkins, J.D., Peker, H. 2015: ‘Two new inscribed Storm-God stelae from Arsuz (İskenderun)
ARSUZ 1 and 2’ Anatolian Studies 65: 59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S006615461500006X
Forlanini, M. 2012: ‘The historical geography of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: still an open question’ (review
of M. Gander 2010: Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder. Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag Winter)
Orientalia n.s. 81.2: 133–40
— 2013: ‘How to infer ancient roads and itineraries from heterogeneous Hittite texts: the case of the Cilician (Kizzuwat-
nean) road system’ KASKAL 10: 1–34
Gander, M. 2012: ‘Ahhiyawa–Hiyawa–Que: Gibt es Evidenz für die Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien am Übergang
von der Bronze zur Eisenheit?’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 54: 281–309
Gardiner, A. 1960/1975: Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford, Griffith Institute
Hawkins, J.D. 1995: The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG). Wiesbaden,
Harrassowitz

78

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053
 Bryce | The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited

— 1998: ‘Tarkasnawa king of Mira “Tarkondemos”, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel’ Anatolian Studies 48: 1–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3643046
— 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions I. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter
— 2009: ‘Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo’ Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 164–73
— 2011: ‘The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple’ Anatolian Studies 61: 35–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0066154600008772
— 2015: ‘Addendum to “Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia” by Ilya Yakubovich’ Anatolian
Studies 65: 54–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0066154615000022
Kelder, J.M. 2010: ‘The Egyptian interest in Mycenaean Greece’ Jaarbericht ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 42: 125–40
Lackenbacher, S., Malbran-Labat, F. 2005: ‘Ugarit et les Hittites dans les archives de la “Maison d’Urtenu”’ Studi
Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 47: 227–40
Lehmann, G. 2007: ‘Decorated pottery styles in the northern Levant during the Early Iron Age and their relationship
with Cyprus and the Aegean’ Ugarit-Forschungen 39: 487–550
Melchert, H.C. 2010: ‘Spelling of initial /a-/ in Hieroglyphic Luwian’ in I. Singer (ed.), Luwian and Hittite Studies
Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Tel Aviv, Emery and Claire Yass Publications
in Archaeology: 147–58
Nougayrol, J., Laroche, E., Virolleaud, C., Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1968: Ugaritica V (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris,
Geuthner
Oettinger, N. 2008: ‘The seer Mopsos as a historical figure’ in B.J. Collins, M.R. Bacharova, I.C. Rutherford (eds),
Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 63–66
Oreshko, R. 2013: ‘The Achaean hides caged in yonder beams: the value of Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *429 reconsidered
and a new light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa’ Kadmos 52.1: 19–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/kadmos-2013-0002
Sherratt, S. 2015: ‘Cyprus and the Near East: cultural contacts (1200–750 BC)’ in A. Babbi, F. Bubenheimer-Erhart,
B. Maria-Aguilera, S. Mühl (eds), The Mediterranean Mirror. Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between
1200 and 750 BC. Regensburg, Schnell & Steiner: 71–83
Sherratt, S., Crouwel, J.H. 1987: ‘Mycenaean pottery from Cilicia in Oxford’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6: 325–
52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1987.tb00160.x
Simon, Z. 2014: ‘Awarikus und Warikas: zwei Könige von Hiyawa’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Archäologie 104.1: 91–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/za-2014-0005
Singer, I. 2006: ‘Ships bound for Lukka: a new interpretation of the companion letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523’
Altorientalische Forschungen 33: 242–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1524/aofo.2006.33.2.242
Sommer, F. 1932: Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden. Munich, Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Starke, F. 1997: ‘Troia im Kontext des historischen-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens in 2 Jahrtausend’
Studia Troica 7: 447–87
Steiner, G. 1989: ‘“Schiffe von Ahhijawa” oder “Kriegschiffe” von Amurru in Šauškamuwa-Vertrag’ Ugarit-
Forschungen 21: 393–411
Tekoğlu, R., Lemaire, A. 2000: ‘La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy’ Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 961–1007
Weeden, M. 2015: ‘The land of Walastin at Tell Tayinat’ Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2015.2: 65–66
Yakubovich, I. 2015a: ‘Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia’ Anatolian Studies 65: 35–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0066154615000010
— 2015b: ‘Adanawa or Ahhiyawa? Reply to the addendum by J.D. Hawkins’ Anatolian Studies 65: 56–58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0066154615000034

79

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Ege Universitesi, on 14 Dec 2020 at 12:55:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154616000053