Awīlum ša la mašê – man who cannot be forgotten Studies in Honor of Prof. Stefan Zawadzki Presented on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday

Edited by Rafał Koliński Jan Prostko-Prostyński Witold Tyborowski

Alter Orient und Altes Testament

Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments

Band 463

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich • Ingo Kottsieper • Hans Neumann

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider • Stefan Maul Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger • Gebhard Selz Michael P. Streck

Awīlum ša la mašê – man who cannot be forgotten Studies in Honor of Prof. Stefan Zawadzki Presented on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday

Edited by Rafał Koliński Jan Prostko-Prostyński Witold Tyborowski

2018 Ugarit-Verlag Münster

Thoroughly refereed

Rafał Koliński, Jan Prostko-Prostyński, Witold Tyborowski (Ed.)

Awīlum ša la mašê – man who cannot be forgotten Studies in Honor of Prof. Stefan Zawadzki Presented on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday

Alter Orient und Altes Testament 463

© 2018 Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel Münster www.ugarit-verlag.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-293-1

ISSN 0931-4296

Printed on acid-free paper

Photograph by Piotr Namiota

Professor Stefan Zawadzki Table of Contents

Professor Stefan Zawadzki as Scholar, Teacher, and Man ...... xi

Bibliography of Stefan Zawadzki ...... xvii

Piotr Briks Djâmi Nabî Yunîs – Shrine of the Prophet Jonah in Nineveh ...... 1

Waldemar Chrostowski Assyrian Diaspora of Israelites as a Challenge for Biblical Studies and Assyriology ...... 21

Olga Drewnowska Who Is ‘My Lady’? The Goddesses in the Royal Inscriptions of the Kings of Isin and Larsa ...... 39

Michael Jursa and Elizabeth E. Payne Exercises in Epistolography: Two Late Babylonian Trial Letters ...... 53

Hieronim Kaczmarek Stanisław Staszic’s Egyptological Knowledge ...... 59

Magdalena Kapełuś Participants of the Hittite King’s Funeral ...... 81

Rafał Koliński The Post-Assyrian Period in the Eastern Assyria ...... 93

Michael Kozuh NBC 4847: The Growth of a Herd of Cattle in Four Years ...... 115

Edward Lipiński Marital Questions at Emar ...... 129

Adam Łukaszewicz A Remark on Abyssinia, Ethiopia and India...... 141

Cécile Michel Miscellaneous Tablets and Fragments Found at Kültepe in 2012 and 2013 ..... 149 x Table of Contents

Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò Athens and Jerusalem, Again. The New Paradigm of the Jewish and Greek Intercultural Relationships? ...... 161

Danuta Okoń C. Iulius Asper – Senator Probus ...... 171

Jan Prostko-Prostyński Who Wrote the Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor? ...... 179

Małgorzata Sandowicz Artapanos in Babylonia ...... 189

Nicholas Victor Sekunda An Achaemenid Gem Showing Three Rulers ...... 201

Marek Stępień Gudea’s Two Foundation Inscriptions in a Polish Private Collection ...... 209

Piotr Taracha On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations with Mycenaean Rulers ...... 215

Radosław Tarasewicz Three Tablets Donated to the British Museum by Lucien de Schorstein (d’Odessa) ...... 231

Witold Tyborowski An Unusual Text Concerning a Trial about Crops from a Field at the Poznań Archaeological Museum ...... 243

Michaela Weszeli An Old Neo-Babylonian Seal with Cock ...... 255

Ran Zadok Some Unpublished Neo- and Late-Babylonian Documents ...... 259

Abbreviations ...... 287

Index of Personal Names ...... 293

Index of Place Names ...... 309

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations with Mycenaean Rulers

Piotr Taracha University of Warsaw

1. Introduction: The Ahhiyawa question

The origins of the vast discussion concerning Ahhiyawa of Hittite texts go back to Emil Forrer’s lecture in Berlin and his two renowned articles on the topic published in 1924.1 It can be summarized as follows:2 today the majority opinion is that the term has primarily “a vague ethno-geographical connotation, referring to the Mycenaean world and people living there (including Mycenaean settlers in the Aegean coastal area of western Anatolia and on the adjacent islands), rather than to a specific political unit in Anatolia or elsewhere”,3 though the sources of the 13th century BC refer also to a Mycenaean kingdom and its rulers. Hence, the Ahhiyawa texts must be considered diachronically. References to Attariššiya, a Mycenaean war-lord (LÚ URUĀḫḫiyā) who controlled some territories in western Anatolia or/and on the offshore islands and whose military enterprises in Anatolia and Cyprus (Alašiya) during the reign of Tudhaliya II (late 15th – early 14th century BC) are described in the Indictment of Madduwatta (CTH 147),4 as well as those to a Mycenaean enemy (LÚKÚR LÚ URUAḫḫiya) in a Middle Hittite oracle report KBo 16.97 + KBo 40.48 obv. 38,5 and to another(?) Mycenaean ruler (LÚ URUAḫḫiya[(-)) in a letter from the times of Tudhaliya III (first half of the 14th century BC), Or. 90/1600 + Or. 90/1706 rev. 64’,6 virtually have such ethno-

1 Forrer 1924a; and idem 1924b. 2 See now Fischer 2010 (reviewed by Beckman 2011), and Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011. 3 Taracha 2009: 20. See, already, Marazzi 1992: 375; now also Genz 2011: 303, with n. 10 (refs.). 4 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 69ff. (AhT 3). 5 Ibidem: 224f. (AhT 22). 6 Süel 2014: 937. The text mentions also Tarhuntaradu (l. 82’), who might be identical with the king of Arzawa known from EA 31, contemporary with Amenophis III (see now Hawkins 2009). 216 Piotr Taracha geographical value and cannot be connected with the 13th century BC evidence for the Great Kingdom of Ahhiyawa.7 I now regard as established that around the middle of the 13th century BC the Mycenaean Greek kingdom called Ahhiyawa by the Hittites controlled (some of) the offshore islands close to its main Asian holdings around Millawanda (Miletos), but its far-away seat of power was located somewhere else, most likely on the Greek mainland. The so-called Tawagalawa Letter (CTH 181) from a Hittite king, generally equated with Hattušili III (c. 1267–1240), to his unnamed counterpart in Ahhiyawa is quite explicit about the matter.8 This document, which survives only as extensive parts of the third and last tablet, can be dated to the mid 1250s BC or slightly later.9 Piyamaradu, an ambitious West Anatolian renegade,10 was pursued by the Hittite king after having attacked Attarimma, a city under Hittite authority, probably to be located in southern Caria (see below). He eventually escaped from Millawanda by ship to one of the Ahhiyawan offshore islands, taking with him his family, retinue, crews of his fleet, and a large number of civilian captives from the Hittite king’s vassal territory. On the island he established a new base from which he planned to raid the Hittite vassal lands. Yet, this was not the governmental center of Ahhiyawa, as Piyamaradu corresponded from that place with the Great King of Ahhiyawa in his distant capital. The Hittite texts referring to the Great Kingdom of Ahhiyawa give no hint of just which Mycenaean palatial center would be the best candidate for its capital. Jorrit Kelder recently put forward a vision of the Great Kingdom of Ahhiyawa with the capital at Mycenae, including virtually all of the Mycenaean world. He maintains that

“Ahhiyawa was a conglomerate state; but then organized along more formal and hierarchical lines – as a Great Kingdom.”11

Exchange of letters between the Hittite Great Kings and their Ahhiyawan counterparts might corroborate to some extent Kelder’s proposal. Beckman,

7 Beckman, Bryce and Cline (2011) consequently translate LÚ URUAḫḫiya as “the ruler of Ahhiya,” maintaining (ibidem: 225 n. 107) that “[t]he word LÚ literally means ‘man’, but here, as in other contexts, it clearly refers to a leader or ruler of some kind”. However, Ahhiya here not necessarily relates to a specific Mycenaean kingdom. 8 Miller 2006; Hoffner 2009: 296ff. (no. 101); Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 101ff. (AhT 4). 9 See now Taracha 2015: 279f. 10 For Piyamaradu and his anti-Hittite activities in western Anatolia already during the reign of Hattušili III’s brother, Muwattalli II (c. 1290–1272), see Heinhold-Krahmer 1983 and eadem 1986; now also eadem 2010: 201ff. 11 Kelder 2012: 46. Cf. also Kelder 2004–2005: 158; and idem 2010: 44.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 217

Bryce and Cline rightly remark that the terms “Great King”, “my brother”, and “my peer”

“were not used lightly in international royal terminology. In the Near Eastern context, “Great Kingship” was confined to the rulers of Hatti, Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni and (after Mitanni’s fall) Assyria. And only “Great Kings” addressed their peers as “my brother”.”12

The use of these terms in the Mycenaean-Hittite diplomatic correspondence of the 13th century BC implied full equality between the two kings and cannot therefore be interpreted as a case of ad hoc diplomacy. At the time, Ahhiyawa was undeniably an influential power on the western outskirts of the Near Eastern world of Great Kingdoms. The very fact that the Hittites called this kingdom “Ahhiyawa”, that is with the term referring to the Mycenaean Greeks and the Mycenaean world in general, may be an additional, telling argument for its importance. From the point of view of Hittite diplomacy this was the most important Mycenaean kingdom. Ahhiyawa retained its status among the Great Powers until the mid 1230s BC, a date post quem non of its fall being possibly determined by a treaty (CTH 105) that Tudhaliya IV (c. 1240–1209) drew up with Šaušga-muwa, king of Amurru, at the beginning of the latter’s reign (c. 1235 BC).13 In this document, the king of Ahhiyawa was included and then erased from the list of the Great Kings, royal peers of the Hittite monarch.14 The loss of peer status among the Great Kings by the king of Ahhiyawa may have been a(n immediate) result of the collapse of the Ahhiyawan kingdom, or generally, of the Mycenaean palace system on the Greek mainland in the LH IIIB2 period, sometime in the thirties of the 13th century BC. Nevertheless, Kelder’s vision of the Great Kingdom of Ahhiyawa / Mycenae including all of the Mycenaean world is hardly acceptable without demur. In the Tawagalawa Letter, not only the unnamed king of Ahhiyawa, but also another Mycenaean ruler named Tawagalawa is addressed as “Great King”. And as I have argued elsewhere, Tawagalawa was the king of another Mycenaean kingdom (maybe in Crete?), rather than the predecessor of the letter’s addressee on the throne of Ahhiyawa.15 There was certainly enough room for at least several Great Kingdoms in the Late Bronze Age Aegean.

12 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 122. Cf. also Tugendhaft 2012: 92ff. 13 For the political context of the treaty, see Singer 1991: 172f. 14 Beckman, 1999: 103ff. (no. 17); Singer 2003: 98ff.; Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 60f. (AhT 2, iv 1–3). 15 Taracha 2015.

218 Piotr Taracha

2. Mycenaean-Hittite diplomatic relations in historical perspective

A short history of Mycenaean-Hittite contacts in western Anatolia – as reconstructed on the evidence of the surviving Hittite sources – may help explain the course of diplomatic relations between Hatti and Ahhiyawa. As said, Attariššiya was the first attested Mycenaean ruler military involved in western Anatolian affairs. The Hittites had to confront his raids into the territory of their vassal Madduwatta already in the late 15th or early 14th century BC. According to Arnuwanda I’s report in the Indictment of Madduwatta, his father Tudhaliya II, after having saved Madduwatta from the sword of Attariššiya, put him on oath and commanded him the following:

“You shall not [send] (someone) [on a mission to] Attariššiya. If Attariššiya sends (someone) on a mission to you, [you] seize the messenger and [send] him to the father [of My Majesty]. You shall not [conceal the matter about which] he writes [to you], but write about it scrupulously to the father of My Majesty. You shall not dispatch [the messenger] back to [Attariššiya] on your own authority.”16

This passage is yet another, even if indirect, proof of intensive contacts between representatives of élites of the time. If need be, messengers traveled to and from between courts of great and petty kings alike, irrespective of the current state of mutual relations that could change very quickly. Both possible options are taken into account here. If the message had been delivered orally, the messenger should be seized and sent to the Hittite king. If, however, he had brought a written communication, Madduwatta should (let one of his scribes) read it, write about the matter to the king and detain the messenger waiting for the king’s decision. Nevertheless, it is rather unlikely that the Hittite Great King maintained regular diplomatic relations with Attariššiya. Several letters from Ortaköy, recently published by Aygül Süel, shed some light on the turbulent situation in (south)western Anatolia during the reign of Tudhaliya III.17 They report on concentrations of enemy troops from Arzawa and Pidašša immediately before their frontal attack on the city Šal(la)pa (and the Lower Land), which must be viewed as part of a serious crisis and large territorial losses of the Hittite state known from later sources and called “Concentric Invasion” by Hittitologists. As mentioned above, one of these letters refers to a role played in these events by a “Man of Ahhiya.” Unfortunately, the context is too fragmentary for analysis.

16 Indictment of Madduwatta (CTH 147) § 7 (Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 77). 17 Süel 2014.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 219

The first references to a king of Ahhiyawa (LUGAL KUR Aḫḫiya/uwā18) are found in the Annals of Muršili II (c. 1322–1290).19 Beckman, Bryce and Cline adequately comment on this matter:

“[I]n this context, the name Ahhiyawa is used specifically of a kingdom whose ruler became politically and perhaps military involved in western Anatolian affairs. (…) Inevitably, Ahhiyawa’s and Hatti’s overlapping spheres of interest in the west led to tensions and perhaps on occasion conflicts between them. It seems likely, however, that Ahhiyawa sought to expand its influence and control in western Anatolia through alliances with local rulers, often at the expense of ties which these rulers had with Hatti, rather than by direct military action.”20

The same authors specify incentives for Muršili to go to war against Arzawa in the third year of his rule, which in the next year resulted in the ultimate fall of Arzawa:

“The Arzawan king Uhha-ziti figures in the Annals as the chief target of Mursili’s western campaigns, primarily because he had defied the Hittite king by refusing to hand back to him refugees from Hittite authority, namely, from the lands Attarimma, Huwaršanašša and Šuruda.21 These lands lay in southwestern Anatolia, in or near the territory called Lukka or Lukka Lands in Hittite texts. (…) The rebellion of the peoples of these lands and the refusal of the refugees’ protector to give them up is symptomatic of the sharp decline in Hatti’s authority in the west, as elsewhere in the Hittite realm, at the beginning of Muršili’s reign. Providing sanctuary for refugees from Hittite authority was in the Hittite view tantamount to an act of war and in this case as in others provoked military retaliation. It was perhaps the chief catalyst for Muršili’s western campaigns.”22

18 The form Aḫḫiyuwā, consequently used in the Extensive Annals instead of Ahhiyawā of the Ten Year Annals and later sources, may suggest that the extended form of Aḫḫiya with the suffix -uwa was at that time newly introduced on the model of Zalpa (city) > Zalpuwa (land). 19 Ten-Year Annals (CTH 61.I) § 25’ (Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 2f.); Extensive Annals (CTH 61.II) §§ 1’, 10’ (Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 28f., 38f.). 20 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 46. 21 Ten-Year Annals (CTH 61.I) § 12, Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 10f.; Extensive Annals (CTH 61.II) § 8’, Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 34f. 22 Ibidem: 46.

220 Piotr Taracha

The cluster of three cities Attarimma – Hu(wa)ršanašša – Šuruda has now been plausibly identified by Rostislav Oreshko with Classical cities in the region of the Carian Chersonessos – Loryma, Chersonessos and Syrna, respectively, which enables us to define a theater of war at the beginning of Muršili’s third-year campaign and then during the last fighting episodes in his fourth regnal year as the southernmost corner of western Anatolia (southern Caria).23 Attarimma (Loryma) controlled a maritime route from Lukka to the Aegean through the strait between the Carian Chersonessos and Rhodes. And that is why this troublesome region was so important to the Hittites. It was under Hittite authority already in the times of Tudhaliya II, but then Arzawan and other western Anatolian rulers repeatedly contested it – starting from Madduwatta’s conquests,24 through turmoil in the reign of Tudhaliya III,25 the rebellion instigated by Uhha-ziti, king of Arzawa, which brought about the war with Muršili II, up to Piyamaradu’s raid on Attarimma mentioned above. Millawanda (Miletos) was among the cities of the region that rebelled against Muršili II, switching its allegiance to the king of Ahhiyawa:

“When spring arrived, [because] Uh[ha-ziti had supported the King of Ahhiyawa] and […] the land of Millawanda to the King of Ahhiya[wa, I, My Majesty, …] and d[ispatched] Gulla (and) Malla- ziti (with) infantry [and] ch[ariotry, and they] attacked [the land of Millawanda]. They captured it, together with civilian captives, cat[tl]e (and) sheep.”26

The first attempt to bring Millawanda under Ahhiyawan control (c. 1319) ended in Hittite attack and the destruction of the city27 that might correspond to the conflagration strata in Miletos. Within a few decades, Millawanda was to come firmly under Ahhiyawan sovereignty (see below). For the time being, however, after Arzawa’s fall, almost all of western Anatolia (without perhaps Wiluša in the northwest) was under the suzerainty of Muršili II. When he demanded extradition of Piyama-Kurunta, son of Uhha-ziti, the king of Ahhiyawa did not risk a new conflict and surrendered him to Hittite custody:

23 Rostislav Oreshko’s paper “The last foothold of Arzawa. The problem of the location of Puranda and Mount Arinnanda revisited”, read at the International Conference “Hrozný and Hittite: The First Hundred Years”, Prague, 11–14 November 2015. I am also indebted to an as-yet-unpublished manuscript of Rostislav Oreshko (Oreshko forthcoming). 24 Indictment of Madduwatta (CTH 147) § 24’, Beckman, Bryce and Cline, 2011: 88f. 25 One of the Ortaköy letters mentions a “Man of Attarimma” who came as a fugitive to the city Warla?uwanda controlled by the Hittites (Or. 90/1299 rev. 21f.; Süel 2014: 935f.). 26 Extensive Annals (CTH 61.II) § 1’, Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 28f. 27 Pace Popko 2010.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 221

“[… was] in [the midst of the sea… But Piyama-Kurun]ta, [s]on of Uhha-ziti, […] he [came out] from the sea, [and he entered (into exile) w]ith the Ki[ng] of Ahhiyawa. [… And I, My Majesty], sent [a messenger to him] by ship, […] and he was brought out. [The captives who] were brought out [with him, together with the captives of the cities of …] and Lipa, [altogether] were […] in number.”28

Beckman, Bryce and Cline, following Ferdinand Sommer’s suggestion, consider the cited passage from the Ten Year Annals as providing a possible context for a fragmentary document KUB 23.95 (CTH 209.16) dealing, among others, with the repatriation of fugitives.29 In my opinion, however, it is probably a fragment of one of the first two missing tablets of the Tawagalawa Letter (Beckman, Bryce and Cline do not exclude this option, too), seeing that both texts have the same layout of the material on a two-column tablet and refer to a legal dispute and the dispatch of a tablet to the recipient in support of the writer’s claims, which appears a peculiarity of Hattušili III’s document. Also the words “we the brothers” in KUB 23.95 iii 22’, indicating a peer diplomatic relationship, would rather suggest a later date of the text. We do not know precisely when Millawanda became a dependency of Ahhiyawa. However, the first decades of the 13th century BC were apparently the heyday of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa that controlled Millawanda and probably also other coastal enclaves, as well as some of the offshore islands. A letter from Manapa-Tarhunta, king of the Šeha River Land (most likely the Caicos valley), to Muwattalli II (c. 1290–1272) refers to the former’s defeat at the hands of Piyamaradu (see n. 10), who also attacked Lazpa (Lesbos), certainly acting in cooperation with his son-in-law Atpa, a ruler of Millawanda in the name of the King of Ahhiyawa. As a result, Atpa became temporarily a superior of Manapa- Tarhunta.30 It was probably at that time, during the early part of the reign of Muwattalli II, that the kingdom of Ahhiyawa rose in the ranks to become one of the Great Powers, at least from the Hittite point of view, and its king started to be referred to in Hittite diplomatic parlance as “Great King” and “brother.” Muwattalli was in correspondence with his peer, the king of Ahhiyawa about political affairs and mutual territorial claims. References to at least three earlier (lost) dispatches of the kind are found in a fragmentary letter, KUB 26.91 (CTH 183), that is usually

28 Ten-Year Annals (CTH 61.I) § 25’, Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 22f. 29 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 150ff. (AhT 9). Cf. Sommer 1932: 264. 30 KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79 (CTH 191) obv. 7f., Hoffner 2009: 294; Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 140f.

222 Piotr Taracha interpreted now as a message sent to the Great King of Hatti by his Ahhiyawan counterpart.31 Beckman, Bryce and Cline give the following commentary:

“The surviving portion of the letter is concerned primarily with disputed ownership over a group of islands, which presumably lay off Anatolia’s Aegean coast. It seems that in the past, Aššuwa’s, Ahhiyawa’s, and Hatti’s rulers had all laid claim to them. (…) Now the Ahhiyawan king was seeking to reaffirm his claims to the islands and to win Hittite acceptance of these claims through diplomatic means.”32

During the reign of Hattušili III, around the middle of the 13th century BC, the kingdom of Ahhiyawa was at the summit of its power. The lengthy document known by the term “Tawagalawa Letter” (see n. 8) provides us with evidence of extraordinary skills of Hittite diplomacy of the time.33 Its main subject is Piyamaradu, whose extradition, or at least Ahhiyawan cooperation in curbing the renegade’s anti-Hittite activities in the future, is Hattušili’s aim now; and hence his approach to the king of Ahhiyawa. However, he could not but persuade his Ahhiyawan peer by means of a legal dispute, which accounts for the Hittite king’s largely conciliatory tone.

“[A]lthough the text is clearly intended to lay out argumentation to be communicated to the king of Ahhiyawa and uses the correct diplomatic forms (such as “my brother”), the layout of the material on the tablet (two columns on each side of a multi-tablet composition) is unprecedented with letters and points rather in the direction of a preparatory draft, or (…) a briefing document for the envoy(s) who will go to the court of the king of Ahhiyawa and present the Hittite king’s case.”34

The Tawagalawa Letter forms part of an extended correspondence. Heinhold- Krahmer pointed out four passages from this document in which letters of the Ahhiyawan king or requests for them are mentioned.35 It refers also to earlier

31 Hoffner 2009: 290ff.; Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 134ff. (AhT 6). For the authorship of an Ahhiyawan king, see the independent arguments of Gurney 2002: 135 (citing A. Kammenhuber’s pers. comm., 1981), and of F. Starke cited by Latacz 2004: 243f. According to Teffeteller (2013: 573), “it seems inescapable that the author of the letter KUB 26.91 is in fact Tawagalawa/Etewoklewes, king of Ahhiyawa during the reign of the Hittite king Muwatalli II”. For a different opinion concerning the identity of Tawagalawa, see above with n. 15. 32 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 138. 33 See, e.g., Heinhold-Krahmer 2002: 260 (“ein Bravourstück diplomatischer Kunst”). 34 Hoffner 2009: 297. Cf. already Heinhold-Krahmer 2002: 359f.; Bryce 2003: 203. 35 Heinhold-Krahmer 2007: 192.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 223 hostilities between Ahhiyawa and Hatti over the land Wiluša, which lay in northwestern Anatolia.36 If Hattušili’s claim that he was young at the time can be taken at face value, the episode in question had occurred in the very beginning of his regnal career. Beckman, Bryce and Cline rightly stress the point that:

“[t]his is the only occasion in the Ahhiyawa corpus where there is a reference to what appears to have been direct conflict between Hatti and Ahhiyawa. (…) However, we do not know what the nature or the scale of the hostilities was on this occasion, whether it amounted to outright war, a skirmish or two, or merely a verbal dispute conducted through diplomatic channels.”37

In the first regnal years of Tudhaliya IV, shortly before Ahhiyawa’s alleged fall in the mid 1230s, its ruler was still able to interfere in western Anatolian affairs, supporting an anti-Hittite uprising in the Šeha River Land, led by a man called Tarhunaradu.38 Tudhaliya crushed the rebellion, captured its ringleader and deported him and his family to Arinna. In this connection, Beckman, Bryce and Cline speculate:

“It may well be that Ahhiyawan support for the rebellion finally induced Tudhaliya to force a military showdown with the Ahhiyawan regime – an action that may have resulted in the elimination of Ahhiyawa’s sovereignty over Milawata, and the end of an effective Ahhiyawan political and military presence anywhere in western Anatolia.”39

Whether or not these events brought about the end of Ahhiyawa’s presence in western Anatolia is largely a matter of faith. The collapse of Mycenaean palatial centers on the Greek mainland should be viewed as another option (see above). Anyway, as may be inferred from the Milawata Letter,40 in unknown circumstances the Hittites regained control over Millawanda / Milawata. There is no evidence of Mycenaean-Hittite diplomatic contacts in the reign of Tudhaliya IV.

3. Modalities of Mycenaean-Hittite diplomacy: Was it different?

There is no need here to repeat what is generally known about oral and written correspondence in the ancient Near East, since the issue has been adequately

36 Tawagalawa Letter (CTH 181) § 12, 13, 15, Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 114ff. 37 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 121. 38 KUB 23.13 (CTH 211.4), Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 154ff. (AhT 11). 39 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 157. 40 KUB 19.55 + KUB 48.90 (CTH 182) rev. 45’ff., Beckman 1999: 144ff. (no. 23A); Hoffner 2009: 313ff. (no. 102); Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 123ff. (AhT 5).

224 Piotr Taracha summarized by many other scholars, with regard to Hittite letters, too.41 In what follows I will focus, first, on what I find speculative or totally unfounded in the previous discussion concerning modalities by which a Mycenaean-Hittite diplomatic correspondence might have been carried out, and secondly, on possible peculiarities of diplomatic relations between the Hittites and the Mycenaean world.42 As we have seen, two Hittite Great Kings, Muwattalli II and Hattušili III, were in correspondence with their peers, the kings of Ahhiyawa at the heyday of the Mycenaean kingdom in the first half of the 13th century BC. One of the letters that has already been mentioned above, KUB 16.91 (see n. 31), is now generally thought to represent:

“a Hittite-language version of a letter from a king of Ahhiyawa to the Hittite king [probably Muwattalli II], responding to a letter sent to him by the latter, written in standard Boğazköy ductus and so far as the extant text is concerned in quite idiomatic Hittite of the Neo- Hittite period.”43

Craig Melchert has recently addressed the issue of how this correspondence might have been carried out.44 He is entirely right to conclude that the Mycenaean- Hittite correspondence reflected in KUB 26.91 was written, seeing that the verb used by the king of Ahhiyawa is ḫatrā(i)- (Akk. ŠAPĀRU), which in this context means “to send a written communication (about)”.45 He also rightly draws the parallel with letters in Hittite forming part of the Egyptian-Hittite correspondence that generally employed Akkadian:

“The ductus and language again match those of Hattuša. As per Edel (1994: 2.320), Hittite versions of letters sent to Egypt may be copies of drafts translated and sent in Akkadian. Hittite versions of letters from Egypt must have some other source and motivation.”46

Further in the text, he plausibly argues that the letters received from Egypt in Akkadian as usual were translated by Hattuša-based scribes, probably for the purpose of drafting replies.47 For unknown reasons, however, he rejected a straightforward conclusion that the Mycenaean-Hittite correspondence may have

41 See Hagenbuchner 1989: 7ff.; Hoffner 2009: 2ff., with refs. 42 For the issue, see already Heinhold-Krahmer 2007. 43 Melchert forthcoming: 6. 44 Ibidem: passim. 45 Ibidem: 10. 46 Ibidem: 6. 47 Ibidem: 8.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 225 employed Akkadian as well.48 Admittedly, among the texts of the Ahhiyawa corpus from Boğazköy there is no single document composed in Akkadian, but this may well be due to the paucity of the textual evidence at our disposal. Another possibility is that the language used in correspondence between Hatti and Ahhiyawa was Hittite.49 Melchert’s argument that current sensibilities regarding language use between heads of state applied also among rulers of the Late Bronze Age and that the use of Hittite would have a demeaning effect for the king of Ahhiyawa appears somewhat anachronistic, seeing that the decision about language in which to write was taken by experts – scribes and messengers, and not by a king who was always informed orally about the contents of an incoming message and gave oral instructions concerning the answer in his mother tongue.50 Working on the assumption that the Mycenaean-Hittite correspondence employed both Hittite and Mycenaean Greek, Melchert puts forward two alternative scenarios concerning translations:

a) communications exchanged between trusted bilingual emissaries at the common border between Ahhiyawan and Hittite territory, where they were written down in the other language and sent to capital,51 b) letters written by each side in its own language and script in its own capital, under the respective king’s oversight, to be carried between the respective capitals by pairs of trusted messengers, one from each side; translation at the receiving end, including preparation of a written version if it was desired for drafting replies or any other purpose.

Both proposals are purely speculative, however, suggesting a unique mechanism of international communication that would have no parallel anywhere else in the ancient Near East, which renders them rather unlikely. The relevant texts indicate that the modalities of Mycenaean-Hittite diplomacy were no different from those of Hittite relations with other Great Kingdoms. A letter from a Hittite official to the king (probably Hattušili III) refers to the dispatch of gifts to the king of Ahhiyawa:52

48 Cf. Kelder 2012: 47. 49 See Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 139 (“And it may be that the original document [KUB 26.91] was in fact written in Hittite by a Hittite-speaking scribe in the Ahhiyawan king’s service.”) 50 A piggyback letter from an Arzawan scribe to his Egyptian colleague attached to the royal letter EA 32 (ll. 14–25, see Hawkins 2009: 77), asking for the use of Hittite in future correspondence, was a private request. The king of Arzawa certainly did not know about it. 51 See also Hoffner 2009: 290f. 52 For different interpretations of the text, see Hoffner 2009: 352, with refs.

226 Piotr Taracha

“[Concerning the diplomatic g]ift intended for the King of Ahhiyawa about which you wrote to me, because I don’t know about it – whether h[is messenger] brought anything or not – I have now taken a silver rhyton (and) [a rhyton] of refined [go]ld from the diplomatic gift intended for Egypt, and I have sent [these to him].”53

International diplomatic protocol required that ‘greeting gifts’ presented by a ruler to a foreign peer equate precisely in value to those which he had received from him.54 Beckman, Bryce and Cline give us the following commentary on the cited passage:

“The official was apparently in some doubt as to what he should send, since he did not know whether the Ahhiyawan king’s envoy who had arrived at the Hittite court had brought with him gifts for the Hittite king – the nature and value of which would have helped the official to determine what should be sent back to the Ahhiyawan king.”55

The lack of ‘greeting gifts,’ or their meager value, usually meant a belittling or unfriendly, reluctant attitude towards the recipient of a message. This is probably the case described in the Tawagalawa Letter, when the Ahhiyawan king was apparently angry about Hattušili’s army approaching the borders of Millawanda:

“But when [the messenger of m]y [brother] met me, he did not bring me [any greetings] or any gift. He just spoke [as follows]: “He (= the Ahhiyawan king) has written to Atpa: ‘Turn Piy[amaradu] over to the King of Hatti!’”56

Finally, we should ask if there were any distinguishing characteristics of Mycenaean-Hittite diplomatic contacts. If we consider the relevant textual evidence, scarce as it is, reliable, the issue of dynastic marriage, which was of key importance in the Near Eastern diplomacy, seems to have never been raised in correspondence between Hatti and Ahhiyawa. This may suggest that the rulers of Hatti and Ahhiyawa were interested not so much in building friendly relations for many years as in staying up-to-date with developments in western Anatolia in order to resolve one by one political problems over local conflicts and territorial

53 KBo 2.11 (CTH 209.12) rev. 11’ff., Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 146f. (AhT 8). 54 Cf. Heinhold-Krahmer 2007: 199ff. 55 Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 149. 56 KUB 14.3 (CTH 181) i 53ff., Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 104f. (AhT 4). I do not agree with Heinhold-Krahmer’s (2007: 199) interpretation of this passage as indicating the Ahhiyawan king’s ignorance of the custom of sending a prestige gift to one’s foreign royal correspondent along with any message.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 227 claims. Ahhiyawa, with its capital situated in one of the palatial centers of the Greek mainland, lay a long way from the main arena of Near Eastern politics, hence for the Hittites diplomatic relations with it were no doubt not so important as those with Egypt or Babylonia. This is well illustrated by the above mentioned letter dealing with the dispatch of gifts to Ahhiyawa. Contrary to the well organized exchange of ‘greeting gifts’ between Hatti and Egypt, carried to and from between both capitals by royal envoys, it seems that the problem of the gift for the king of Ahhiyawa was solved on an impromptu basis, which may also suggest that messengers from Ahhiyawa visited the Hittite court only occasionally.

4. Conclusions

Hittite diplomatic contacts with the kingdom of Ahhiyawa are attested for a period of about forty years in the first half of the 13th century BC, since the early regnal years of Muwattalli II down to the reign of Hattušili III. No Mycenaean-Hittite correspondence from the six-year reign of Muršili III / Urhi-Teššub (c. 1272– 1267) has survived, but it must have existed, seeing that the king of Ahhiyawa was among the foreign Great Kings that Urhi-Teššub made futile approaches to in his efforts to get his throne back after he had been deposed by his uncle Hattušili.57 At the time, Ahhiyawa had a significant presence in the Near Eastern world, albeit in the westernmost part of it. That is why diplomatic contacts with it were not in the center of political interests of the Hittite Great Kings, if compared with Hittite diplomatic relations with Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria.

Bibliography

Beckman, G. M. 1999 Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. WAW 7. Atlanta. 2011 Review of Fischer 2010. JCS 63: 145–146. Beckman, G. M., T. R. Bryce and E. H. Cline 2011 The Ahhiyawa Texts. WAW 28. Atlanta. Bryce, T. R. 2003 Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East. The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. New York, NY. Edel, E. 1994 Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache. Vol. 1–2. Opladen.

57 See KBo 16.22 (CTH 214.12.C) obv. 3f., Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 164f. (AhT 14).

228 Piotr Taracha

Fischer, R. 2010 Die Aḫḫijawa-Frage: Mit einer kommentierten Bibliographie. DBH 26. Wiesbaden. Forrer, E. 1924a “Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschrifttexten von Boghazköi”. MDOG 83: 1–22. 1924b “Die Griechen in den Boghazköi-Texten”. OLZ 27: 113–118. Genz, H. 2011 “Foreign Contacts of the Hittites”, in: H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Leuven– Paris–Walpole: 301–331. Gurney, O. R. 2002 “The Authorship of the Tawagalawa Letter”, in: P. Taracha (ed), Silva Anatolica: Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Warsaw: 133–141. Hagenbuchner, A. 1989 Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter. 1. Teil: Die Briefe unter ihren kulturellen, sprachlichen und thematischen Gesichtspunkten. THeth 15. Heidelberg. Hawkins, J. D. 2009 “The Arzawa letters in recent perspective”. BMSAES 14: 74–83. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1983 “Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil I)”. Or. 52: 81–97. 1986 “Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil II)”. Or. 55: 47–62. 2002 “Zur Erwähnung Šaḫurunuwas im ‘Tawagalawa-Brief’”, in: S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati. Firenze: 359–375. 2007 “Zu diplomatischen Kontakten zwischen dem Hethiterreich und dem Land Ahhiyawa”, in: E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale (eds), Keimelion: Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. Wien: 191–207. 2010 “Zur Datierungsgeschichte des ‘Tawagalawa-Briefes’ und zur problematischen Rolle des Fragments KBo 16.35 als Datierungshilfe”, in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden: 191–213. Hoffner, H. A. Jr. 2009 Letters from the Hittite Kingdom. WAW 15. Atlanta.

On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations… 229

Kelder, J. M. 2004–2005 “The Chariots of Ahhiyawa”. Dacia 48–49: 151–160. 2010 The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Bethesda, MD. 2012 “Ahhiyawa and the World of the Great Kings: A Re-Evaluation of Mycenaean Political Structures”. Talanta 44: 41–52. Latacz, J. 2004 Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery. Oxford. Marazzi, M. 1992 “Das „geheimnisvolle” Land Aḫḫijawa”, in H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem and A. Süel (eds), Sedat Alp’a Armağan. Festschrift für Sedat Alp / Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Ankara: 365–377. Melchert, H. C. forthcoming “Mycenaean and Hittite Diplomatic Correspondence: Fact and Fiction”, in: A. Teffeteller (ed), The Ahhiyawa Question: Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age. Papers from the Montreal Ahhiyawa Workshop, January 4–5, 2006. (Available online at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/ Melchert/montrealtext.pdf. Last view 29.12.2015). Miller, J. L. 2006 “Ein König von Ḫatti an einen König von Aḫḫijawa (der sogenannte Tawagalawa-Brief)”, in: B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm (eds), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge. Vol. 3: Briefe. Gütersloh: 240–247. Oreshko, R. forthcoming “Geography of the Western Fringes: Gar(a)giša/Gargiya and the Lands of the Late Bronze Age Caria”, in: O. Henry and K. Konuk (eds), Proceedings of the Conference ‘Karia Arkhaia. La Carie, des origines à la période pré-hékatomnide’ (Istanbul, November 14-16, 2013). Popko, M. 2010 “Hethiter und Aḫḫijawa: Feinde?”, in: Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden: 284–289. Singer, I. 1991 “A Concise History of Amurru”, in: S. Izre’el, Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. Vol. 2. HSS 41. Atlanta: 134–195. 2003 “The Treaties between Hatti and Amurru”, in: W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger Jr. (eds), The Context of Scripture: Monumental

230 Piotr Taracha

Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2. Leiden–New York, NY: 93–100. Sommer, F. 1932 Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden. München. Süel, A. 2014 “Tarhunnaradu / Tarhundaradu in the Ortaköy Texts”, in: P. Taracha (ed), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology: Warsaw, 5–9 September 2011. Warsaw: 932–942. Taracha, P. 2009 “New Light on Relations between the Mycenaean World and Hittite Anatolia”. Archeologia 60: 19–26. 2015 “Mycenaean peer(s) of the king of Ahhiyawa? A note on the Tawagalawa Letter”, in: A. Müller-Karpe, E. Rieken and W. Sommerfeld (eds), Saeculum: Gedenkschrift für Heinrich Otten anlässlich seines 100. Geburtstags. StBoT 58. Wiesbaden: 279– 287. Teffeteller, A. 2013 “Singers of Lazpa: Reconstructing Identities on Bronze Age Lesbos”, in: A. Mouton, I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean. Leiden–Boston, MA: 567–589. Tugendhaft, A. 2012 “How to Become a Brother in the Bronze Age: An Inquiry into the Representation of Politics in Ugaritic Myth”. Fragments 2: 89–104.

N.A.B.U. 2020 nᵒ2 (juin)

81) Corrigenda to Schmidtchen, E., Simplicia and Unpublished Fragments of Alamdimmû from the British Museum, in: Panayotov, S. V./Vacín, L. (eds.) Mesopotamian Medicin and Magic. Studies in Honor of Markham J. Geller, AMD 14, 2018, Leiden/Boston: Brill, p. 462-500 — I am much obliged to Henry Stadhouders for spotting some unfortunate mistakes of mine within the discussed paper as well as for sharing his corrections with me. These and some minor corrections from my part are presented below. p. 470 and 489: K. 7198 instead of K. 7189. p. 477 (K. 8920) l. 8′: read maš-re-e instead of par-re-e. p. 480f. (K. 7958) l. 5′: restore most likely ⸢uš-te⸣-[(né)-eṣ-ṣi] after É.⸢GAL⸣. ibid. l. 7′: read ⸢GEN₇⸣ su-ru-um-mi “like s.-intestines”, which may refer to the coiled condition or appearance of the surface of the respective body part, maybe the tongue. ibid. l. 8′: SIG₇ ma-SI-at might be either a defective or playful writing for urqa malât “is full (of yellow)”. The following qar-sign might belong to qar-[rad] “(he is) a warrior”. ibid. l. 10′: The interpretation as pa-ris (pāris) “he is resolute; the one who decides” or similar seems not out of place. ibid. l. 11′: restore ra-i-⸢mi⸣ [TUK(-ši)]. ibid. l. 12′: much likely to be read NINDA at-ra {x} [GU₇] or together with an unmarked variant like NINDA at-ra <:> ⸢NINDA⸣ [nap-šá? GU₇] or similar. ibid. l. 15′: read possibly an-ni šil-la-⸢ti⸣ “punishment for insolence”. p. 481, l. 11′: translate “he will lack food” for NINDA i-ber-ri. ibid. l. 16′: the first apodosis has probably to be translated “he consumes bread/food without exertion”. p. 484 (K. 7956) ll.13′, 15′, 17′: read DIŠ MIN 2 MIN at the beginning. p. 487 (K. 17899) ll. 1′, 6′: read DU₁₁ instead of KA. ibid. l. 11′: restore [i-šal-lim] at the end of the line, following the new fragment BM 39172 presented on p. 217f. in Fincke, J., Of tirku, Moles and Other Spots on the Skin according to the Physiognomic Omens, in: Studies in Honor of Markham J. Geller, AMD 14, 2018, p. 203-231. p. 493 (first line): K. 10812 instead of K. 108112. ibid. (K. 8625) l. 7′: read ap-pa-⸢rat⸣ “it (the hair) is tufted”. ibid. l. 9′: read ku-⸢ús-sa⸣-[at] instead of ku-⸢us-sa⸣-[at…]. p. 499 (K. 5651) l. 6′: read ⸢ku⸣-um-mu-da which is in accordance with the traces given in SpTU IV, 149 ii 19 (emended in Böck, B., Die babylonisch-assyrische Morphoskopie, AfO Beiheft 27, 2000, p. 158 l. 126 to šu!-um-mu-ṭa). See similar also TBP 28:7′ (referring to the fingers) and TBP 11c vi 23′ (cf. Böck, B., Die babylonisch-assyrische Morphoskopie, AfO Beiheft 27, 2000, p. 156 l. 107 referring to the hands). For the possible meaning here as “woven/interwoven (lines of the hand?)” see CAD K, 108.

Eric SCHMIDTCHEN

82) Corrigenda to Foster, Sargonic and Pre-Sargonic Cuneiform Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection (2020) — p. 4 third paragraph should read: No tablet at Yale has so far been securely identified as having come from Abu Habba (Sippar), though No. 212 (NBC 10207), which may have been part of the “Quradum Archive,” seems a strong possibility. Texts: read with copies against indices, 129.8 inim šeš-ni- ta “at the word of his brother,” 131 ii 2 šeš-ni “his brother,” 198.2 Šeš-kur-ra.

Benjamin R. FOSTER

83) Corrections concerning two publications resulting from the project ‘The Trojan Catalogue (Hom. Il. 2.816-877) and the Peoples of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age’ — We would like to add the following information to each of the two publications listed below: ‘The paper is written as a part of project “The Trojan Catalogue (Hom. Il. 2.816-877) and the Peoples of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. A Study of the Homeric Text in the Light of Hittite Sources and Classical Geographical Tradition” (2015/19/P/HS3/04161), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665778 with the National Science Centre, Poland (POLONEZ 1, 2016-2018)’. The two publications in question are:

– 174 – N.A.B.U. 2020 nᵒ2 (juin)

1) Taracha, P. Approaches to Mycenaean-Hittite Interconnections in the Late Bronze Age, in: Ł. Niesiołowski-Spanò – M. Węcowski (eds.), Change, Continuity, and Connectivity. North- Eastern Mediterranean at the Turn of the Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018: 8-22. 2) Taracha, P. On the Nature of Hittite Diplomatic Relations with Mycenaean Rulers, in: R. Koliński – J. Prostko-Prostyński – W. Tyborowski (eds.), Awīlum ša la mašê – man who cannot be forgotten. Studies in Honor of Prof. Stefan Zawadzki Presented on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (AOAT 463), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2018: 215-230. We also would like to use the opportunity to draw your attention to the project internet site at which a description of its principal results, as well as links to all resulting publications may be found: http://orient.uw.edu.pl/project-trojan-catalogue-oreshko_rostislav/. For further information please feel free to contact the principal investigator of the project (R. Oreshko).

Rostislav ORESHKO Leiden University/Center for Hellenic Studies Washington, DC (USA) Piotr TARACHA University of Warsaw (POLAND)

VIE DE L’ASSYRIOLOGIE

84) A note to our colleagues — The editorial board of the Occasional Publications of the Museum of the Sealand wishes to advise and remind colleagues that work published in OPMS is for satirical purposes only, including the past titles “Making Sumer Great Again” and “Already Tired of Winning: New Akkadian Prophecy Texts.” While we remain committed to the important purpose of amusing our colleagues, we do not wish for them to think that its articles or book reviews contain even one ounce of truth. And so we urge all to take notice of (and enjoy) the fictitious, fabricated, and facetious nature of these and future works. Submissions of new work may be sent for consideration to OPMS at: [email protected].

C. Jay CRISOSTOMO, University of Michigan Steven GARFINKLE, Western Washington University Gina KONSTANTOPOLOUS, University of Tsukuba Seth RICHARDSON, University of Chicago

– 175 –