Ahhiyawa and Troy: A Case of Mistaken Identity?

Author(s): T. R. Bryce
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 26, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1977), pp. 24-32
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435540 .
Accessed: 28/06/2012 21:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
AHHIYAWA AND TROY - A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

The problems associated with the Ahhiyawans of the Hittite texts have
engaged the attention of numerous Hittitologists and other Near Eastern
scholars for much of this century. While Forrer's claim that the Ahhiyawans
were Bronze Age AchaeansI has gained fairly widespread acceptance, the
identification has not gone unchallenged. Sommer, for example, argued that
the texts give no indication that Ahhiyawa was anything other than an
Anatolian power2. And more recently a similar stand has been taken by
Steiner (amongst others), who in a comprehensive review of the Ahhiyawan
question reasserts thlat there is neither philological, historical, nor archaeo-
logical evidence to support the equation of the land of Ahhiyawa with a
Mycenaean-Greek land of the Achaeans ".
The question of the Ahhiyawans' ethnic affiliations obviously has an
important bearing on the problems associated with the actual localisation of
Ahhiyawa. Was it a kingdom of mainland Greece, as some of the supporters
of the "Achaean school" maintain4, or did it lie closer to the territories
subject to Hittite control,'? In a recent discussion of the relevant source

1 E. Forrer,Vorhomerische Griechenin den Keilschrifttextenvon Boghazkoi,MDOG, 63

(1924), pp. 1-22, Die Griechenin den Boghazkoi-Texten,OLZ, 27 (1924), pp. 113-118, Fur
die Griechenin den Boghazk6i-Inschriften, KIF, 1/2 (1928), pp. 252-272.
2
Especially in Die Abbijava-Urkunden,Abh. d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Abt.,
N. F., 6, Munich,1932 (hereaftercited as AU), pp. 351 ff. See also Sommer'sdiscussionsin
Ahijavafrage und Spracbwissenscha ft, Abh. d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist.Abt. N. F. 9,
Ahbijavi und kein Ende?IF, 55 (1937),pp. 169-297.
3 G. Steiner,Die Ahbijawa-Frage heute, Saeculum,15 (1964), pp. 365-392, and especially
pp. 376ff.
4 See e.g. F. Sdhadcermeyr, Hethiter und Achder,Mitt. Altor. Gesellsdcaft,9/1-2, Leip-
zig, 1935, and more recently, Zur Frage der Lokalisierungvon Achiawa in E. Grumach,
Minoica, Berlin (1950), pp. 365-380. Cf. also R. Dussaud,Prelydiens,Hittites et Achbeens,
Paris (1953), pp. 75-76, 78, 83. Other supportersof a mainlandlocation for Ahhiyawa are
G. L. Huxley, who arguesthat theAhhiyawanking mustbe "overlordof Mycenae"(Achaeans
and Hittites, Oxford (1960), p. 44) and J. M. Aitchison,The AchaeanHomeland:'AxatFta
or 'AxcLFi;?,Glotta, 42 (1964), p. 28.
6 i.e. either on the Asia Minor mainlandor on one of the islands of the eastern Medi-

terraneanor Aegean. Amongst the various locations suggestedare the Troad area of north
westernAnatolia (discussedbelow), Ionia, northernCaria, Pamphylia,Cilicia, Samos,Crete,
Cyprus, Rhodes. For a summaryof these proposals,see Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, Ana-
tolian evidence for relationswith the west in the Late Bronze Age in R. A. Crosslandand

Historia, Band XXVI/1 (1977) i Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden
 Ahhiyawa and Troy - A Caseof MistakenIdentity? 25

material,Muhly has taken sides with a numberof scholarswho have opted

for a Troad location - a proposalwhich has gained increasingsupport ever
since it was tentatively put forward by Goetze6.
But others maintainthat the centre of Ahhiyawan power may have lain
off the Asia Minor coast. Rhodes in particular has been strongly advocated
as a possible location, most notably in recentyears by Page . Page's theory
dependsto a large extent on his interpretationof the "Tawagalawasdocu-
ment", a communication addressed by the king of the Hittites to his counter-
part in Ahhiyawa 8. The Hittite king has cause for serious complaint because
of the latter's apparent connivance at the activities of Piyamaradus9. Yet in
spite of numerous provocations, the Hittite appears soft-spoken, abject,
apologetic. Surely, Page argues, such an attitude can only be explained if
Ahhiyawa was, militarily speaking, beyond his readc. And if this was the
case, then it must have been divided from him by the sea10.

Ann Birchall, Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, London (1973) (hereafter cited as
Anatolian evidence), pp. 143-146. One should also note the possibility mentionedby Hou-
wink ten Cate that the termAhhiya(wa) "widenedconsiderablyin its applicationduring the
fourteenthand thirteenthcenturiesand that it does not refer to one and the same geographi-
cal entity" (p. 146).
" See J. D. Muhly, Hittites and Acbaeans:Ahhijawacredomitus,Historia, 23 (1974), pp.
129-145, and cf. A. Goetze, review of AU, Gnomon, 10 (1934), pp. 177-183, Kleinasien,
Kulturgeschichtedes Alten Orients, 2 Neubearb. Munich (1957), p. 183 and map, Seton
Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia, London (1967), p. 17 (map), J. Macqueen,
Geography and History in Western Asia Minor in the Second Millennium B. C., AS, 18
(1968), pp. 178 ff., J. Mellaart,Anatolian Tradewith Europeand Anatolian Geographyand
Culture Provinces in the Late Bronze Age, AS, 18 (1968), pp. 187-202, and Houwink ten
Cate, Anatolian evidence, p. 148.
7 D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, CUP (1959) (hereafter cited as HHI),
Chapter 1. For referencesto earlierproposersof the Rhodes identification,see Houwink ten
Cate, Anatolian evidence,pp. 143-44.
8 KUB XIV 3. The text and German translation appear in AU chapter I. A partial
translationin English appears in J. Garstang and 0. R. Gurney, The Geography of the
Hittite Empire, Occasional Publicationsof the British Institute of Archaeologyin Ankara
No. 5 (1959), pp. 111-114. Neither the Hittite nor the Ahhiyawan king's name appearsin
the document,and there is some doubt as to the period of its composition.However, a clue
may be provided by the document KUB XIX 5 (+ KBo XIX 79), a letter written by
Manapa-Tarhundas,the king of the Seha River Land during the reigns of MursilisII and
Muwatallis, and referring to Atpas and Piyamaraduswho also figure in the Tawagalawas
letter. The authorof this latter document,then, could be either Mursilisor Muwatallis.(Cf.
Cavaignac, La lettre Tavagalava, RHA, 3 (1933), pp. 100-104, Huxley, Achaeansand
Hittites, p. 2, and Macqueen,Geographyand History, p. 180 no. 104 who argues for a
dating to c. 1310-1300 B. C.), or possibly even Hattusilis III (cf. H. G. Giiterbock,Neue
Ahbijava-Texte,ZA, N F 9, p. 327, Page, HHI pp. 32-33, n. 43, Houwink ten Cate, Ana-
tolian evidence, p. 150.). 9 AU I, III, 52 ff. 10 HHI p. 14.
26 T. R. BRYCE

On this point Macqueen,one of the advocatesof the Troad location,takes

issuewith Page . Thereis no denying the conciliatorytone of the letter,but
does this mean that the Hittites were physically incapableof taking direct
offensive action against Ahhiyawa12? Perhapsthere were other reasonsfor
their king's anxiety to maintainpeace - reasonscompatiblewith a mainland
location for Ahhiyawa. Macqueenoffers a plausible suggestionin support
of the Troadtheory.As Mellaarthas proposed,the Hittites may have obtain-
ed their supplies of tin from Bohemia, and it seems likely that a tin route
from Bohemia to Hatti would have passed through north-west Anatolia,
and thus throughthe Troad13. On this assumptionit is easy to see, Macqueen
argues, why Hittite kings were eager to maintain good relationswith the
countriesin this area,"for the cutting of the tin-routecould be a fatal blow
to their empire"14. If suchwas the case, the very fact that the Hittites had
to dependfor the supply of a vital commodityon the goodwill of an unreli-
able and potentially dangerousmainlandstate must indicate that they were
in no position to exert more direct control over the area in question.Indeed
we know from the Tawagalawas letter of the great difficulties which the
Hittite king experienced in reassertinghis authority in the west, even
amongsthis own subjectstates15. As Page comments:"the Annalsof Mursilis
afford sufficient examplesof Hittite methodsof retaliationagainstinferior
personswithin their reach.Insult and injurywere, as a rule, severelyor even
savagelyavengedunlesstherewas somespecialreasonfor a mildercourse"."
A Troad location for Ahhiyawa ties in well with the known history of
Ahhiyawa which, as Macqueenpoints out, "coversthe last part of Troy VI
and possibly the whole of Troy VIla and VIIb 1",17. Moreover, archaeo-
logical evidencefromTroy VI and VIIa demonstratescommerciallinks with
the ports of the easternMediterranean"8, and this may well reflect trading
"1Geographyand History, pp. 180ff.
12It seemsthat earlierin the Hittite king's reign there was direct confrontationbetween
the two powers, perhapsover the state of Wilusa (AU I, IV 19-20. Vilusa is a restoration
suggestedby Sommer). 13 Anatolian Trade, pp. 190ff. 14 Geographyand History, p. 182.
15 It seems likely from Tawagalawas'defiance of the approachingHittite army (AU I,
1, 1 ff.) that he had considerablesupport amongstthe local people, and this may be borne
out by the fact that the Hittite king was obliged to devastatethe whole territoryof lyalanda
- a territorypopulatedby his own subjects(AU I, I, 22-23 and 35-36). Moreover,in Muwa-
tallis' reign, Lukka was regardedas a potential trouble spot, along with Masa and Karkisa
(J. FriedridcStaatsvertrdgedes Hatti-Reichesin hethitischerSprache, II, MVAG (1930),
pp. 66 ff. sec 14) which Tawagalawasregardsas places of refugefrom the Hittite king (AU I,
III, 52-55). 16 HHI, p. 33 n. 48. 17 Geographyand History, p. 180.

18 e.g. with Cyprus, illustrated by the discoveriesof Cypriot White Slip Ware in the
depositsof late Troy VI and VIIa (see C. Blegen, Troy IV, I, 9) and with the ports of the
Levant, illustratedby the discovery of "pottery in the Levanto-Helladicpictorial style and
with Levanto-Mycenaeanshapes" (Macqueen,Geography and History, pp. 183-84, who
cites Blegen Troy III, I, 340, 347, and Troy III, I, 44).
 AhhiyawaandTroy- A Caseof MistakenIdentity? 27

contacts between Ahhiyawa and this area19.The Troad, then, must be re-
garded as a seriouscontenderfor the location of the Ahhiyawan centre of
power, a location which Houwink ten Cate arrivesat "by processof elimi-
nation"20, and one which Muhly claims fits all of Page's specifications21.At
the same time, the argumentsagainst Page's theory are by no meansirrefut-
able. Rhodescould still have been the centreof Ahhiyawan power, while the
Ahhiyawansexercisedfrom time to time somecontrol over certainmainland
territories22whichbroughtthem into conflict with the Hittites23.
But grantedthat there are certainreservationsabout a Troad location for
Ahhiyawa, there are also many points in its favour, and it may not be pre-
mature to considersome of its important implications.The first and most
obvious of these is that the Ahhiyawansof the Hittite texts may have been
the Trojans of the Iliad. And perhapsTroy itself was the royal citadel of
Ahhiyawa. Does this mean that Homer's Trojanswere in fact Greeks?Not
so, if we follow Sommer,who argued that the Hittite texts indicate that
Ahhiyawa was a purely Anatolian power, a point which is stressed by
Steiner24 and Muhly 25. And Muhly is not preparedto go any further than
suggestingthat the Ahhiyawanswere "mostprobablyIndo-Europeans,relat-
ed in some way to the Indo-Europeansof the Greek mainland""6.Tangible
evidence of such a relationshiphas been found in the Gray Minyan Ware
discovered in Troy VI - a pottery type which seems to have been largely
confined to the inhabitantsof Troy VI and the Greekspeakingpeopleswho

19 Such contacts have also been inferred from KUB XXIII 1 (= AU XVII), discussed
by 0. R. Gurney, The Hittites, Penguin (1952), pp. 50-52, Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites,
p. 8 and p. 11, Macqueen,Geographyand History, p. 184, Houwink ten Cate, Anatolian
evidence, p. 146. 20 Anatolian evidence, p. 148.
21 Hittites and Achaeans,p. 134. The proposal is greatly reinforced if Lazpas of the
Hittite texts can be identified with Lesbos.In one of these texts (See AU p. 282) the "god of
Ahhiyawa"and the "god of Lazpas"are associatedin sucha way as to suggestgeographical
proximity between the two countries (see Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites, p. 5 and p. 13).
The identification was originally suggestedby Forrer (MDOG 63 p. 14, Forschungen11
pp. 90ff.) and supported e.g. by Goetze (tentatively) (Kleinasien2,map), Garstang and
Gurney (The Geography of the Hittite Empire, p. 96), and Macqueen (Geography and
History, p. 179). But contrastPage, HHI, p. 24.
22 Most notably Millawanda,which at the time of the Tawagalawasletter seemsto have

been subjectto Ahhiyawaninfluence. (Cf. also KUB XIV, 15, I, 24 where referenceis made
to an alliance between Ahhiyawa and Millawanda in the third year of Mursilis' reign.)
However at the time of the "Milawataletter" (KUB XIX 55) Millawanda appearsto have
been regardedas a Hittite vassal (see Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites, pp. 2-3, Gurney, The
Hittites, p. 50, Garstangand Gurney, The Geographyof the Hittite Empirep. 81, Schacher-
meyr, Hethiter und Acbher,p. 34, Stubbings,CAH II. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 340.
23 There is an explicit reference to the Ahhiyawan king's presence on the Asia Minor

mainlandin KUB XXIII 13.5.

24
Note Steiner'sconclusions,Die Ahbijawii-Frageheute,pp. 388-391.
'2 Hittites and Achaeans,pp. 133 ff. 26 ibid. p. 135.
28 T. R. BRYCE

occupied the Greek mainland in approximatelythe same period27.On this

basis, Page has concluded that "the founders of Troy VI were people of
similar backgroundto the Greek speaking invaders of Hellas, and were
involved in the same migration"228.And Macqueenconcludesthat when one
group of Greekspeakingpeoples migratedto Greeceabout 1900 B.C., "the
remainderleft behind in Asia Minor developed the Troy VI culture and
becamethe Ahhiyawansof the Hittite texts"29.
But even if the Ahhiyawanswere a Troad people relatedto the mainland
Greeks, we must still explain how the names Troia and Ilios came to be
associatedwith them. It has long been suggestedthat the prototypesof these
names are Taruisaand Wilusiya 3, which occupy the last two places in the
list of states making up the "Assuwan Confederacy"l Very likely, the
centreof this confederacylay somewherein the north west of Asia Minor32,

27 For various discussionsof the Minyan pottery, see the referencesin Macqueen,Geo-
graphyand History p. 184 and Muhly,Hittites and Achaeans,pp. 135-136 n. 42.
*8 HHI, p. 56. 29 Geographyand History, p. 185.
30 See, for example, the discussionby P. Kretschmer, Die Hypachder,Glotta, 21 (1933),
pp. 251-252. Cf. Garstangand Gurney,The Geographyof the Hittite Empire,p. 105.
11 The notion of an "AssuwanConfederacy"is based on KUB XXIII 11 and 12 (trans-
lated in Garstangand Gurney, The Geographyof the Hittite Empire,pp. 121-123) which
refers to a Hittite king's conquest of twenty-two countriesfollowed by a referenceto the
land of Assuwa, which presumablyincorporatesthe countries listed before it. The text is
traditionally assignedto the reign of TudhaliyasIV (or III?). For the problemsassociated
with the sequence and numberingof the Hittite kings, see the referencescited by Muhly,
Achaeansand Hittites, p. 130 n. 7). It is now consideredlikely that at least part of the text
belongs to the reign of TudhaliyasII (or I?). See Houwink ten Cate, The Recordsof the
Early Hittite Empire (c. 1450-1380), Istanbul (1970), p. 62 and p. 72, Gurney, CAH II.
2 (3rd ed.), p. 678, and Macqueen,Geographyand History p. 178. But on the question of
the re-datingof this and other Hittite texts, see Muhly, pp. 143-145. Muhlyconcludes:"The
evidence thus far presentedregardingthe re-datingof the Madduwattastext and the Annals
of TudhaliyasIII is inconclusiveand thereis, at this time, no reasonto changethe traditional
dating."
32 The actual location of the countriesconcernedis a matterof some dispute.Page (HHI,

pp. 102ff.) and Huxley (Achaeansand Hittites, p. 33) claim that the confederacycovered
the whole of western Asia Minor from the Troad to Lycia. Macqueen,however, rejectsthe
notion of sucha widespreadconfederacyextendingfrom the far north west to the far south
west, and proposesa location for Assuwaalong the southshore of the Propontis(Geography
and History, p. 178). A more widely held view places Assuwa somewherebetween Miletus
and the Troad, and more precisely in the region of Lydia (cf. Goetze, Kleinasien2,map,
Garstangand Gurney,The Geographyof the Hittite Empire,pp. 105-107, Huxley, Achaeans
and Hittites, p. 33. G. M. A. Hanfmann, Arcbaeologyin Homeric Asia Minor, AJA, 52,
(1948), p. 152 n. 81 refers to Goetze's and Bossert'sdiscussionof the relation of Assuwa to
later Lydia). On this basis, several scholarshave suggestedthat Assuwa may be the original
of Asia which, as Stubbingspoints out, was applied in Roman times to just that area (F.
Stubbings,CAH II. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 341. The identificationwas originallyproposedby Forrer
and later supported by Goetze (tentatively) and Bossert (referred to by Albright, Some
 Ahhiyawaand Troy - A Caseof MistakenIdentity? 29

and if we can assumethatthe memberstatesare listed roughlyin geographical

order, then Taruisaand Wilusiya were probably the northernmostof these
states3. This would have brought them close to the Ahhiyawan sphereof
influence.Muhlysuggeststhat they actually lay withinAhhiyawanterritory:
"The region surroundingthe royal citadel of Taruisa(Troy?) seemsto have
been known as Wilusiya (Ilios?) ... This is the land of Ahhijawa ... with
the fortress of Troy VI as its royal citadel34."
But there are severalobjectionsto his theory:
(1) It seems clear from Tudhaliyas' Annals that Taruisa and Wilusiya
were regardedas two quite separateregions35and there is little justification
for assumingthat one was incorporatedin the other.
(2) The above documentseemsto indicatethat the AssuwanConfederacy
was one of rebelliousHittite states30ratherthan one involving a major for-
eign power, as would be the case if Taruisaand Wilusiya lay in Ahhiyawan
territory.Moreover,if the Ahhiyawan royal citadel had been devastatedby
Tudhaliyas,one would have expected a far more fulsome account of sucha
crippling blow struck against a hostile foreign power. But Taruisa and
Wilusiya receiveno more prominencein Tudhaliyas'accountthan the other
states of the confederacy.
(3) Very likely Wilusiya and Wilusa (the latter appearsseveral times in
the Hittite texts), refer to the same area37. But if so, this area cannot have
lain within Ahhiyawa, for Wilusa was a Hittite vassal state, noted for its

Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem, AJA 54 (1950), p. 168). Albright, however,
objectsto this identificationon both linguisticand historicalgrounds,and favours Hrozny's
identificationwith Assos in the southernTroad (op. cit. pp. 168-69).
Th3
le first, and probablythe southernmostplace in the confederacyappearsin the text
as ... ugga. It is generallyrestoredas Lugga/Luqqa(see, e.g. Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites
p. 33 and Macqueen,Geographyand History, p. 178), and this seems the most plausible
suggestion.Garstang and Gurney, however, suggest that the name should be restored as
Arduqqa(The Geographyof the Hittite Empire,pp. 106-107). I have arguedelsewherethat
at least one groupof Lukka settlementslay in the vicinity of Miletus (The Lukka Problem-
and a Possible Solution, JNES, 33, (1974), pp. 395-404) which might thus indicate a south-
ern limit for the confederacy. 34 Muhly,Achaeansand Hittites, p. 135.
35 They appearin the text as KUR URU U - i - lu - si - ia and KUR URU Ta - ru - i- sa.
36 This seems clear from Rev. 4-6 of the text. Garstang and Gurney translate: "And
afterwards Kukkullis made a rebellion, and he incited the 10,000 foot-soldiers and the
600 'lords of the bridle' of the land of Assuwa and created a rebellion." (The Geography
of the Hittite Empire,p. 22).
s" Doublets of the Wilusa-Wilusiyatype are quite common. Houwink ten Cate lists the
following examples: Huwalusa - Huwalusiya, Arzawa - Arzawiya, Hulassa - Hulassiya,
Marassanta- Marassantiya,Sananta- Sanantiya,Zithara- Zithariya (JNES, 25 (1966), p.
186). It may be that Wilusiya designated a city, and Wilusa the surroundingcountry (a
suggestionmade to me by ProfessorHouwink ten Cate).
30 T. R. BRYCE

loyalty to the Hittites 38,and is listed in one Hittite documentamongstthe

Arzawa lands3. Quite obviously, theIn, it could not have been the area
aroundthe royal citadel of Ahhiyawa, althoughit may have lain close, if not
adjacent,to Ahhiyawanterritory40.
In spite of the above objections,one cannot rule out the possibility of a
direct link between the Hittite namesTaruisaand Wilusiya, and the Greek
Troia and Ilios, especiallyif the formernamesrefer to places situatedsome-
where in north-west Anatolia. Perhapssome considerationmight be given
to the following suggestions:
If we can assumethat the traditionaldating of the Assuwanconfederacy
is correct4l,then almost certainly the MycenaeanGreekswho were in close
touchwith the Aegean coast of Asia Minor at this time42were aware of its
existence. Indeed, it has often been suggestedthat knowledge of such an
alliance became part of a Mycenaean tradition which came down to the
Ionian Greeksand was to some extent reflected in the Trojan Catalogueof
the Iliad43. As Albright comments: "If the Assuwan Confederacy was

3T nis is indicated by the text of Muwatallis' treaty with Alaksandusof Wilusa, in

particularsec. 2 (FriedridcStaatsvertrageII p. 50 and Garstangand GurneyThe Geography
of the Hittite Empire,p. 102. See also the commentsof Garstangand Gurneypp. 101-102).
39 Sec. 14 of the "AlaksandusTreaty".
40 Especiallyif Sommer'srestorationVilugain IV 19 of the Tawagalawasletter is correct.
The dispute between the Hittite and Ahhiyawan king referred to in the letter possibly
resultedfrom the latter'sattempt to annex neighbouringterritories.In the past, a numberof
sciolars have proposeda muchmore southerlylocation for Wilusa,e.g. Albrightwho stated
quite categoricallythat it lay in south-west Anatolia (Dunand's New Byblos Volume: A
Lycian at the Byblian Court, BASOR, No. 155 (1959), p. 34) and Goetze who located it in
Lycia (Kleinasien2,map). More recently, however, Goetze has favoured a northernrather
than a southernlocation (JCS 14 (1960), p. 48). 41 See above, n. 31.

42 i.e. mid 13th century B.C. For archaeologicalevidence of Mycenaean contacts with

western Asia Minor during this period, see the referencescited by Muhly, Hittites and
Achaeansp. 134, and especially nn. 32-34. Miletus (= Millawanda?)in particularcame
under strongMycenaeaninfluence duringthe 14th century(See e.g. C. Weickert,Neue Aus-
grabungenim Mittelmeergebietund im Vorderen Orient, Berlin (1959), pp. 181-196 and
IstanbulerMitteilungen9/10 (1959-60), pp. 1-96). Very likely Miletus borderedon Lukka
territory (see most recentlymy article The LukkaProblem- and a PossibleSolution,JNES,
33 (1974), p. 401), and Lukkawas probablythe southernmostmemberof the AssuwanCon-
federacy (see above, n. 32).
43 The "TrojanCatalogue"is fairly widely regardedas an authenticsurvival of the Late
Bronze Age. Cf. Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites, p. 31 (where Huxley refers to the con-
clusions of Leaf, Allen, and Page), A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings,A Companionto
Homer, London (1962), pp. 284-285, and StubbingsCAH II. 2 (3rd ed.), pp. 349-350,
Macqueen,Geographyand History, p. 178 n. 77. For a comparisonof the Assuwan Con-
federacy with the Trojan Catalogue,see Huxley, op. cit., pp. 33-36. One significantdiffer-
ence, as Stubbings points out, is that Homer's Catalogue includes Trojan allies on the
Europeanside of the Hellespont - Thracians,Cicones, Paeonians- who are not mentioned
in the Assuwanlist.
 Ahhiyawaand Troy - A Caseof MistakenIdentity? 31

really centredin the northwesternpart of the peninsula,. . . it corresponded

strikingly in make up and geographicalextension to the Trojan confeder-
ation of the Iliad44."Perhapswe can go even further than this. It may be
that the Trojan Catalogueis based not merely on a partial awarenessof the
political geography of western Anatolia in earlier times, but on a specific
historical tradition which originatedwith the Assuwan Confederacy.Now
we know from Hittite recordsthat the confederacywas defeatedby a Hittite
king. But the Greeksof later times knew nothingof the Hittites, or else knew
of them only in a vague, distorted form46.Perhaps all that filtered down
from the historical tradition was the knowledge of an alliance of north
westernAnatolian stateswhichsuccumbedto an enemyattack.
This defeat probablyoccurredalmost simultaneouslywith the destruction
of Troy VIIa46, perhaps the citadel of Ahhiyawa, which fell victim to
hostile invaders. Who were these invaders?The long establishedtradition
that they were Achaeansfrom mainlandGreecehas beenseriouslyquestioned
in recent years47,but reasserted,with some reservations,by Page48.And
indeed there is no good reason for rejectingthe traditional view until such
time as convincingevidenceto the contraryis found49.Very likely the early
Ionian Greeksknew of the existenceof the ruinedcitadel in the Troad now
identified as Troy Vlla. Very likely too they associatedit with the city of
Priam.If so, this would have given addedweight to the belief in the historic-
ity of the legendarytradition.

44 Albright,Some Oriental Glosseson the Homeric Problem,AJA, 54 (1950), p. 169.

45 Cf. Huxley, Achaeansand Hittites, pp. 36-37. Very little store can be set by the
suggestedconnection between the KilrELOL (Homer Od. XI, 521) and the Hittites (see the
commentsof Wace and Stubbings,A Companionto Homer, p. 305). A fairly widely held
view is that the Hittites were in some way connected with the Amazons of Greek literary
tradition (cf. A. R. Burn, Minoans,Philistinesand Greeks,London (1930), p. 131, G. Thom-
son, Studies in Ancient Greek Society, The PrehistoricAegean, London, 2nd ed. (1954), p.
182, Garstangand Gurney, The Geographyof the Hittite Empire,p. 107, Wace and Stub-
bings, A Companionto Homer, pp. 306-307). Barnettprefersto think in termsof a possible
identificationwith one of the peripheralpeoples of the Hittite empire- e.g. the Luwiansor
one of the Arzawan states (CAH II. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 418). Muhly, however, dismissesthe
Amazonsas "nothingmore than a historicalcuriosity"(Hittites and Achaeans,p. 138).
" For brief discussions,with references,of the date of the destructionof Troy VIIa, see
Macqueen,Geographyand History, p. 183 n. 122, and Muhly, Hittites and Achaeans,pp.
129-131. As Macqueen suggests, its destruction is reasonably likely to have taken place
during the reign of Tudhaliyas (III)/IV, i.e. c. mid 13th century, the period when the
AssuwanConfederacywas destroyed(accordingto the traditionaldating).
47 E.g. by M. I. Finley, The TrojanWar,JHS, 84 (1964), pp. 1-9, who supportsthe theory
that Troy VIa succumbedto "maraudingnortherninvasions"(p. 5).
48 Page, Homer and the Trojan War, in the same volume as Finley's article, pp. 17-20.
49 See Page, op. cit., p. 20.
32 T. R. BRYCE,AhhiyawaandTroy

Not long after the defeat of the AssuwanConfederacyand the destruction

of Troy VIIa, the Greekand Near Easternworlds were subjectedto a series
of major upheavals. Most Mycenaeancentres were destroyed, the Hittite
empirecollapsed,and all written recordsof both civilisationscame abruptly
to an end. But the two historicaltraditions referredto above seem to have
survived, though no doubt many aspects of them becameblurredand con-
fused through the process of oral transmissionover a period of several
centuries.Now these traditions reflected historical events which probably
took place within a few years of each other in locations which were also
geographicallyclose. Is it not likely, then, that by the time of the Ionian
Greeks,they had becomeblendedinto one single tradition?The defeat of a
confederacyof north westernAnatolian states by the Hittites becameasso-
ciated with the almost simultaneousAchaeandestructionof a royal citadel
in the far north west.
What was this citadel actually called? In the Madduwattasdocument,
Attarissiyasis referredto as a "Man of Ahhiya" 0. As Houwink ten Cate
pointsout, - A - ah - bi - ya - a is usedprimarilyas thenameof a town "5.
It is just possiblethat Ahhiya is the royal citadel of Ahhiyawa52and thus the
name of the site which the Greekscalled Troy. We can only assumethat the
authenticname becamelost or obscuredin the handingdown of the Bronze
Age traditions.But perhapsthe traditionsdid preservetwo genuineBronze
Age place names- Taruisaand Wilusiya.
I have suggestedthat the Assuwan Confederacybecamepart of a Greek
legendarytradition, accordingto which an alliance of Anatolian states was
defeated- not by Hittites, but by Greeks.The northernmostmembersof the
allied states were Taruisa and Wilusiya. Nearby lay the citadel actually
destroyedby the Greeks.This was the citadel with which the namesTaruisa
and Wilusiyacameto be associatedin Greektradition.

University of Queensland T. R. Bryce

50 Goetze, Madduwattas,MVAG, 32 (1927), Obv. I, 60.

51 Houwink ten Cate, Anatolianevidcnce,p. 149.
62 If this is so, then Attarissiyas'penetrationdeep into Hittite territorymust have taken

place before the destructionof Troy VIla. Attarissiyas'ability to take suchoffensive action
hardly suggeststhat the royal citadel of his homelandhad recentlybeen devastated.