|
Issues in Hittite History
Two questions which arise from the Hittite texts prove to be of crucial importance as we survey the history of this relatively obscure side to ancient studies: the Ahhiyawa; the Trojan War.
Do the Hittite Texts refer to the Mycenaeans? The Ahhiyawa Debate
Appearing in the Hittite texts from early times are references to the kingdom of the Ahhiyawa, an entity clearly to west of Anatolia, since it figures in conjunction with powers in that Western region. In 1924 Emil Forrer first proposed these were references to the Homeric Greeks, what we now call the Mycenaean civilization, since Ahhiyawa was simply the Hittite ways of representing Achaiwia, and ancient form of Achaia, and in the Homeric epics the Greeks are regularly called Achaians (although Homer’s own way of referring to Achaia is Achaiis, possibly for metrical reasons). Since Forrer debate has raged hotly over the Ahhiyawa: Where was their kingdom? Who were the Ahhiyawans? Is there a relation between these people and the Mycenaeans?
Although the debate raged throughout the C20th, new texts have come to light, plus new readings of hitherto-known texts, which have shifted the balance in favour of the equation of Ahhiyawa-Mycenae. The basic factors favouring this equation are as follows:
1. The first reference it the Ahhiya occurs in the Indictment of Madduwatta, assigned now to the C15th B.C. In this letter from Arnuwanda I to Madduwatta, who had fled his country because of some dispute with Attarissiya, identified as a “man of Ahhiya”. This opening reference attests that this Attarissiya had (a) carved out a territory in Western Anatolia and established a settlement there, and (b) possessed an army along with 100 chariots. The influence of Ahhiya was to grow from there, with Ahhiyawans exercising increasing involvement in Anatolian affairs.
2. Ahhiyawa was indeed a major power in the Late Bronze period: its king was accorded the same status as other contemporary Bronze Age monarchs, hence the Hittite king would address the king of Ahhiyawa as “my Brother”. Ahhiyawa possessed a considerable seafaring capacity as well, so as to influence affairs in the Eastern Mediterranean. This penetration took place in the last two centuries of the Late Bronze, precisely the time when Mycenaean activity in the same regions was prominent.
3. The Millawata region of Western Anatolia, as attested by the Hittite texts, is confidently equated with the Miletos region, and it is precisely there that the archaeological record indicates strong Mycenaean influence, and when the region became a vassal territory of king of Ahhiyawa. From here the Ahhiyawan king sought to extend his influence and control over the Anatolian Plateau. Indeed, during the reign of Muršili II Millawata allied itself to the king of Ahhiyawa, prompting a punitive expedition from Muršili (Comprehensive Annals, AM 36-7).
4. If the equation of the two is not valid, then it leads to the strange conclusion that two distinct civilizations existed in the Late Bronze, having very similar names, and making their presence felt in precisely the same regions in the same way! One, Ahhiyawa, is attested by textual evidence but without trace in the archaeological record; and then conversely with Mycenae. This would be quite anomalous, to say the least.
Ahhiyawa-controlled territory provided refuge for high profile fugitives, such as Piyamaradu, on the run from Hattušili III (1267-1237 B.C.), who fled to Millawata. All Hattušili could do was complain to the Ahhiyawan king, whom he addresses as “my Brother”. The Hittite king’s appeals were of no avail, however, which only demonstrates that Ahhiyawa was a major power to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean. This remained the case during the Hittite New Kingdom, from Arnuwanda I to Tudhaliya IV, when Ahhiyawa influence dramatically collapsed. However, this was part of the more general phenomenon of the collapse of Late Bronze civilizations.
In all, the equation of Ahhiyawa with Mycenae, in the light of all available evidence, seems secure.
|
