AHHIYAWA

Fig 1. Homeric depiction of the 

. Few topics have aroused greater controversy than the  identity and location of this land. In the 1920s Emil Forrer  equated Ahhiyawa with the Homeric Achaia, observing that Homer  refers not to Greeks but to Achaeans. His view attracted both supporters and skeptics. Locations for Ahhiyawa have been proposed  for the western mainland of Anatolia, the Aegean islands, Thrace  and the mainland of Mycenaean Greece. In fact most specialists  have envisaged its extending over more than one of these. The least  plausible location would be entirely on the Anatolian mainland.  With the title of “Great King” for the rulers of Ahhiyawa, it cannot  have covered only a very restricted area; and western Anatolia now  appears fully occupied by the various components of Arzawa, before and after its division by Mursili II. Likewise a carefully argued case for locating Ahhiyawa as an island realm with a narrow  coastal strip on the Anatolian mainland from Millawanda southeastward, centered perhaps in the island of Rhodes and subsisting  in large part by its command of the sea route from the Aegean to  Cyprus and the Levant, lacks credibility. How could such a limited territory be ruled by a Great King?  Essential to the location of Ahhiyawa are references to men  fleeing across the sea, notably Uhhaziti of Arzawa and, most explicitly, Piyamaradu. This would fit a location of Ahhiyawa in  Thrace, but that goes against identifying Millawanda as Miletos.  This leaves only Mycenaean Greece, a location fitting the archaeological evidence of a Mycenaean presence at Millawanda and  elsewhere along the Aegean coast. The language of Ahhiyawa  would therefore have been Mycenaean Greek rather than, for example, Luwian, as would have been likely if Ahhiyawa were to be  centered between Miletos and Rhodes. This may still have been  spoken by most of the population of that region, even though for a  time at least it was under Mycenaean control, without being part of  the central homeland.  The difficulty of determining Hittite relations with Ahhiyawa  lies largely in the fundamental divergence of their interests, the one  being a land-based power with only intermittent maritime interests,  and those largely near the end of the Empire, and the other being  concerned with command of the maritime trade routes through the  Aegean and the east Mediterranean. Whereas the Hittite Empire  stood as one of the great powers of the Near East and precursor of  the Assyrian state and other powers of the first millennium BC,  Ahhiyawa (Mycenae) in economic terms foreshadowed the Phoenician cities and their adventurous sailors. It seems a reasonable  guess that the rulers of Ahhiyawa saw the outside world very differently from the kings of Hatti, nor were their priorities similar.  Both textual and archaeological evidence, the latter mainly in  the form of pottery, indicate that the area of closest contact between Ahhiyawa and the Anatolian mainland was around Apasa  (Ephesus), the royal center of Arzawa, where excavations are revealing Late Bronze Age occupation levels. The close involvement  of Ahhiyawa with Millawanda is quite well documented. The pottery found along the Aegean littoral, from Troy southward as far as  the island of Rhodes, suggests an ethnic and cultural mix, demonstrated by pottery of Anatolian, Mycenaean and Minoan affinities.  Pottery from the northern and central littoral is largely Anatolian,  while in the south there is a large percentage of Mycenaean wares.  In addition to this ceramic evidence, such sites as Trianda and Lindos on Rhodes were likely palatial centers; and Iasos was a flourishing community with a rich cemetery. Rhodes would have benefited from its position guarding the sea route from Mycenae to  Ugarit and other ports in the east.

References to Ahhiyawa occur in Hittite texts over almost two  centuries. The earliest is in the Madduwatta Text, of the time of  Arnuwanda I (ca.1380 BC), when Attarisya (Atreus?) was king of  Ahhiyawa, mentioned in the Hittite text as “the man of Ahhiya,”  the early form of the name. He clearly commanded considerable  forces by land and sea, for he is recorded as having many chariots  as well as raiding Alasiya (Cyprus), which became a major focus  of Mycenaean settlement and trade. Then come the annals of Mursili II, when Apasa, Troy and Millawanda were all coastal towns.  In the reign of Hattusili III the Tawagalawa letter was in effect an  appeal to the king of Ahhiyawa to hand over the renegade Piyamaradu, whom the Hittite king had failed to capture: this was a tacit  admission of failure. But Hattusili had other priorities, and did not  wish for further entanglement in the west. Under Tudhaliya IV the  text entitled “Sins of the Seha River Land” finds the king of Ahhiyawa supporting the ruler of that land, Tarhunaradu. The last important reference to Ahhiyawa comes in the Sausgamuwa treaty  made by Tudhaliya IV with the vassal king of Amurru, containing  a prohibition of Assyrian use of his ports--at a time when Hatti  and Assyria were at loggerheads--and by implication an obstacle  to Ahhiyawan sea trade with the region by then equivalent to modern Lebanon. This is the famous text in which the king of Ahhiyawa--along with those of Egypt, Babylon and Assyria--is included by the Hittite king in the top rank of international affairs,  being granted the title of Great King, the name of Ahhiyawa being  then deleted. Much discussion has revolved round this deletion.  Was it a mere scribal error? Hardly likely! A mark of a change of  attitude by Tudhaliya IV and a desire to demote Ahhiyawa? Conceivably. The result of a sudden decline in the power of Ahhiyawa  in western Anatolia? This seems the most probable explanation.  Relations between Hatti and Ahhiyawa had been cool but relatively  peaceful. This changed with the successful intervention by Tudhaliya IV, when Ahhiyawan control over Millawanda ceased, thus  causing the loss of its one major foothold on the Anatolian mainland. Tudhaliya’s main concern, however, was to exclude Ahhiyawa from the Near East at a time when Assyria was the major  threat to Hatti. Thus Ahhiyawa automatically ceased to be a great  power, whatever the circumstances in the Mycenaean homeland.

Source hittite historical dictionary