DOI 10.

1515/kadmos-2013-0002 Kadmos 2013; 52(1): 1933

Rostislav Oreshko
The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder
Beams: The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian
Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on
the Cilician Ahhiyawa
1The Luwian-Phoenician bilingual NEKY was discovered in 1997 in a field ca.
30 km to the south of Adana and published by Tekolu and Lemaire three years
later

. Although much shorter and more fragmentary than the KARATEPE bilin-
gual, NEKY closely follows it in lexica and phrasing, a fact which enables one
to reconstruct a major part of the text almost completely. In their historical con-
tents the two texts are not wholly identical, but here also demonstrate a remark-
able concurrence. The author of the NEKY inscription presents himself in the
text as wa/i+ra/i-i-ka- (w[r(y)k] in Phoenician) and is, in all probability, identi-
cal with the -wa/i+ra/i-ku- (wrk in Phoenician) mentioned in KARATEPE 2 as
the patron of Azatiwada

. Moreover, the name of Mopsos (mu-ka-sa- in HLuw.

and mp in Phoenician), whose appearance in KARATEPE ( 21, 58) engendered
much discussion about the possible connection of the Cilician ruling house with
the Achaean colonization

, is also present in NEKY: W(a)rika claims to be

the descendant (INFANS.NEPOS-si- in HLuw., literally grandson (ham(a)si-))
or to belong to the clan (p in Phoenician) of Mopsos. However, there is one
significant difference between the two bilinguals: in NEKY the Luwian cor-
1TekoluLemaire 2000.
2The authors of the editio princeps identify the author of the NEKY inscription with
-wa/i+ra/i-ku- of KARATEPE, and both of them with Urikki mentioned in Assyrian sources,
noting, however, the difficulties of bringing together the two hieroglyphic writings (Tekolu
Lemaire 2000, 973974). The identity of the referents of both HLuw. names is generally accepted
(e.g., Forlanini 2005, 113; JasinkMarino 20072008, 408409; Hawkins 2009, 165; Lanfranchi
2009, 128; BeckmanBryceCline 2011, 265), but not without dissenting voices (Lipiski
2004, 119123 and following him Yakubovich 2010, 152153). Although there are three graphic
discrepancies in the NEKY writing of the name as compared with KARATEPE (absence of the
initial a-, presence of an additional -i- specifying +ra/i, and a-stem of the word), all of them can
easily be explained, especially if one takes into consideration that the name is of foreign origin,
as all scholars seem to agree. The discrepancy observed in writings indicates rather that the
two texts were composed in different scribal traditions, a fact that has bearing first of all on the
relative chronology of the inscriptions.
3For the literature on the Mopsos problem preceding the discovery of NEKY s. Vanschoon-
winkel 1990, with the literature on pp. 199200 (notes 1 and 2). For the recent literature s. below.
20 Rostislav Oreshko
respondence to the Phoenician mq dn and dnnym, rendering the name of the
country and the people ruled by W(a)rika and the house of Mopsos, is not
Adanawa, as expected from KARATEPE (-TANA-wa/i-(URBS)), but Hiyawa (hi-
ia-wa/i-(URBS)). As the Luwian part of NEKY demonstrates the phenomenon
of aphaeresis, which results in the name of Assyria appearing in the inscription
as su+ra/i-(ia-)(URBS) and the name of the author of the inscription as wa/i+ra/i-
i-ka-, in contrast with -wa/i+ra/i-ku- in KARATEPE, the editors of the inscription
reasonably concluded that hi-ia-wa/i- represents in all probability nothing else
than the aphaeretic form of Ahhiyawa

. The latter is attested in the cuneiform

Hittite texts and refers, according to the prevalent communis opinio, in one way
or another to the Achaeans, i.e., the Mycenaean Greeks, and their country

. The
appearance of the name Hiyawa in NEKY has given a powerful new impetus
to the discussion of the Greek connection with the Cilician Mopsos, which had
been practically exhausted after the thorough and sober analysis of the mate-
rial presented by Jacques Vanschoonwinkel in 1990

. The evidence of NEKY

has been seen by many scholars as a corroboration of the view that both the
report of Herodotus transmitting the ancient name of the Cilicians as
(mix-Achaeans, according to Kretschmer

) and the Greek mythological tradition

about the colonization activities of the soothsayer Mopsos in Cilicia after the
fall of Troy contain a kernel of truth, and the latter might be indeed identical
with the Mopsos mentioned in both bilinguals

. However, some others took this

evidence with a great deal of scepticism, pointing out first of all that the name
Hiyawa seems to be attested in Cilicia much earlier than the presumable coming
of Achaeans in the early Iron Age and therefore its similarity with Ahhiyawa is
simply a coincidence

. Indeed, taken as it is isolated, slightly ambiguous and

confronted with some (seeming or real) counterevidence the mention of Hiyawa
in NEKY appears to be at least inconclusive with regard to a putative coloniza-
tion of Cilicia by Achaeans, and the acceptance or rejection of its Aegean links
remains rather a matter of personal belief.
4TekoluLemaire 2000, 981984.
5This is not the place to go into details on the Ahhiyawa problematic in general. A useful brief sum-
mary with some basic bibliography can be found in BeckmanBryceCline 2011, 16 and 267283.
6Vanschoonwinkel 1990.
7Kretschmer 1933, 222.
8Cf. Forlanini 2005, 111114, Lemaire 2006, JasinkMarino 20072008, Oettinger 2008 and
Oettinger 2011, Hawkins 2009, 165166, Lpez-Ruiz 2009, Yakubovich 2010, 151156, Rllig 2011,
122, Singer 2012, 459461.
9Lane Fox 2008, 206226, Gander 2010, 5055 and especially Gander 2012, Hajnal 2011, 247249,
Simon 2011, 259260.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 21
2However, one important consequence of the appearance in NEKY of hi-ia-
wa/i- as the Luwian correspondence to Phoenician mq dn and dnnym seems to
have passed unnoticed. It concerns the Luwian part of KARATEPE, whose interpre-
tation, due to the availability of the Phoenician counterpart and the long period
of study by different scholars

, is frequently taken for granted as completely

established, somewhat prematurely, in fact. As noted, in the Phoenician part of
KARATEPE both mq dn plain of Adana and dnnym Danunians/Adaneans cor-
respond indiscriminately to HLuw. -TANA-wa/i- (nine occurrences, 26, 24,
31, 32, 37) and, only once, Phoenician mq dn corresponds to HLuw. -ta-na-wa/i-
( 37). The second sign of the sequence -TANA-wa/i-, listed under number 429
in Laroche 1960 (henceforth *429), is taken to be a unique sign, attested only in
the given inscription and only in the writing of the given toponym/ethnicon

.
First of all, on the basis of the Phoenician correspondence dn and dnnym and,
additionally, on the assumption that -*429-wa/i- represents a graphic variant of
-ta-na-wa/i, the value of the sign *429 was already defined in the first publica-
tion of the inscription by H. Th. Bossert as DANA

and, to my knowledge, never

questioned. However, the issue whether -*429-wa/i- indeed simply represents a
graphic variant of -ta-na-wa/i- has been never seriously explored, and the cor-
rectness of this assertion is open to doubt. On the other hand, the discovery of
NEKY allows one to propose an alternative reading of the sign. If in NEKY
mq dn and dnnym corresponds to Hiyawa, then in KARATEPE, which does not
demonstrate any trace of aphaeresis, the same Phoenician words might theoreti-
cally correspond to Ahhiyawa. It is quite obvious that formally -*429-wa/i- fits
no worse as the writing for Ahhiyawa than that for Adanawa. Consequently, both
TANA and HIYA appear to be equally feasible as the reading for *429. The ques-
tion is whether it is possible to find indications which would favour one or the
other reading.
3One can start by pointing out several facts which to an extent discredit the
habitual reading TANA, without, however, being fully conclusive. First, the
phonetic sequence /tana/ or /dana/ is a very common one, as in Luwian as in
other languages. It is attested fairly frequently in the extant HLuw. corpus and
is always written simply with two phonetic signs, rendering the syllables t/da
and na respectively. For the sequence -ta-na- one can adduce the following exam-
1For the literature preceding Hawkins edition in CHLI s. Hawkins 2000, 4648.
11S. Laroche 1960, 223.
12S. literature ibid.
22 Rostislav Oreshko
ples: (VACUUS)ta-na-t- for tannata/i- empty

, (*314)ha-sa-ta-na-ti-i (abl.)
by force(?)

, (VAS)-ta-na-sa-ma-ti by justice attested in KARATEPE itself

( 18), as well as the not quite clear *263-ta-na-sa
5

, CENTUM(-)ta-na-ti (abl.)
and *187-kwa/i-ta-na-ti (abl.)

. As examples for the sequence -t-na- there are

(DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-s-t-na-za (dat. pl.)

and -t-na-wa/i-na-a

, and for
the sequence -t-na- one can point out hu-pi-t-t-na-na (acc.sg.)

. In view of this
evidence is seems quite strange that one would use for this simple sequence, nor-
mally written phonetically, a special sign in one and the only inscription. A solu-
tion would be, however, to assume that the sign *429 is either a logogram for the
whole stem underlying Adanawa or renders a longer phonetic cluster /danawa/,
with and WA/I being only phonetic complements. It would, however, remain
unclear why then one has not taken the opportunity to use the sign in the writing
of the lexeme -t-na-wa/i-na-a (KARKAMI A13d 3), whatever it might mean.
On the other hand, in KARATEPE we have one certain phonetic writing for
Adanawa, which, as mentioned, was claimed to be nothing more than an alterna-
tive writing for -*429-wa/i-. The relevant sentence (37) reads:
|BONUS+RA/I-ia-ma-la-ha-wa/i SOLIUM-MA/I-ta |-*429-wa/i-s(URBS)
|-ta-na-wa/i-za-ha(URBS) TERRA+LA+LA-za
and the -*429-wa/i- and the plain of Adana(wa) dwelt peacefully with the
Phoenician correspondence being: w-n t lb l-dnnym w-l-kl mq dn (and there
was) peace of heart to the dnnym and to all the plain of Adana. It is noteworthy
that in the Phoenician text there is a clear contrast between ethnicon dnnym and
toponym mq dn, which one would expect also for the HLuw. text. It is true that
the other two attestations of the latter Phoenician toponym seem to discredit this
contrast and speak for the identity of -*429-wa/i- and -ta-na-wa/i-, giving as
the correspondence to gbl mq dn borders of the plain of Adana -*429-wa/i-n-
13 KARKAMI A11b+c 12, MARA 8 3, MARA 1 4, KARAHYK 3, KARKAMI 12 6.
14 TELL AHMAR 6 22 (cf. also *314-sa-ta-na-ti in 6).
15 KARAHYK 17.
16Both in TELL AHMAR 6 22. Substantiation of the slightly modified transliteration of some
signs in comparison with that of CHLI (MA/I instead of MI, kwa/i instead of REL, hu(wa) instead
of HWI and avoidance of the blank sign ) is given in chapter 3 of my PhD thesis (Studies in
Hieroglyphic Luwian: Towards a Philological and Historical Reinterpretation of the SDBURG
Inscription, Berlin, 2012, pp. 5358), now in preparation for publication.
17KARKAMI A11b+c 20, 33.
18KARKAMI A13d 3. It is noteworthy that formally the lexeme is completely identical with
-ta-na-wa/i-(URBS) of KARATEPE, and one wonders whether it is not Adana (or Adanean) which
is meant. Unfortunately, the broken context does not permit one to define with certainty even the
syntactic function of the lexeme (cf. Hawkins 2000, 115116).
19BOYBEYPINARI 2 7.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 23
zi(URBS) FINES+hi-zi (32) and to r mq dn land of the plain of Adana -*429-
wa/i-za(URBS) (TERRA+LA+LA)w/+ra/i-za ( 6). However, the discovery of
NEKY clearly demonstrated that Hiyawa, mq dn and dnnym act as synonyms
and, consequently, the interchange between -ta-na-wa/i- and -*429-wa/i- in
different contexts should not necessarily require their formal (phonetic) iden-
tity. They can be only synonyms. One should rather ask, why would one use in
one and the same sentence two different writings for the same word? And why,
having allegedly written Adanawa nine times as -*429-wa/i-, one would switch
over without any obvious reason and write it phonetically on the tenth time? A
more logical explanation would be that in neutral contexts one used -*429-wa/i-,
mq dn and dnnym indiscriminately as they are roughly synonymous but in
the case when it was necessary to emphasize the contrast between the ethnicon
and the toponym standing side by side one would use two different words. Thus,
taken by its face value, the evidence of 37 can be interpreted as in fact speaking
against the identity of -*429-wa/i- and -ta-na-wa/i-.
4Both considerations put forward above represent indirect negative arguments,
which are not very strong and could be bypassed, if necessary. However, there
is, in addition, a more decisive positive argument for the interpretation of the
sign *429 as HIYA, which is produced by conducting a careful re-examination and
comparison of its graphical form. The sign demonstrates an extraordinary graph-
ical variability within the text

and appears in three different forms (s. fig. 1)

.
A B C
Fig. 1: Three forms of the sign *429 in KARATEPE
The cage-like variant (A) represents the standard variant of the sign and is attested
in nine of twelve cases

. Variant (B) is attested two times in Hu. (20 and 32, 4

and 6 respectively), and the most deviant variant (C) is attested once at the begin-
2More precisely, within two variants one the same text: Hu. (Lower Gate) and Ho. (Upper Gate).
21Cf. Laroche 1960, 223. Variant (3), given there as attested in 14 (= Ho. 14), is, as far as I can
see, erroneous, since the relevant section of the text on Ho. is completely broken off (cf. Hawkins
2000, 49 and ambel 1999, pls. 91 and 94).
22Hu. 10, 14, 22, 125, 154, 162, 198 and Ho. 22 and 154 ( 2, 3, 5, 24, 31, 32, 37 and Ho. 5 and
31 respectively).
24 Rostislav Oreshko
ning of Ho. (10, 2). Besides the structurally close but obviously different signs
*427 and *429, the known Hieroglyphic Luwian repertoire does indeed not seem
to contain anything directly comparable with the principal variant of the sign
*429. However, the assumption that the sign might have the phonetic value HIYA
leads one to compare the sign form with the signs having a close value. The sign
HI (*413), attested widely both in the Empire period and in Iron Age inscriptions
(and used in the writing of Hiyawa in NEKY), has obviously nothing to do
with *429. In contrast, the other sign having the same or a close value, H (*306),
hitherto attested in different forms only in the Empire period inscriptions, dem-
onstrates several remarkable points of similarity with *429 (s. fig. 2)

.
A B C D
Fig. 2. Forms of the sign H (*306): A. Standard variant; B. KARGA; C. SBo II 178; D. ME 30c
Even if one takes the standard variant of H attested on most of the seal impres-
sions found in Hattusa

, it is not difficult to notice the structural similarity of the

sign with the variant (B) of *429: both represent a row of vertical elements with
three-part segmentation. Variant (B) of H attested on the KARGA stele

shows
23Cf. Laroche 1960, 157.
24Besides SBo I 43 and 44 cited in Laroche 1960, 157 (MAGNUS-h-TASU-pa, Urhi-Teub),
this variant of the sign is attested also on two seals published in Bittel et al. 1975, nos 35 and
36 (pp. 6869, PN La-h), on BoehmerGterbock 1987, Kat. 129 (pl. XII), as well as on new
seal impressions of Urhi-Teub and on those of Henti (h-ti-i(a)) from the Niantepe archive
(HerbordtBawanypeckHawkins 2011, Kat. 52.1-52.3 and Kat. 14.1 respectively). Variant (3) given
by Laroche as attested on the seal impression RS 18.70 forming part of the title of Massana-Ura
(s. Ugaritica III, fig. 87 and pp. 156157) can hardly be H. The sign is rather a somewhat effaced
SCRIBA, and the sign above it is BONUS.
25S. Gelb 1939, pl. LV. Contra Laroche 1960, 157 and Meriggi 1975, 309, the preserved part of the
epigraph can be read rather as [... MA]RA/I(?)-[?-]ta(URBS) la-h MAGNUS.DOMUS.MANUS. The
sequence la-h represents the same PN as attested on Bittel et al. 1975, nos 35 and 36, on the seal
impression from Emar ME 30c and in the later corpus as
I
la-hi-ia- (KULULU lead strip 3, register
1) and stands just before the title (the dextroverse orientation of the latter is indicated by the
preserved part of MANUS; the sinistroverse orientation of la in la-h is apparently a scribal lapse:
he has forgotten to switch the direction after the passage to the next line). The sign ASINUS/TA
represents only the last sign of the city name. The traces before it can be identified tentatively as
the lower part of MARA/I (*462), and it is not excluded that there were some further signs above
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 25
that the central fat part of the sign could have a different shape and that the cogs
seen of the variant (A) can mutate into horizontal straps binding three central
elements, which explains the development of the horizontal lines of the variant
(A) of *429. Variant (C) of H attested on SBo II 178 clearly demonstrates how the
upper hooks of variants (A) and (B) of the sign could develop into circles, repre-
sented in the variant B of *429. But, especially illuminating is the most unusual
variant of H (D), attested on a seal impression from Emar (ME 30c)

, its inter-
pretation being warranted by the cuneiform counterpart of the hieroglyphic
epigraph (HLuw. La-h),
I
La-h-ia. The sign looks quite different from its Empire
period counterparts from central Anatolia, but it is strikingly similar to the stand-
ard variant of *429, representing thus a bridge between it and the variant (C) of
the same sign with only four circles. As far as one can judge, in this variant we
have a development of the bottle-like central part seen in variant (B) of H into
two circles. It is also noteworthy that this variant is found in Syria, i.e., much
closer geographically to the find spot of KARATEPE than Hattusa. Thus, taking
into consideration the basic structural similarity of H and *429 and all the differ-
ent forms they could assume, there seem to be all grounds for the conclusion that
graphically *429 represents nothing other than the late regional development of
the Empire period sign H. Then, the main stages of development of the sign can
be represented graphically as follows:
Fig. 3. Presumable evolution of the sign HI(YA) (*429=*306)
It is not difficult to demonstrate that the original and fuller phonetic value of the
sign H was precisely HIYA, as assumed above for *429. First, as noted, the cunei-
ASINUS. If MARA/I is the first sign of the city name one wonders if the city name cannot refer to
Marista or Marassantiya, toponyms thinkable for the region where the stele was found.
26Gonnet 1991, 206 and pl. VI (no. 72c). It is not quite clear to me why Gonnet gives both the
original photo and her drawing upside down, preferring to read the signs du bas vers le haut.
It is also noteworthy that LA and H seem to have been written in ligature. The upper tips of H
obviously terminated originally with the same hooks as the other variants of the sign.
26 Rostislav Oreshko
form counterpart of the hieroglyphic La-h on ME 30c is
I
La-h-ia. There is clearly
no space on the seal impression to accommodate the restoration of the sign I(A)
there, as Gonnet proposed, and one has to conclude that the sign H alone renders
both last syllables of the name

. The same conclusion is implied by the fact that

the same name appears in the later writing as
I
la-hi-ia- (KULULU lead strip 3, reg-
ister 1), giving the same equation H = hi-ia, as suggested by NEKY-KARATEPE
correspondence: hi-ia-wa = (-)*429-wa/i-

. As a result, the entry of the Laroches

sign list *429 has to be merged to *306 and the phonetic value HI(YA) can now be
ascribed both to H and the former TANA.
5In conclusion of the epigraphic analysis, it is appropriate to add several con-
siderations concerning the etymology of the sign HI(YA). As stated, the value of
the second sign in -hi(ya)-wa/i-(URBS) is most probably simply phonetic HI(YA).
However, there is also an alternative, slightly different possibility of interpreta-
tion implied by the nature of HLuw. writing, which uses the same signs both in
phonetic and logographic/ideographic function. The question remains, why has
the Empire period sign HI(YA) been preserved only in the writing of the name of
Ahhiyawa and appears in no other late inscription? The answer that the phonetic
cluster /hiya/ it renders is very rare (the simple phonetic writing -hi-ia- is found
elsewhere indeed only in the already cited
I
la-hi-ia- and NEKY) does not seem
to me fully satisfactory. More likely would be the interpretation that the sign is
more intimately connected with the name Ahhiyawa itself, i.e. it is in fact a logo-
gram rendering metaphorically the whole underlying stem or a major part of it. In
this case WA/I and would be phonetic complements. While Ahhiyawa taken as
a whole seems to have no assonant stems in Luwian or Hittite, for the part hiyawa
there can be found in Hittite a rather obvious assonant stem: hu-/hyaw- rain,
with the derivative h(ya)waniya- to rain almost exactly corresponding to the
aphaeretic form of the adjective ahhiyawana/i- common in KARATEPE

. Since
the lexeme for rain belongs to the most basic vocabulary, there is every reason
to assume that the stem hu-/hyaw- would be present in Luwian in the identical
27Gonnet 1991, 206.
28It is not clear whether in the two other cases, in the writings of the names of Urhi-Teub and
Henti (s. above, fn. 24), the sign should be interpreted in the same way, and thus possibly reflects
the original form of these Hurrian names (*Hiyanti and *Urhiya-Teub), or it was chosen for
some other (e.g., aesthetic) reasons. The assumption of the form *urhiya- as original seems to be
supported by the Hurrian names Urhiya and Urhiyana (s. Lebrun 2010, 1 with fn. 2).
29It is noteworthy, however, that the Hitt. cun. writings for Ahhiyawa and for rain are different:
URU
a-i-ia-(u-)wa vs. -e-ia-wa-a (gen. sg.) vel. sim., cf. writings listed in del MonteTischler
1978, s.v. Aijawa, and Kloekhorst 2008, s.v. hu-.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 27
or very close form. Pictographically the sign HI(YA) fits, it seems, fairly well for a
logogram for rain. The vertical elements of the standard Empire period variant
can be naturally interpreted as streams of rain, with the bulging parts hinting
probably on the separate drops. In the Empire period variant (B) the middle parts
seem to represent vessels through which the streams flow, possibly rain-drains,
Hitt. hyawalla-. What is more significant, in such a pictographic interpretation
the unusual development of the variant from Emar and the later developments
of the sign become clear: the circular elements are intended at all probability to
represent separate drops and the whole sign the multitude of drops rather than
streams. If the proposed interpretation is right, then the sign can be ascribed the
logographic value of PLUVIA. It is noteworthy that the proposed association of
the name Ahhiyawa with hu-/hyaw- rain in the writing system also has some
bearing on the linguistic aspect of the problem of equation Ahhiyawa ~ *.
This association might have influenced the phonetic form which the foreign eth-
nonym has assumed in Anatolian languages. In particular, it might be responsi-
ble for the transformation of the middle cluster -- into -iyaw-, which represents
one of the major issues concerning the equation Ahhiyawa ~ *.
6The reinterpretation of -*429-wa/i- as -hi(ya)-wa/i- changes profoundly
the ethno-political and historical perspective of KARATEPE. Instead of trivial
Adanawa, there prove to be nine attestations of the country name and ethnicon
-hi(ya)-wa/i-(URBS) in the inscription which exactly corresponds to the Hittite
cuneiform (KUR)
URU
Ahhiyawa, and only once there appears a narrower topo-
graphical term the plain of Adanawa (-ta-na-wa/i- TERRA+LA+LA-). Ahhiyawa,
hitherto caged in yonder beams

of the sign *429, now establishes itself as the

main Luwian designation of the country and the people of Cilicia Pedias in the
8
th
c. BC. Needless to say, this sudden increase in the attestations of the Cilician
Ahhiyawa seriously impacts the balance of powers in the Mopsos-question
(and to a degree also in the Ahhiyawa-question itself) and calls for a revision of
some basic points of it. Without venturing to re-address the whole complex of the
questions concerning Cilician Mopsos and Cilician Ahhiyawa I restrict myself to
stating two clearest inferences of the proposed re-reading.
First, as the main and, in fact, the sole Luwian designation of the country
comprising all or a substantial part of Cilicia Pedias, Ahhiyawa proves obviously
to be the counterpart of the contemporary Assyrian name of the same region,
3The citation is taken from the English translation of the Aeneid (Verg. A. 2.45: hoc inclusi
ligno occultantur Achivi) by Theodore C. Williams.
28 Rostislav Oreshko
Qawe/Que

. In view of this identity in meaning, the idea of the etymological con-

nection between the names Qawe/Que and Ahhiyawa proposed quite presci-
ently long ago by Kretschmer

and resuscitated recently by the discovery of

Hiyawa in NEKY

now obtains solid support, but, of course, not quite in

the sense intended originally by Kretschmer (who argued for the location of the
Bronze Age Ahhiyawa in Cilicia). Despite the fact that the details of the process are
not obviously clear, we ought to postulate the development Ahhiyawa > Hiyawa >
Qawa > Que. The question is, what is the transitional form from Hiyawa to Qawa?
While the rendering of the Luwian velar fricative /x/ in Assyrian by the stop /q/
poses no problems, the development of the vocalic cluster -iya- > -a- does not rep-
resent something usual, since the expected result would be rather -i-. Even if we
assume that the writings -hi(ya)-wa/i- or hi-ya-wa/i- render something like /(a)
xyawa-/, this would not solve the problem, since the development of the cluster
/xy/ to /q/ is unknown and looks unlikely on phonological grounds

. A more
likely interpretation would be to assume that -hi(ya)-wa/i- or hi-ya-wa/i- conceal
a form with the first open vowel, i.e., something like /(a)xeyawa/ or /(a)xyawa/.
The interpretation /(a)xeywa/ cannot be excluded as well. Needless to say, the
phonological interpretation /he/ is no less possible for both HI(YA) and HI than /
hi/

. Such a phonological interpretation would be concordant both with the fact

that such a form is arguably closer to the original * and with the assump-
tion that the nucleus of the stem of Ahhiyawa was possibly associated folk-ety-
mologically with rain (Hitt. hu-/hyaw- rain, s. above). Under assumption that
the Luw. form of the ethnicon was /(a)xeyawa/, it is not too difficult to envisage
a synharmonic development -eya- > -aya- > -aa- > --. If the form was /(a)xeywa/
(which is closer to *), we could assume the disappearance of the glide -y-
in pre-consonantal position and synharmonic levelling *Qewa > Qawa

.
31For a survey of Assyrian sources s. Hawkins 2000, 4143 and Hawkins 20062008.
32Kretschmer 1933, 233238.
33TekoluLemaire 2000, 984.
34Cf. similarly Simon 2011, 261, fn. 19.
35Cf. the writing of the name Henti (cun.
f
-en
6
-ti-i) by HLuw. h-ti-i(a) (cf. HerbordtBawany-
peckHawkins 2011, 69). The reading Henti and not Hinti is, however, a matter of convention,
since the value of the vowel is not clear in the absence of plene writing. For the phonetic value
of HI cf., e.g., the writing hi-pa-t (GRN 1) for Hebat (cun.
D
-pt), for which an open
realization of the first vowel (/e/ or //) is corroborated by the Empire period HLuw. writing
ha-pa.
36One can also notice that the alleged connection of Qawa/Que with Qode mentioned in Bronze
Age Egyptian sources has convincingly been refuted in Simon 2011 recently.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 29
7The second implication of the mass appearance of Ahhiyawa in KARATEPE is
more significant. Now, there is no more place for doubts that Hiyawa of NEKY
represents the aphaeretic form of Ahhiyawa. Consequently, due to the full and
impeccable phonetic correspondence, which cannot be based on coincidence,
this country name and ethnicon is to be associated with the Ahhiyawa of the
cuneiform Hittite texts referring to the Mycenaean Greeks, which is, moreover,
also attested in the aphaeretic form Hiyawa

. As a result, it is not possible any

more to maintain the view that the Cilician Hiyawa represents the name of a local
city/country, which only by chance resembles Ahhiyawa and has nothing to do
with it historically

. And yet, in the hypothesis of the indigenous Hiyawa in

Cilicia there remain a few important points to be elucidated.
Besides general doubts concerning the possibility of deriving Ahhiyawa from
* by means of historical linguistics

, one of the strongest arguments for

Hajnal against the connection of the Hiyawa of NEKY with Ahhiyawa was the
fact that Hiyawa appears to be attested in Cilicia as early as the middle Hittite
period

. Indeed, in the Annals of Arnuwanda I (first half of the 14

th
c. BC) in a list
of settlements which also mentions
URU
Adaniya there appears a fragmentary city
name
URU
iya[] (KUB 23.21 obv. II 6)

. It was claimed that the most likely restora-

tion of the latter name would be
URU
iya[wa]

. The appearance of
URU
Adaniya and
URU
iya[] in a relative proximity is indeed surprising and evokes immediately
KARATEPE with its juxtaposition of Ahhiyawa and Adanawa. However, there is
an obvious and stark discrepancy: in the Annals of Arnuwanda I it is manifestly
37S. the full text of the two letters from Ugarit most recently published in BeckmanBryce
Cline 2012, 253262 (AhT 27A and 27B). In these two texts Hiyawa quite clearly refers not to the
Cilician Ahhiyawans, but to the mainland Greece or Aegean Ahhiyawans (i.e. the Mycenaean
Greeks), who have some (presumably trade) bases in Lycia (s. already Singer 2006). If one
believes that PAD
ME
indeed refer to metal (and not to food-rations), which looks extremely
plausible, a scenario in which the Ugaritic ships are ordered for a Hittite emissary (Satalli) so that
he could organize the shipment of supposedly large quantities of metal to Lycia for the people
from Cilicia looks absolutely senseless. Lycia quite clearly represents here a station on the way
from Ugarit to the Aegean used as the meeting point with the counterparty coming from the
west (or simply based locally). It is important to emphasize this fact once again, since it seems
that it has not been properly taken into consideration in some recent works, when adducing the
Ugarit evidence in the discussion of the identity of the Cilician Hiyawa (Gander 2010, 4851 and
following him Simon 2011, 259; Gander 2012, 284286).
38For the literature in which this view is presented s. above, fn. 9.
39Hajnal 2011, 250.
4Hajnal 2011, 251.
41For a recent new edition of the text s. Carruba 2008, 6581.
42Carruba 2008, 66, Yakubovich 2010, 151, fn. 92, Hajnal 2011, 251.
30 Rostislav Oreshko
a settlement a town or a village, and, moreover, quite an insignificant one,
judging from the fact that it is mentioned nowhere else in cuneiform corpus
while Ahhiyawa/Hiyawa of KARATEPE/NEKY is the ethnicon and the county
name, whose capital was at all appearances Adanawa

. It seems to me difficult
to propose any historically plausible scenario in which the name of a small town
that, after its single mention in one text, remained in complete oblivion for more
than 600 years and suddenly re-appeared as the name of the whole region of
Cilicia Pedias and its people. What is more, there is no certainty whatever that
URU
iya[] should be restored as
URU
iya[wa]

. The 8
th
c. BC attestation of HLuw.
Hiyawa cannot be used as a hint for a restoration, since it represents a function-
ally and chronologically different entity. It is true that Hiyasna, the only other
possible candidate offered by cuneiform texts, does not fit geographically

, but
the very existence of another name beginning with hiya- is eloquent enough. In
the Cilician context it might be another Hiyasna, since doublets of the names are
not rare in Anatolia and elsewhere, or something else based on the same stem,
such as, e.g., *Hiyassa or *Hiya(wa)nda. Attested nowhere else in the contempo-
rary Hittite sources as an Anatolian toponym, Hiyawa possess no exclusive right
for the place in the list

.
The second alleged indication on the existence of a Bronze Age Hiyawa in
the Cilician region is even less probative. The localization of the land w attested
once in a topographical list from the time of Ramesses II, which was considered
by E. Edel as the Egyptian form of the country name rendered by the Assyrians
as Qawe/Que

and subsequently hailed as a plausible match to HLuw. Hiyawa

,
remains completely uncertain. Its position in the list between rather obscure
(despite Edels efforts) locality rtp and the west Anatolian Arzawa hardly helps
to specify its location with any precision. Needless to say, the phonetic corre-
43This discrepancy violates quite obviously the principle of the relative funktionale Identitt
insisted on by Hajnal himself (Hajnal 2011, 242).
44Contra Carruba 2008, 66 there is not the slightest trace of a sign after ia. The tablet is simply
broken off there (s. photos of the tablet on http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de).
45Cf. Yakubovich 2010, 151, fn. 92. and Hajnal 2011, 258, n. 41.
46Even if the name of this settlement were Hiyawa, this alone would still hardly prove
its connection with Ahhiyawa of KARATEPE. An equally possible interpretation would be
to see in it a local name based on the stem hu-/hyaw- rain, as probably is the name of a
mountain
UR.SAG
-i-ia-x mentioned in KUB 46.45 Rs.14 (s. Gander 2012, 286287), cf. numerous
toponyms in modern Turkey based on yamur rain: Yamurlu in the provinces of Bursa, Tokat,
Kahramanmara and Manisa; Yamur near Amasya; Yamurlar in Manisa province etc.
47Edel 1975, 6465.
48Gander 2009, 53 with fn. 219 and Simon 2011, 260.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 31
spondence between w and Hiyawa is too slender to make a point of it. Finally,
it should be noted that the Egyptian designation of the Late Bronze Cilicia is well
known: it is (3)-3-w3-d-n, which is the rendering of the most usual Hittite name
of the region, Kizzuwadna. There is hardly any reason to look in the Egyptian
texts for another name of the same entity.
Thus, the existing textual material does not provide any firm support for the
existence of a Bronze Age Cilician Hiyawa. On the contrary, on the basis of the
revised evidence of KARATEPE one can now confidently assert that the Hiyawa
of NEKY goes back indeed to Ahhiyawa, the Hittite name for the Mycenaean
Greeks. Since the Hittite cuneiform texts provide persuasive enough evidence
that the Bronze Age Ahhiyawa should be sought on the western fringes of the
Hittite Empire, i.e. basically in the Aegean and the mainland Greece, and not in
Cilicia, the appearance of Ahhiyawa in KARATEPE and NEKY as a designation
of a local entity can be interpreted only as the result of a transfer of the term at
some point following the fall of the Hittite Empire at the beginning of 12
th
century
BC. The only way to explain the transfer of the name is to assume that it was
brought by migrating people

. However scarce is at present archaeological evi-

dence for such an event, one has no choice than to postulate that at some point
Cilicia Pedias was conquered by the newcomers from Greece, who gave subse-
quently their name to this region which was kept long after the Aegean cultural
traits had been absorbed by the local Hurro-Luwian substratum.
Literature
Beckman, Gary Bryce, Trevor Cline, Eric, 2009. The Ahhiyawa Texts, Atlanta.
Bittel, Kurt Gterbock, Hans G. Neumann, Gnter Neve, Peter Otten, Heinrich Seidl,
Ursula, 1975. Boazky V. Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und 1971. Ausgrabungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft und des Deutschen Archologischen Institutes, Berlin.
Boehmer, Rainer M. Gterbock, Hans G., 1987. Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boazky.
Grabungskampagnen 19311939, 19521978 (Boazky-Hattua 14), Berlin.
ambel, Halet, 1999. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Volume II: Karatepe-Aslanta,
BerlinNew York.
Carruba, Onofrio, 2008. Annali Etei del Medio Regno (Studia Mediterranea 18), Pavia.
Edel, Elmar, 1975. Neue Identifikationen topographischer Namen in den konventionellen
Namenszusammenstellungen des Neuen Reiches, in: SAK 3, 4973.
49It is noteworthy that this means that Ahhiyawa is first and foremost an ethnicon and not a
geographical or political designation, which once again corroborates the full validity of Forrers
initial equation Ahhiyawa = *.
32 Rostislav Oreshko
de Fidio, Pia, 2008. Mycenaean History, in: Duhoux, Yves Morpurgo-Davies, Anna (eds), A
Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Volume 1 (Bibliothque
des Cahiers de lInstitut de Linguistique de Louvain 120), Louvain-la-Neuve, Paris and
Dudley, 81114.
Forlanini, Massimo, 2005. Un peuple, plusieurs noms. Le problme des ethniques au Proche
Orient ancien. Cas connus, cas dcouvrir, in: Soldt, Wilfred H. (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient
Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48
th
Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Leiden,
14 July 2002, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 111119.
Gander, Max, 2010. Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Lnder, Heidelberg.
Gander, Max, 2012. Ahhiyawa Hiyawa Que: Gibt es Evidenz fr die Anwesenheit von
Griechen in Kilikien am bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit?, in: SMEA 54, 281309.
Gelb, Ignace J., 1939. Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments (OIP 45), Chicago.
Gonnet, Hatice, 1991. Les lgendes des empreintes hiroglyphiques anatoliennes, in: Arnaud,
Daniel, Textes syriens de lge du bronze rcent (AuOr Supplementa 1), Barcelona,
198214.
Hajnal, Ivo, 2011. Namen und ihre Etymologien als Beweisstcke nur bedingt tauglich?, in: Ulf,
Christoph Rollinger, Robert (eds), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers
Ilias, Darmstadt, 241263.
Hawkins, J. David, 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Volume I: Inscriptions of
the Iron Ages, BerlinNew York.
Hawkins, J. David, 20062008. Que. A. Geschichte, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11,
191195.
Hawkins, J. David, 2009. Cilicia, Amuq, and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age, in: Near Eastern
Archaeology 72/4, 164173.
Herbordt, Suzanne Bawanypeck, Daliah Hawkins, J. David, 2011. Die Siegel der Grossknige
und Grosskniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Niantepe-Archiv in Hattua (Boazky-
Hattua XXIII), DarmstadtMainz.
Jasink, Anna M. Marino, Mauro, 20072008. The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom
Dynasty, in: Archi, Alfonso Francia, Rita (eds), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia,
Roma, 59 settembre 2005, Rom, 407426.
Kloekhorst, Alwin, 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden.
Kretschmer, Paul, 1930. Zur Frage der griechischen Namen in den hethitischen Texten, in:
Glotta 18, 161170.
Kretschmer, Paul, 1933. Die Hypacher, in: Glotta 21, 213257.
Lane Fox, Robin, 2008. Travelling Heroes: Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer,
LondonNew York.
Lanfranchi, Giovanni B., 2009. A Happy Son of the King of Assyria: Warikas and the ineky
Bilingual (Cilicia), in: Mikko, Luukko Saana, Svrd Raija, Mattila (eds), Of God(s), Trees,
Kings and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, Finnish
Oriental Society, Helsinki, 127150.
Laroche, Emmanuel, 1958. tudes sur les hiroglyphes hittites. 6. Adana et les Danouniens, in:
Syria 35, 263275.
Laroche, Emmanuel, 1960. Les hiroglyphes hittites 1. Lcriture, Paris.
Lebrun, Ren, 2010. Un haut dignitaire hittite la cour de Ramesses II, in: Lebrun, Ren
Tavernier, Jan, Syro-Anatolica Scripta Minora VIII, in: Le Muson 123.
Lemaire, Andr, 2006. La maison de Mopsos en Cilicie et en Pamphylie lpoque du Fer (XIIe
VIe s. av. J.-C.), in: Res Antiquae 3, 99107.
The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered 33
Lipiski, Edward, 2004. Itineraria Phoenicia (OLA 127), Leuven.
Lpez-Ruiz, Carolina, 2009. Mopsos and Cultural Exchange between Greeks and Locals in
Cilicia, in: Dill, Ueli Walde, Christine (eds), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen
und Konstruktionen, Berlin, 487501.
Meriggi, Pietro, 1975. Manuale di eteo geroglifico. Parte 2/2. Testi 2
a
e 3
a
Serie / Tavole 2
a
e
3
a
Serie, Roma.
del Monte, Giuseppe F. Tischler, Johann. Die Orts- und Gewssernamen der hethitischen Texte
(Rpertoire Gographique des Textes Cuniformes 6), Wiesbaden, 1978.
Oettinger, Norbert, 2008. The Seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a Historical Figure, in: Collins, Billie
Jean Bachvarova, Mary Rutherford, Ian C. (eds), Anatolian Interfaces Hittites, Greeks
and Their Neighbours, Oxford, 6366.
Oettinger, Norbert, 2011. Invasion und Assimilation von Griechen in Kilikien: Konsequenzen aus
den Berichten ber Mopsos/Muksas, in: Matthus, H. Oettinger, N. Schrder, S. (eds),
Der Orient und die Anfnge Europas: kulturelle Beziehungen von der spten Bronzezeit bis
zur frhen Eisenzeit, Wiesbaden, 127133.
Rllig, Wolfgang, 2011. Und ich baute starke Festungen an allen Enden auf den Grenzen ....
Zur Bedeutung der Inschriften und Reliefs vom Karatepe-Aslanta, in: Ulf, Christoph
Rollinger, Robert (eds), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias,
Darmstadt, 115133.
Simon, Zsolt, 2011. The Identification of Qode. Reconsidering the Evidence, in: Mynov,
Jana (ed.), Egypt and the Near East the Crossroads. Proceedings of an International
Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague,
September 13, 2010, Prague, 249269.
Singer, Itamar, 2006. Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS
94.2530 and RS 94.2523, in: AoF 33, 242262.
Singer, Itamar, 2012. The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of Taita, in: Galil, Gershon
Gilboa, Ayelet Maeir, Aren M. Kahn, Danel (eds), The Ancient Near East in the 12
th
10
th

Centuries BCE. Culture and History, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the
University of Haifa, 25 May, 2010 (AOAT 392), Mnster, 451471.
Tekolu, Recai Lemaire, Andr, 2000. La bilingue royale louvito-phnicienne de ineky, in:
CRAIBL 2000, 9611007.
Vanschoonwinkel, Jacques, 1990. Mopsos: lgendes et ralit, in: Hethitica 10, 185211.
Yakubovich, Ilya, 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, LeidenBoston.
Rostislav Oreshko: Universitt Hamburg, Archologisches Institut, Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1,
20146 Hamburg, Deutschland
E-Mail: fauhs@rambler.ru