Content uploaded by Eberhard Zangger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eberhard Zangger on Sep 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DUTCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY
VOLUME L (2018)
Series Editors:
J.P. Stronk and M.D. de Weerd
FACTS, FANTASIES, AND FORGERIES
Discussing James Mellaart, the Luwian Hieroglyphic Inscription Beyköy 2,
and other Documents from his Files
IntroductIon
Supplementum epIgraphIcum medIterraneum 42-47
Zangger, Eberhard (Switzerland) & Fred Woudhuizen (The Netherlands), Rediscovered
Luwian Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from Western Asia Minor; Bányai, Michael (Germany),
Der Beyköy Text: Eine Fälschung?; Schürr, Diether (Germany), Mellaarts erste Erndung:
Ein hieroglyphen-luwisches Siegel; Stissi, Vladimir (The Netherlands), What is drawn and
written is not necessarily true. Contextualizing Mellaart’s fakes; Zangger, Eberhard (Swit-
zerland), James Mellaart’s fantasies; Woudhuizen, Fred (The Netherlands) & Eberhard
Zangger (Switzerland), Arguments in favour of the authenticity of the Luwian Hieroglyphic
Texts from the Mellaart Files
revIew
Thomas Berres 2017: Der Diskus von Phaistos. Grundfragen seiner Entzifferung (Fred C.
Woudhuizen)
JuSt publIShed by the dutch archaeologIcal and hIStorIcal SocIety
Fred C. Woudhuizen 2019: Etruscan as a Colonial Luwian Language: the Comprehensive Version
InstructIons to authors
9
Previously published on line: December 9, 2017
REDISCOVERED LUWIAN HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS
FROM WESTERN ASIA MINOR
(Supplementum Epigraphicum Mediterraneum 42)
Eberhard Zangger & Fred Woudhuizen
Editorial notE
The announcement, earlier this year, of the publication of a monumental Luwian
hieroglyphical inscription, supposedly found in Beyköy in the Phrygian highlands
in 1878 but lost soon afterwards and only preserved in drawings, immediately trig-
gered a lively debate among luwologists and many others. The debate soon mainly
focused on the surmised falsication of the drawings, supposedly copies after the
originals made by the French archaeologist Georges Perrot, which were retrieved
from the estate of professor James Mellaart (1925-2012). This debate goes on,
even though practically no one as yet ever has seen the drawings.
The editors of Talanta are aware of the fact that James Mellaart has been invol-
ved in a series of forgery cases, particularly the so-called Dorak affair (for a brief
review on this see, e.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorak_affair>) and his
publication of non-documented wallpaintings and tablets from Çatalhöyük (for
the paintings and his (ab)use of them see, e.g., <http://www.marlamallett.com/
chupdate.htm>). Simultaneously, the editors of Talanta are also aware of the fact
that there are serious doubts whether Georges Perrot has been in western Asia
Minor in 1878 at all. If, then, supposed copies of a series of drawings of Luwian
hieroglyphic inscriptions, allegedly made by Perrot at Beyköy in 1878, surface
in the estate of Mellaart, it makes alarm bells go off – and, indeed, they did go
off in our ofces, loudly and clearly.
In spite of all concerns, the editors of Talanta nevertheless welcome the possibi-
lity to publish the drawings, on the one hand presenting (now already online in a
preliminary version) an interpretation by Eberhard Zangger and Fred Woudhuizen,
who see this as the longest surviving Luwian inscription, found and drawn in
1878 but as yet never published. On the other hand we would gladly welcome
to present the views of those arguing the documents found in Mellaart’s estate
are forgeries. We, therefore, cordially invite scholars to present their views, from
TALANTA L (2018), 9 - 56
10
whichever perspective they see relevant. We hope such a combination of perspec-
tives, to be presented in the 50th issue of Talanta, can at least give this document
its proper place in the scholarly debate.
We do not choose to proceed in this way because we have masochistic tendencies,
are fond of alarm bells, or want to benet from all the attention even the announce-
ment that these documents would be published generated. The editors of Talanta
believe that a genuine and fair debate, based upon all the facts known to us, is – or
at least should be – the basis of scholarly progress. That is the rst reason to publish
the contribution of Zangger and Woudhuizen. There is also a second reason: by
giving the discussions the basis of the story of its discovery as presented by Mel-
laart as well as images of the relevant documents, an actual reading, transcription,
translation, and a proposal for a epigraphic and historical context of the (possible)
inscription, the online pre-publication now and the more nal version in print later
are also direct invitations to comment on all aspects of it, emphatically including
arguments pro and contra its falsication, not only in the dedicated volume of Ta-
lanta, which we hope to publish within 2018, but also beyond. Only then there may
be a possibility to further our knowledge of, on one hand, the era this inscription
(allegedly) discusses, an era, moreover, of which we cannot allow ourselves to lose
a shred of potential evidence, and on the other hand the work of James Mellaart.
abstract
The estate of the British prehistorian James Mellaart (1925–2012) contained Mel-
laart’s tracing of several Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions, including a particular
prominent one that was originally drawn by the French archaeologist Georges
Perrot in 1878. In search of building materials, peasants in the village of Beyköy,
approximately 34 kilometers north of Afyonkarahisar in western Turkey, had re-
trieved a number of stones from the ground. Together they make up a frieze 29
meters in length and about 35 centimeters in height. Not yet able to read the sym-
bols, Perrot drew the stones in the wrong sequence. After Perrot had recorded the
inscription, the villagers installed the stones into the foundation of a newly-built
mosque. When Luwian hieroglyphic was deciphered, Perrot’s drawing was meant
to be published within the framework of a joint Turkish/US-American research
project focusing on thus far unpublished documents that had come into the pos-
session of the Ottoman government during the 19th century. The Turkish archae-
ologist Uluğ Bahadır Alkım produced a preliminary interpretation of the contents
and established the correct sequence of the stones shortly before he died in 1981.
The Beyköy inscription contains 50 phrases and is thus the longest known Bronze
Age hieroglyphic document. It outranks by far any documents known from western
Anatolia. The inscription was commissioned by great king Kupantakuruntas of
Mira. It commemorates his deeds, and in so doing provides a detailed account of
his realm and conquests. The text dates back to the upheavals of the Sea Peoples,
ca. 1190–1180 BC. It relates the maritime conquests in the eastern Mediterra-
nean under the command of great prince Muksus from the Troad. The western
11
Anatolian naval forces proceeded all the way to Ashkelon in southern Palestine,
bordering on Egypt. The memory of this endeavor was preserved in Greek lit-
erary tradition in the form of the legendary tales about Mopsos. In short, the
Luwian hieroglyphic text from Beyköy gives us a fascinating insight into the
history of a region and a period which has thus far been shrouded in darkness.
It is reproduced and discussed here together with three more substantial Luwian
hieroglyphic documents and four fragments from Mellaart’s estate.
1. introduction
The 29-meter-long Luwian hieroglyphic stone inscription introduced here (Fig. 1)
was transmitted through several versions of drawings retrieved from the estate of
the late prehistorian and pioneer of Anatolian Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology
James Mellaart (1925–2012). It was part of a 15-centimeter tall pile comprising
500 sheets of paper of copies and translations of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age documents from western Asia Minor that Mellaart had specically set aside
in his private study in north London and marked as being of utmost importance.
This part of the bequest was transferred by James Mellaart’s sole inheritor, his
son Alan, to one of the authors (EZ) for further study and publication within the
framework of Luwian Studies (see Zangger 2017, 309).
In a series of handwritten notes, Mellaart stated that the designated editor of this
material, the archaeologist and former professor at Istanbul University Uluğ Ba-
hadır Alkım (1915-1981), “expressed the wish that the texts he was editing should
see publication by 2000 AD. If delayed for any reason, … the translation should be
communicated widely to prevent obstruction from whatever sources” (Mellaart’s
underlinings and omission). He then added: “If I, James Mellaart, will not reach
the year 2000 AD, see that my literary executors ensure publication. J. Mellaart”.
In another handwritten note, Mellaart recollects how Alkım’s widow Handam had
made Mellaart undertake to oversee the publication of this inscription shortly be-
fore she passed away in 1984.
The material we present here is therefore at this stage exclusively derived from
Mellaart’s inheritance. Fortunately, the archaeologist described the provenance
and research history of the inscription in some detail in several pages of hand-
written notes. What follows is a summary of this history.
Mellaart’s estate contains an inscription from Yazılıtaş in northwestern Asia Minor
that was found as early as 1854 as well as one from Edremit found in 1871 (see be-
low). Until now, the rst documents bearing Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions were
thought to have arrived in the Ottoman archaeological collection in Constantinople
in November 1872. William Wright, at that time an Irish missionary in Damascus,
and Subhī Pasha, the governor of southern Syria, who were on a eld trip to Hama
on the Orontes in Syria, conscated four orthostats bearing Luwian hieroglyphic in-
scriptions. They had requested explicit permission from Sultan Abdülaziz to secure
these four stones, and had them taken from the walls of modern buildings, two of
which were still inhabited. Wright described this endeavor in elaborate detail in
12
13
Fig. 1. The 29-meter-long Luwian hieroglyphic inscription (Beyköy 2) as re-
corded by Charles Perrot in 1878 is depicted here in the ink tracing
produced by James Mellaart during the 1970s. The numbers in paren-
theses record the sequence of the stones as it was drawn by Perrot and
Mellaart. Also published in Zangger 2017, 312-313.
14
his 1884 publication The Empire of the Hittites, which featured one of the inscrip-
tions, prominently plated with gold color, on its cover (Wright 1884, 7-11). These
stones are still on display in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul.
In 1878, news arrived at the Department of Antiquities in Constantinople that peas-
ants in the hamlet of Beyköy, about 34 kilometers north of Afyonkarahisar in west-
ern Turkey, had found a large number of stone blocks with hieroglyphic inscriptions
resembling those from Hama. The government commissioned the French archaeol-
ogist Georges Perrot, who had visited and carefully documented the ruins in Boğaz-
köy in 1862 and was visiting Turkey at that time, to travel to Beyköy to produce
drawings of the stone inscriptions and, if possible, to even photograph them. Perrot
was provided with an appropriate escort. The archaeologist was successful – he
proceeded from Beyköy directly to Edremit to record the inscription that had been
found there and was stored in a public park. Perrot returned with copies whose qual-
ity satised the requirements he had been set. Realizing the potential signicance
of the nds, the Turkish government then ordered the stones from Beyköy to be
secured. But nothing happened. So, the Director of the Department of Antiquities ul-
timately went to Beyköy himself, only to nd that the stones had already been built
into the foundations of a new mosque. Furious, the chief archaeologist ordered the
entire village to be searched. This raid produced three large bronze tablets covered
with cuneiform text in the Hittite language, later dubbed the “Beyköy Texts”.
During the 1950s, the Director of the Department of Antiquities in Ankara, Hamit
Zübeyir Koşay, obtained government permission to translate and publish the ex-
ceedingly elaborate Beyköy Texts. He succeeded in winning over the world’s most
respected hittitologist, Albrecht Goetze in Yale. The publication, however, had to
have a Turkish co-author and be produced by the Turkish authorities. The Turkish
Historic Society commissioned Professor U. Bahadır Alkım and his wife, Handam
Alkım, to coordinate and edit this publication. Around 1956, a comprehensive in-
ternational project emerged which included not only the publication of the Beyköy
Texts, but also that of various other prominent inscriptions that had been conscat-
ed or acquired by the Ottoman government during the 19th century. The initiators
of the project included Albrecht Goetze (Yale), Edmund Irwin Gordon (Harvard),
and Richard David Barnett, curator at the British Museum in London. Koşay and
Alkım, arguably among the most inuential Turkish archaeologists at the time,
appear to have had unrestricted access to the original documents.
The translation of the centerpiece, the Beyköy Texts, by Albrecht Goetze and Ed-
mund Irwin Gordon appears to have been nished as early as 1960, because Mel-
laart reports that Goetze then deposited a copy of it in the library of the BIAA (Brit-
ish Institute of Archaeology at Ankara). However, the publication had not
appeared
in 1971 when Goetze died. Bahadır Alkım and his wife then approached James
Mellaart during a two-month research stay in England in 1976 and asked him to
write an article about the historical geography west of the Hittite domain for the
second volume in the envisioned series. Alkım himself wanted to write about Hat-
ti, Kizzuwatna, and Eastern Anatolia, as he was the expert on these regions. James
Mellaart agreed and thus became a member of the project.
15
While working on these inscriptions, which had made their way into Ottoman
archives before the Hittite language and Luwian hieroglyphic were deciphered,
Alkım was also specically searching for the drawings of the extensive stone in-
scriptions that Georges Perrot had recorded in 1878 – and he succeeded in retriev-
ing them. Being a former PhD student of the German-born art historian Helmuth
Bossert, who played a key role in the deciphering of Luwian hieroglyphic, and
having taken part in the initial excavations at Karatepe-Aslantaş, where the bi-
lingue was found that made deciphering possible, Alkım was himself an expert
on Luwian hieroglyphic. He wanted to publish this stone inscription in the second
volume of the overall project. Mellaart visited Alkım in his ofce in İstanbul in
1979. On that occasion, Mellaart saw the material for the planned publication:
photographs (of the bronze tablets), transcriptions, translations, and philological
comments. Only appendices, a bibliography, and registers were missing. More-
over, work on the Turkish translation of the text, one of the conditions for the
publication, had not yet begun.
It must have been on such an occasion that Mellaart sat down in İstanbul and copied
the Luwian hieroglyphic stone inscription discussed here. Of the Beyköy inscription,
he rst produced a pencil sketch on four sheets of A4-sized vellum, evidently tracing
the signs from a reproduction of Perrot’s drawings. In a second step – and on fresh
sheets of vellum – Mellaart produced ink drawings of his sketches. The illustration
shown in this paper consists of a scan of these ink drawings by Mellaart (Fig. 1).
When Perrot copied the hieroglyphic signs, their meaning was not yet understood.
His transcripts corresponded clearly to the pre-1900 style transmission, for in-
stance, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum by Leopold Messerschmidt in
1900. Because nobody could read the text, Perrot had partially arranged the frag-
ments in the wrong order. Mellaart’s original drawings still reected this initial
erroneous sequence. A handwritten note from Mellaart states that Bahadır Alkım
re-arranged the drawings of the individual stone blocks over a century after they
had been made by Perrot. Mellaart, who had typed out Alkım’s interpretation on
his own type-writer, subsequently cut the paper and re-arranged it, marking it
“Beyköy, rearranged text. U.B. Alkım 1980” (Fig. 2).
Before Mellaart had completed his contribution to the interpretation of the bronze
tablets, the designated editor, Bahadır Alkım, died in 1981 at the age of sixty-six.
Mellaart ultimately sent his manuscript on the political geography of western Asia
Minor to Alkim’s widow Handam, who informed him in 1984 that the rst vol-
ume had nally been sent to the printers. Its title was “History and Geography
of Arzawa” (or something along those lines, for the book never materialized).
That year, Edmund Irwin Gordon died, followed by Handam Alkım and Hamit
Zübeyir Koşay in 1985, and Richard David Barnett the following year. All the
researchers who had been involved in this international project were thus dead,
and not a single publication had appeared. Mellaart noted that at that time at least
ve more people knew about the legendary text: the British hittitologist Oliver
Robert Gurney, then head of the BIAA; Edmond Sollberger, curator at the British
Museum in London; Emanuel Laroche, linguist at the Collège de France in Paris;
16
17
18
Pierre Demargne, a classical archaeologist at the Sorbonne in Paris and excavator
of the ancient city of Xanthos in Lycia; and, of course, Mellaart himself. In prin-
ciple, the history of this project and its failed publication was already outlined in a
little-known publication by James Mellaart in 1993. Mellaart also summarized the
contents of the Beyköy Texts in two long letters to Eberhard Zangger during the
summer of 1995 (Zangger 2017, 215-227).
Today, we can tell that the Luwian hieroglyphic inscription from Beyköy dates
back to the reign of the great king Kupantakuruntas of Mira, a contemporary of
Muksus, from the time around 1180 BC. The text contains a genealogy going back
to his great-grandfather and namesake who, in the late 14th century BC, was in-
stalled by the Hittite great king Mursilis II. Despite minor damage, the inscription
is in general well preserved. It deals with events during the time of the invasions
of the Sea Peoples, and includes numerous lists of places, countries, and deities.
The empire of king Kupantakuruntas included bases in Philistia, more specically
at Ashkelon along the Egyptian frontier, and thus extended to Syria and Palestine.
2. thE luwian hiEroglyphic tExt from bEyköy
Until now, only one Luwian hieroglyphic inscription was known from Beyköy,
the one treated by Emilia Masson (1980, 119-122). This concerns a fragmen-
tarily preserved text in commemoration of a successful military campaign by
Muwatallis II’s tuhkanti or crown prince Urhitesup (= later great king Mursilis
III) in the region (Woudhuizen 2018, 80-81). If we label this text as Beyköy 1,
the one discussed here should be named Beyköy 2.
Beyköy 2, then, is the largest Luwian hieroglyphic text from the Late Bronze Age,
and as such the most signicant discovery since the bilingual text from Karatepe.
Beyköy 2 comprises a total of 50 individual phrases, 40 of which are marked as
Fig. 2. Mellaart’s version of Alkım’s unpublished interpretation of Beyköy 2
reects how the sequence of the stones was rearranged several times
before the correct order was established in 1980.
19
such by the sentence introductory particle(s) à-wa and wa-à. However, a substan-
tial part of it consists of enumerations of names of places and lands, amounting
to more than 150 in total. Nevertheless, in between these enumerations there is
enough evidence of grammar and syntax to give us an idea of the language in-
volved, which is likely to be identied as that of the principal of the text, great
king Kupantakuruntas of Mira. In other words, we have here a major testimony
to the Luwian language as it was spoken in Arzawa. Thus far, this has only been
transmitted to us in one other type of document – cuneiform Luwian, the so-called
Istanuwan songs (Woudhuizen 2018, 117-121).
The text is in the main well preser
ved, and the drawing of it turns out to be reliable
even for those sections which are only fragmentarily preserved – no mean feat once
you realize that it was drawn by Perrot before the decipherment of the script. The
signary used is by and large reasonably mainstream. There is only an idiosyncratic
variant of the negative *332 na
4
, without its usual legs. Novelties are the ship sign,
navis
2
(§§ 25, 28)
1
, the sign in form of a metal weight (§ 29), the one depicting a
gift bearing person (§ 42), and the one in form of a loom (§ 45). In only a few cases
the order of the signs is denitely mistaken, thus HÁ(TI) sá-sá-haUTNA in § 15 should
be read as HÁ(TI)UTNA sá-sá-ha, i-i-ā in § 18 no doubt correctly reads i-ā-i, and PAR -
NA+r ARHA ta
6
in § 19, analogous to § 4, should be read as PARNA+r-ta
6
ARHA. In
one instance, § 37 (= block 23), the signs are not rendered in a column facing left as
is regular, but in a horizontal line running from left to right.
Even though the text dates from the Bronze Age – albeit the last part of the Bronze
Age, ca. 1190-1180 BC – the sign *376 (§ 6, etc.) and possibly also *209 (§ 43)
are already marked by the two slanting strokes at their lower side to form *377 and
*210 – a typical feature of Luwian hieroglyphic texts from an advanced stage of the
Early Iron Age. Note, however, in this connection that *377 is found by Willemijn
Waal (2017, 304-305, Fig. 7) on a Hittite clay tablet, so this particular innovation
must have started already in the Late Bronze Age, presumably in western Anatolia.
The system of transliteration used here adheres to the one introduced in Woudhuizen
2011, 21-38. The polyphonic nature of *376, expressing both the values i and zi, is
underlined by the fact that on the one hand the MN ma-sa-hù+i-ti in §§ 1, 5 (with
*331 being a ligature of a semicircle for hù with *376 i) corresponds to Hittite cunei-
form Mashuittas (Hagenbuchner 1989, 317 [KBo XVIII 18]) and the TN i-ku-wa-na
in § 50 corresponds to Hittite cuneiform Ikkuwaniya “Konya” (del Monte/Tischler
1978, 137-138), whereas on the other hand the TN mi-zi+r(a) in § 28 corresponds to
Hittite cuneiform Mizra “Egypt” (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 273-275). Note further-
more that *186 lu is distinguished here from *445 lú, and that *329 is transliterated
as KWA even though we cannot yet be sure whether it
had already become subject to
lenition and rather expresses the value HWA .
1
There is already a ship sign in Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions from the Middle Bronze
Age, namely *35, but this became stylized to such an extent in the course of time that it is no
longer recognizable as such in inscriptions dating from the Late Bronze Age and still later became
secondarily identied as the lower part of the arm. Only the value na, then, is reminiscent of its
original form, being acrophonically derived from Proto-Indo-European (= PIE) *nah
2
we- “ship”.
20
Summary of the contents of Beyköy 2
§ 1 genealogy of great king Kupantakuruntas of Mira
deed of Mashuittas, father of Kupantakuruntas
§§ 2-10 Mashuittas reinstalled king Walmus of Wilusa
enumeration of 25 towns and lands in NW Anatolia now
under the sway of Mira, includes Tarwisa (= Troy)
Apassawa (= Apaisos in Troad), and Assuwa-town
Kupantakuruntas dedicated the Beyköy monument in
commemoration of this successful intervention by his father
wish-formula that future ruler of Wilusa will guard its
territory like the great king of Mira did
deeds of Kupantakuruntas
§§ 11-13 building of roads connecting Kuwaliya with Pitassa,
Sallapa, Masa, and the divine land (= Istanuwa or Tarhuntassa?)
§§ 14-15 Hittite sanctuaries will be provided for, Hittite interests
being respected
§ 16 dedication of 6000 rams (for offering purposes)
§ 17 10 fortresses have been built in Mira, which are enumerated
§ 18 palace and temple for the Luwian divine triad
(= Tarhunt, the god of the eld, and Kupapa) have been built
§ 19 the king of Hapalla destroyed 6 towns, which are
enumerated
§ 20 the king of Atapali fortied 5 towns, which are
enumerated and include the place of the monument (= modern Beyköy)
§ 21-23 in total there are 6 kings: of Wilusa, Hapalla, Seha(?),
Assuwa(?), headed by the great king of Mira, who is also
the great king of Arzawa
§ 24 overview of the territory of the deceased king of Hatti:
Tarsus, Adana, Lawazantiya and, ruled indirectly,
Amanus, Mukish, Aleppo, Karkamis, Ugarit, and Byblos
§ 25 maritime conquests by Mira: Parha, Philistia, Ura, Lamiya
§ 26-27 commanders: Muksus, Kulanamuwas, Tuwatas, and Piyamakuruntas
§ 28 they built a frontier fortress at Ashkelon on the border with Egypt
§§ 29-30 dedication 40 units of metal(?) and building of a temple
for 6 gods, including the Luwian divine triad
21
§ 31-32 fortresses have been built in Arzawa, enumeration of 25
towns including Apasa, Kurupiya, and Smyrna
§ 33-35 idem in Hapalla, enumeration of 14 towns and lands
§ 36-37 Muksus sacrices to 8 gods, including the Luwian divine
triad, in the land of Apaisos in the Troad
§ 38 so on behalf of the great king Muksus in Apaisos
§ 39 Kulanamuwa appeases the god of the army in Masa
§ 40 the great king remains seated on the throne of Arzawa
§ 41 campaigns against Tarhuntassa, Kaska, and Masa
§ 42 enumeration of 6 kings who brought gifts, includes the
kings of Atapali, Kizzuwatna, and Karkamis
§ 43 Masa is made into a fortress of Arzawa
§ 44 Muksus in context of dedication to gods
§§ 45-46 to Hapalla have been sent 8000 troops and with these are
conquered 16 towns and lands, including Hulana river-
land, Sallapa, Kalasma, Pitassa, Tarhuntassa, and Lalanda
§§ 47-48 in Mira are stationed 6000 troops, with these are guarded
23 towns, including Mira, Tarkuwa, and Mitasa already
mentioned in § 17
§§ 49-50 the deceased king of Hatti, Arnuwandas, did not
campaign in and restore control over i.a. Ura, Lamiya,
Tarhuntassa, the sea, and Ikkuwaniya
Beyköy 2
§ 1 sol suus URA+HANTAWAT “His Majesty, great king,
la+PÁRNA ku-pa-tá-KURUNT labarnas Kupantakuruntas,
la+PÁRNA URA+HANTAWAT labarnas, great king (of)
mi+r(a)-àUTNA URA+HANTAWAT Mira, son (of) great king
ma-sa-hù+i-ti infansm Mashuittas, son (of) great
URA+HANTAWAT á-la-na-ti+li great king Alantallis, son
infansm ku-pa-tá-KURUNT (of) Kupantakuruntas,
URA+HANTAWAT mi+r(a)-àUTNA great king of Mira.”
<infansm>
§ 2 à-wa PÁRANA-na wa-la-mu-sa “On behalf of Walmus,
HANTAWAT wi-lu-saUTNA [ ] king (of) Wilusa [ ].”
§ 3 [ ] i pa-ti [ ] UMINA “[ ] this for him [ ] town.”
22
§ 4 à-wa mi+r(a)-àUTNA à+ta “In Mira (the enemy)
mi-ti-sa UMINA ARHA destroyed the town of a
PARNA+r-ta6 servant.”
§ 5 à-wa ma-sa-hù+i-ti “Great king Mashuittas
URA+HANTAWAT wi-lu-saUTNA [ ] [supported] Wilusa.”
§ 6 ī[ -wa] PARNA(+r)-ti ARHA “(If the enemy) will
UMINA-mi-naUMINA [ ] destroy this town,”
§ 7 à-wa [ ]
§ 8 ta4-pa<+r>-sa7-la UMINA na4 “Towns of the government
ta4-pa<+r>-sa7-la (and) not (directly) of the
government (total 25):
ā-wi-sa-nàUMINA Awisana, Parnasana,
PARNA(+)r-na-sa-nàUMINA Troy, Taparwisa, Kirsusa,
ta+r-wi-saUMINA TAPAR-wi-saUMINA [ ]; not (directly): the land
ki+r-su-saUMINA [ ]UMINA na4 (of) Harnas, Purusuwa,
há+r-naUTNA pu-ru-sú-waUMINA Suruta, the land
su-ru-tiUMINA wí/zu-sà-na-tiUTNA (of) Wi/Zusanati, the land
APA-sa-sa-waUTNA (of ) Apaisos, Atarmasa,
ā-ta+r-ma-saUMINA Lursanasa, Atitura, the
lu+r-sa-na-saUMINA ā-ti-tu+r(a)UMINA land (of) Assuwa-town,
ā-su-waUMINA UTNA Tiwatarusa, Sawisa,
TIWATA-ru-saUMINA sá-wi-saUMINA Kurtisa, Wastarna,
ku-ru-ti-saUMINA wa-sa-ta+r-nàUMINA Palanasa, Tiwalusa,
pa-la-na-saUMINA ti-wa-lú-saUMINA Kwapanasa; formerly not
KWA-pa-na-saUMINA na4 -pu -la go(ing along) with him:
ti-wa ka-wa-sa-ká+r(i)UMINA in Kawasaka, the land (of)
ku-su+r-āUTNA ha-pu-ru-saUMINA Kusura, Hapurusa.”
§ 9 à-wa ī ÁMU ta-sa -ha “I placed this stele also
mi+r(a)-àUTNA tà-ha (for/in) Mira.”
[ ]
§ 10 à-wa ā-la-na-ti -li “The prince (or) palace ofcial
infansm+HANTAWAT URA+PARNA (who) will covet (it) for
infansm TUZI-mi wi-lu-saUTNA himself: may you guard
á URA+HANTAWAT Wilusa (like) the great king
mi[+r(a)]-à[UTNA] (of) Mira (did)!”
[ ]
23
§ 11 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT “Great king (of) Mira,”
mi[+r(a)]-àUTNA
§ 12 URA+HANTAWAT ku-wa-lú-àUTNA “(I), great king, made a road
à+ta pi-ta6 -saUTNA à ha6+r-wa-na in Kuwaliya (to) Pitassa
KWA UTNA sa-la-paUTNA (and) what(ever) land:
ma-saUMINA Sallapa (and) Masa-town,”
§ 13 à-wa HARWAN ma-sa-na-tiUTNA
“and a road into the divine land.”
§ 14 à-wa -mu URA+HANTAWAT “I, great king (of) Mira, will
mi+r(a)-àUTNA TIWA2-TIWA2-wa continue to provide (for) the
HÁ(TI)-saUTNA *202 à-wa sanctuarie(s) of Hatti, (and)
I will make (use of them).”
§ 15 à-wa HÁ(TI)UTNA sá-sá-ha “I continuously rendered
support (to) Hatti.”
§ 16 à-wa mi+r(a) ta-ta6 UTNA i-i 6000 “Mira has placed (in) the
ma ma land these 6000 rams.”
§ 17 à-wa 10 UMINA+mi TAMA-ha “I have built 10 citadel(s) in
mi+r(a)-à-tiUTNA Mira:
mi+r(a)-àUMINA PÁRA-ASAUMINA Mira-town, Parasa, [ ]wa,
[?-?]-waUMINA TARKU-waUMINA Tarkuwa, Artarkuna,
á+r-TARKU-nàUMINA wa-ha4-maUMINA Wahama, Amuwa, Mitasa,
ā-mu-waUMINA mi-ta6-saUMINA Hapanu, and Matarku.”
há-pa-nuUMINA ma-TARKU -ha[UMINA]
§ 18 à-wa URA+PARNA “I have built a palace (and)
MASANAPARNA i-ā-i a temple for these (3 gods):
MASANATARHUNT MASANA(a)pá+r(a) Tarhunt, the god of the eld,
MASANAku-*128 URA+domina (and) Kupapa, the queen (of)
PÁRA-ASAUMINA TAMA-ha wa-[ā] Parasa, (while) pray(ing).”
§ 19 à-wa HANTAWAT há-pa-laUTNA “The king (of) Hapalla [ ]
ā[ ] destroyed (6 towns):
ta4-la+r(i)UMINA á+r-ma-ta6
UMINA in Tala, Armata, Hili[..]r,
hi-li-?+rUMINA la-la-taUMINA Lalanda, Sartuwa, (and)
sa5+r-tu-waUMINA la+r(i)-maUMINA Larima.”
PARNA(+r)-ta6 ARHA
§ 20 à-wa HANTAWAT á-ta6-pa-liUTNA “The king (of) Atapali
fortied (5 towns):
24
PARNA-su-ha-na-tiUMINA ā-la-?UMINA in Parnasuhana, Ala[..],
na-hi-ta6
UMINA hu-ta-naUMINA Nahita, Hutana,
PARNA(+r)-ta6 ī infansmna-naUMINA (and) this town (of) a son (=
junior ofcial) [= Beyköy].”
§ 21 à-wa 6 HANTAWAT! “(There are in sum) 6 king(s):
HANTAWAT wa-lu-saUTNA the king (of) Wilusa, the
HANTAWAT há-pa-laUTNA king (of) Hapalla, the king
HANTAWAT URA-WALWAUTNA (of) Urawalwas’ land (=
HANTAWAT AS[UW]A -haUTNA Seha), and the king (of)
Assuwa,”
§ 22 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT “and the great king (of)
mi+r(a)-àUTNA Mira,”
§ 23 à-wa i URA-HANTAWAT ARA-wa “(and) this (one is also) the
great king (of) Arzawa.”
§ 24 à-wa á+ya HANTAWAT HÁ(TI)UTNA “The hero, king (of) Hatti, pro-
URA+UMINA ta6 vides the capital (for the towns):
ta+r-saUMINA ā-ti-naUMINA Tarsos, Adana, (and)
la-wa-ta4-tiUMINA Lawazantiya;
na4 à-ma-na mu-ka-sa +haUTNA (and) not (directly): the lands
ha-la-paUTNA ká+r-ka-mi+saUTNA (of) Amanos and Mukish,
wa-ka+r-táUTNA [ ]UTNA Halpa, Karkamis, Ugarit,
ā-ma-tuUTNA ku-pi-laUTNA [ ], Hamath, (and) Byblos.”
§ 25 à-wa mi+r(a)-àUTNA navis2 navis2 “(Owing to its) eet Mira
URA+UMINA wa (provides) the capital (for):
PÁRA-háUTNA pi+?-?UMINA Parha, Pi[ ], Philistia,
pu-la-sà-tiUTNA la-sà-ti-naUTNA Lasatina, Ura, Walukata of
URAUMINA wa-lu-KATAUTNA sà the Lower Land, (and)
KATA-saUTNA la-mi-áUMINA Lamiya.”
§ 26 à-wa [-mu] “For me Muksus, great
URA+HANTAWAT+infansm prince in the land(s) and
mu-ku-su-sa ā-nà UTNA town(s of) Mi(ra and)
UMINA -wa MI WI Wi(lusa),”
§ 27 à-wa infansm KULANA “great prince
URA+HANTAWAT infansm Kulana(muwa)s, great prince
tu?-wa-ta6 URA+HANTAWAT Tuwatas, (and) great prince
infansm PIA-ma-KURUNT Piyamakuruntas,”
URA+HANTAWAT
25
§ 28 à-wa ARHA mi-zi+r(a)UTNA “they made Ashkelon
(along) the border (of) Egypt
ā-sa-ka-lú-naUMINA ka-?-?-ha6 (by) war(?) ship (into) a
navis2 ā-ta6 HARNAS fortress.”
§ 29
à-wa [ ] URA+HANTAWAT á-i-wa
“[ ] I, great king, will
UTNA ASATAR ya 40 *? (= weight)
sacrice (from that) land (for)
a throne these 40 (metal units),”
§ 30 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT “and I, great king, have built
MASANATARHUNT MASANAPARNA a temple (for the gods)
TAMA MASANA(a)pá+r(a) Tarhunt, the god of the
[ka]-ta-WATA-naUTNA eld of Kizzuwatna,
MASANAku-*128 [ ]UTNA Kupapa of the land [ ], the
MASANAWANTI [ ] MASANA[ ] god of the divine mountain
[? -?]UTNA MASANA[ ] á-pa-saUTNA [ ], god [ ] of the land [ ],
god [ ] of the land Ephesos.”
§ 31 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT “I, great king, built lavishly
UMINA+mi TAMA-mu-ha ASU citadel(s) in Arzawa (total
à+ta ARA-waUTNA 25):
á-pa-saUMINA ā-lú-pa-naUMINA “Ephesos, Alupana, Kurupi,
ku-ru-piUMINA la-pa-tíUMINA Lapati, Smyrna, Akumana,
[sa]-mu+r-naUMINA Sardis, not (in a town)
ā-ku-ma-naUMINA ASA-ru-tiUMINA the great fortress (of)
na4 ti4-ma-laURA+HARNAS Timala, Huwala[ ],
hu-wa-la-?-?UMINA Kukawamisa, Kuwalissa,
ku-ka-wa-mi-saUMINA Nanuwasa, Harpahili, not
ku-wa-li-sa-saUMINA (in a town) the fortress (of)
nà-nú-wa-saUMINA Hunasa, Parasanasa,
ha6+r-pa-hi-liUMINA Salapasa, Uranassa,
na4 hu-na-saHARNAS Alawasa, Atipaliya-town,
PÁRA-ASA-ā-na-saUMINA [ ], [ ], (and) [ ],”
sa5-la-á-pa-saUMINA
URA-na-sa-saUMINA
ā-la-wa-saUMINA ā-ti-pa-li-àUMINA
[ ]UMINA [ ]UMINA [ ]UMINA
§ 32 à-wa PÁRA-la-à-wi-saUMINA “and Paralawisa, Kuwar[..],
ku-wa+r-?UMINA pu+r-sa-ta-naUMINA (and) Pursatana.”
26
§ 33 na4 á-na-ma wa-na ī-na “Not (included those) with a
há-pa-laUMINA
name-stele in Hapalla (total 14):”
§ 34 à-wa APAMI-miUMINA ā-lu-saUMINA “West-town, Alusa, in the
á-na-sà+r(i)UMINA HARNAS fortress (of) Anasa,
TARKU-na-saUMINA Tarkunasa, Mirawanai,
mi+r(a)-wa-na-īUMINA Hupakati, the land of
hu4-pa-ka-tìUMINA Parsatina, Hutarali,
pá+r-sa-tí?-naUTNA (and) Aparati,”
hu4-ta+r-ā-liUMINA á-pa+r-ā4-tiUMINA
§ 35 à-wa mu-la-wa-saUMINA “and Mulawasa, in the land
ī-ká+r(i)UTNA lu-KATA-na-saUMINA (of) Ika, Lukatanasa,
ki-na-tu-waUMINA Kinatuwa, (and) Nassa.”
na-sa-sa[UMINA]
§ 36 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT la+PÁRNA “(On behalf of) the great
mu-ku[-su-sa] [APA-sa-sa]-waUTNA king, labarnas, Muksus will
à [ ] MASANATARHUNT sacrice (in) the land (of)
MASANA(a)pá+r(a) MASANA[ ] Apaisos (to) Tarhunt, the
MASANAku-*128 MASANA[ ] god of the eld, the god [ ],
MASANA[ ] MASANA[ ] MASANA[ ] Kupapa, the god [ ], the god
[ ], the god [ ], (and) the god [ ]
,”
§ 37 wa-à KWA PÁRA-na i-ā “and (he will do) what(ever
else) for the benet of these.”
§ 38 URA+HANTAWAT [ ] “(So on behalf of) the great
[mu-ku-su]-sa [APA-sa-sa]-waUTNA king [ ] [Muksu]s (in) the
land (of) [Apaiso]s.”
§ 39 à-wa KULANA-MUWA infansm “Kulanamuwas, great prince
MA URA+HANTAWAT (of) Ma(sa), will placate for
MASANAKULANA[ ] mu-ka-sa<+r> himself the god of the army
lu-lu-ti -li (by) invocation.”
§ 40 ASATAR [ASA]-wa ARAUTNA “I, great king, will [remain
URA+HANTAWAT seated] (on) the throne (of)
Arzawa.”
§ 41 à-wa MASANATARHUNT-ti-sa-saUMINA “I regularly campaigned (in)
UTNA AMU TIWA-TIWA the divine land (of)
ka-sa-kaUMINA UTNA AMU Tarhuntassa, I regularly
TIWA-TIWA ma-saUMINA UTNA campaigned (in) the land (of)
Kaska, (and so also) in the
land (of) Masa.”
27
§ 42 à-wa HANTAWAT á-ti-pa-liUTNA “The king (of) Atapali, the
HANTAWAT KATA-WATA-naUTNA king (of) Kizzuwatna, the
HANTAWAT ká+r-ka-mi+saUTNA king (of) Karkamis, the
HANTAWAT ā-la-sá-?UTNA king (of) Alasiya(?), the
HANTAWAT a5-lu-sa-?UTNA king (of) (W)ilusiya(?),
HANTAWAT ka-ta-ta+r-?UTNA the king (of) lower Tar[..](?),
TALMI-ma4 [ ] UTNA *? (gift (the kings of) all land(s)
bearing person) brought gifts.”
§ 43 à-wa ā ma-sa-sa UMINA+mi “(I), great king, made the
mi
?
-ā-na URA+HANTAWAT UTNA
citadel of Masa (into) my
(own) land.”
§ 44 à-wa URA+HANTAWAT [ ] “(On behalf of) the great
mu-ku-su-sa MASANATARHUNT [ ] king, Muksus [ ] (to)
MASANA[ ] Tarhunt, the god [ ].”
[ ]
§ 45 ku-pa-tá-KURUNT la+PÁRNA “Labarnas Kupantakuruntas,
a5-wa-na-ta6
HAPA-UTNA the Awanata river-land,
wa-ta+r-waUMINA the town (of) Watarwa, the
hu-la-naHAPA-UTNA Hulana river-land, the land
ha6+r-KWA-wa-naUTNA (of) Harkwawana, in the
TARKASNA-la+r(i)UTNA sa-la-paUTNA land (of) Tarkasnala, the
ka-la-sa-maUTNA la-la-ha-saUMINA land (of) Sallapa, the land
[ ]HAPA-UTNA *?-naHAPA-UTNA (of) Kalasma, the town (of)
AMU-ru-saUMINA pi-ta6-saUTNA Lalahasa, the river-land
MASANATARHUNT-saUTNA (of) [ ], the riverland (of)
la-la-na-ta6
UMINA ā-na-ta6
UMINA [..]na, the town (of)
sa-i-ma-ta6
UMINA Amurusa, the land (of)
na4 lu-la-saUTNA Pitassa, the divine land (of)
Tarhuntassa, the town (of)
Lalanda, the town (of)
Anata, the town (of)
Saimata (total 16 towns and
lands), (but) not the land
(of) Lulasa,”
§ 46 à-wa UTNA sa-ta+r-ha-ta6 “he continued to be
há-pa-laUTNA á+r-wa-na-ta6 victorious over the land(s)
8000 [ ] (and to) Hapalla he
sent 8000 (troops) [ ].”
28
§ 47 mi+r(a)-àUTNA à-ta [ ]UMINA “In Mira (total 23 towns):
[ ]UMINA [ ]UMINA [ ]UMINA [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ],
[ ]UMINA [ ]UMINA pa-li-iUMINA Pali, Mira, Tarkuwa,
mi<+r(a)>-àUMINA Manahusa, Kuwatana,
TARKU-waHARNAS-UMINA Pawi/zunai, Mitasa,
ma-na-hu-sa
UMINA
ku-wa-ta
6
-na
UMINA
Wasatasa, Mituwana, Itapali,
pa-wí/zu-na-iUMINA mi-ta6-saUMINA Huwali, Wi/Zunatarwa,
wa-sa-ta
6
-sa
UMINA
mi-tu-wa-na
UMINA
Alana, Awanasa, Urawana,
i-ta-pa-liUMINA Tarwali, Palanasa,”
hu-wa-li-iUMINA
wí/zu-na-ta+r-waUMINA
a5-la-naUMINA á-wa-na-saUMINA
URA-wa-naUMINA ta+r-wa-li-iUMINA
pa-la-na-saUMINA
§ 48 à-wa [ ] HARNAS sa “he placed (at) the [ ]
mi+r(a)-àUTNA 6000 ta-ta6 fortress of Mira 6000
á+r-wa-na [ ] (troops for) missions.”
§ 49 à-wa á+r-nú-wa-na-ta6 “Arnuwandas, king (of)
HANTAWAT HÁ(TI)UTNA MASANA Hatti, having become god,”
<á-i-mi>
§ 50 à-wa -tá MASANATARHUNT+UMINA “because of this he did not
URAUMINA wa-su la-waUMINA run into (and) renew (his
la-mi-iHAPA-UTNA WARPA HÁ(TI)UTNA hold on) the(se) land(s):
ā-ru-na-sa WARPA i-ku-wa-naUTNA Tarhuntassa, Ura, holy
hu+r-nà-iUTNA na4 hu-wa-ta6 Lawa(zantiya), Lamiya,
nú-wa-ta6 UTNA crown domain(s of) Hatti
of the sea, (further) crown
domain(s of Hatti):
Ikkuwaniya (and) Hurna.”
Comments2
§ 1
The genealogy of Kupantakuruntas, great king of Mira, confronts us with personal
names duly attested in the Hittite records. As we have already noted, the father
Mashuittas is mentioned in the introductory phrase of KBo XVIII 18, and is
explicitly referred to here as great king. Next, the grandfather, Alantallis, fea-
tures as king of Mira among the witnesses in the Bronze Tablet from Boğazköy,
which dates from the beginning of the reign of Tudhaliyas IV (1239-1209 BC)
2 In order not to burden this commentary with references to the work in question, I use
Woudhuizen 2011 as a work of reference.
29
(Otten 1988, 26-27). Finally, the great-grandfather, also named Kupantakuruntas,
is presented as the successor of Mashuiluwas, king of Mira, after the latter had
been deposed in year 12 of the reign of Mursilis II (1321-1295 BC) (Götze 1933,
144-145). The grandfather Alantallis, and in all probability also the great-grand-
father Kupantakuruntas, are also recorded in a Luwian hieroglyphic text, the rock
inscription at Karabel, where they appear as father and grandfather in the genealo-
gy of Tarkuwas, king of Mira (Hawkins 1998, 6, Fig. 4; 18). If we combine these
data from the two different sources, it follows that Mashuittas was the brother of
Tarkuwas, and most likely succeeded the latter.
§ 2
Walmus, the king of Wilusa, is known from the Hittite Milawata-letter. According
to this text, he was deposed and the Hittite great king ordered his re-instalment.
Unfortunately, the personal names of both sender and addressee are lost. As the
text also deals with the borders of Millawanda or Miletos and the exchange of
hostages from Pina(ti) and Awarna in Lukka or Lycia for hostages from Utima and
Atriya in the hinterland of Millawanda, it seems likely that the sender was Tud-
haliyas IV, who had just conquered Lycia (see the Luwian hieroglyphic Yalburt
text), and that the addressee was the son and successor of Atpas, the governor of
Millawanda in the Tawagalawas-letter, who sided with the enemy of the Hittites,
Piyamaradus (cf. Beckman et alii 2011, 123-133). No matter how this may be,
even though the nal part of this phrase is damaged, it may safely be deduced
from § 5 that the action in support of the Wilusian king Walmus recorded here
was a deed of Kupantakuruntas’s father and predecessor Mashuittas. As the reign
of this latter great king is likely to be situated in the period following the reign
of Tudhaliyas IV, the incident commemorated here is probably not identical with
that of the Milawata-letter, but rather with the Wilusa incident of KBo XVIII 18
(Hagenbuchner 1989, 317). Note, however, that our understanding of the present
phrase is also blurred by the fact that the preposition PÁRA-na “on behalf of” is
associated with the personal name Walmus in what appears to be the N(m/f) sg. in
-sa instead of the, in the light of the relevant parallel, expected D sg. (Woudhuizen
2011, 390). Perhaps the key to the solution to this problem may be provided by the
observation that only the non-Luwian names Walmus and Muksus are marked by
the N(m/f) sg. in -sa3. If so, the scribe possibly mistook the ending for a root-nal
consonant and intended a D sg. in -a.
§ 3
The only form readable with certainty is pa-ti, the D sg. of the demonstrative
pronoun pa- “he; that (person or thing)”.
3 Walmus corresponds to Greek Halmos or Almos, which is rooted in the Minyan substrate
(Woudhuizen 2018, 125), whereas Muksus is of origin a Phrygian type name, cf. Linear B mo-
qo-so “Mopsos” (KN De 1381, see Woudhuizen 2016, 329) and Phrygian Muksos as attested for
tumulus MM at Gordion during the late 8th century BC (Liebhart/Brixhe 2009, 145; 155, Fig. 5).
30
§ 4
From the context, it seems deducible that the subject of this phrase is an other-
wise unspecied enemy, who also caused trouble for Walmus. In any case, the
meaning of the verbal root PARNA(+r)- “to build, fortify” is changed into its
opposite by the preverb ARHA “de-, away” and hence renders the meaning “to
destroy” in like manner as is the case in Yalburt §§ 15 and 33 and Emirgazi § 29.
And the verbal form as such denitely shows the 3rd person sg. ending of the
past tense in -ta6. Note further that mi-ti-sa is the G sg. in -sa of mi-ti- “servant”
and that à+ta “in” is postposition.
§ 5
As noted in § 2, the action of Mashuittas in support of Wilusa is reected in KBo
XVIII 18 (Hagenbuchner 1989, 317).
§ 6
In this phrase the verb PARNA(+r)- c. ARHA, “to destroy,” is marked by the 3rd
person sg. of the present/future in -ti, so it likely denotes a possible future event. The
object of possible future destruction by the enemy is ī (…) UMINA-mi-na
UMINA
“this
citadel”, with which reference is made to the ndspot of the monument, modern
Beyköy. Note that the writing of the noun by logogram with phonetic supplement is
paralleled already for Köylütolu § 3. This particular noun is m/f, but the ending of
the A(m/f) sg. in -na is omitted in the declension of the noun and mostly that of the
pronoun as well as is regular according to Late Bronze Age scribal principles.
§ 8
What follows in this phrase is an enumeration of 25 towns in the Troad, which are
divided into two distinct categories: ta
4
-pa<+r>sa
7
-la “of the government” (< Lu-
wian tapar- “to rule”, cf. TAPARta
4
-pa<+r>-sà-la- “governmental” in As
sur a § 10,
etc.) and na4 ta4-pa<+r>-sa7-la “not of the government”. The given division is
enhanced by the fact that after the 6th place-name the negative na4 is repeated in
order to mark the remaining 19 place-names as belonging to the second catego-
ry. The rationale behind this distinction is presumably that the second category
is ruled indirectly by a vassal or junior ofcial. Within the second group of 19
place-names, nally, the last 3 are distinguished once more by an expression in
the negative: na4 -pu -la ti-wa “formerly not go(ing along) with him”. In this
expression the enclitic -pu corresponds to cuneiform Luwian puwa “formerly”
(Melchert 2001, s.v.), the enclitic -la recalls Lydian -λ “for him (D sg. of the en-
clitic pronoun of the 3rd person)” (Gusmani 1964, 161-162), and tiwa confronts
us with an endingless form of the verb tiwa- “to go”. It may well be that the rst
of the 3 place-names distinguished as such is marked by the Loc. sg. in +r(i).
Among the place-names, only a few are paralleled in the Hittite texts: Tarwisa
“Troy” (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 408), Atitura in form of Atatura, a member of
the Assuwa-coalition (del Monte/Tischler 1978: 56), and Assuwa, be it the town
of this name and not the homonymous land (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 52-53).
31
Added to this, Apassawa is likely to be identied with Apaisos as recorded by
Homer in his enumeration of the Trojan forces (Iliad 2.828).
§ 9
The subject ÁMU “I” and the verb tà-ha “I placed” make it clear that we are no
longer dealing with the deed of the father of Kupantakuruntas but one of the ded-
icator himself. The object i (…) ta-sa “this stele”, which renders the, according to
Late Bronze Age scribal tradition regularly endingless, N-A(n) sg., refers to the
stone stelae on which the hieroglyphic inscription is written. It is added by the
enclitic -ha “and; also” attached to ta-sa that it, although located in Hapalla or
more specically the western connes of Hapalla, Atapali, has also been erected
for Mira. Note that by commemorating a deed of his father, Mashuittas, Kupan-
takuruntas reinforces the legitimacy of his own position as the former’s successor.
§ 10
The verb in the rst part of this phrase is ā-la-na-ti, the 3rd person sg. of the present/
future in -ti of the verbal root ālana- “to covet” (cf. á-lá-na-ī- “to be covetous” in Ka-
ratepe § 65). The enclitic -li attached to it is the reexive -ti “for himself”, character-
ized by interchange between [t] and [l]. The subject is infans
m
+HANTAWAT “prince”
or URA+PARNA infans
m
“representative (of) the palace”. The latter is subsequently
urged by means of the verb in the second part of the phrase, TUZI-mi, which renders
the endingless 2nd person sg. of the imperative, as follows: “may you guard” Wilusa
in the same way as the great king of Mira did. Note that “in the same way, like” is used
here as a translation of the introductory particle á, which actually renders a colon (:).
§§ 11-13
The subject in these phrases is URA+HANTAWAT mi[+r(a)]-àUTNA “the great king
(of) Mira”, Kupantakuruntas, who now turns to a description of his own achieve-
ments. The verb is expressed by à, an endingless form of the root a(ia)- “to make”,
representing no doubt the 1st person sg. of the past tense a(ia)ha. The object con-
sists of the entry ha6+r-wa-na, an endingless form of the noun harwan- “road”.
This road is made ku-wa-lú-àUTNA à+ta “in Kuwaliya”, in which sequence à+ta
“in” functions as postposition, again. Now, the province of Kuwaliya (del Monte/
Tischler 1978, 232), which belongs to the realm of Mira-Kuwaliya, can positively
be located in the region of modern Afyon owing to its mention in lenited form
HWÁ-li-àUMINA in a Luwian hieroglyphic inscription from this place (Afyon § 1,
see Woudhuizen 2013: 9-12). The road in question is stated to run to pi-ta
6
-sa
UTNA
“(to) Pitassa”, which lies along the northwest boundary of Tarhuntassa to the south
of Kuwaliya (Otten 1988, 10-11; cf. del Monte/Tischler 1978, 318-319). Further-
more, it runs to KWA UTNA “what(ever land)”, an all-inclusive statement which is
narrowed down by sa-la-pa
UTNA
and ma-sa
UMINA
“the land (of) Sallapa” (del Mon-
te/
Tischler
1978, 333) and “Masa-town” (cf. del Monte/Tischler 1978, 264-265),
which are presumably to be located to the southwest (near Salbacus Mons) and
northwest (classical Mysia) of Kuwaliya, respectively (Woudhuizen 2018, 23-27).
32
In a separate phrase (§ 13), a road running in yet another direction ma-sa-na-tiUTNA
“into the divine land” (with the Abl. sg. in -ti of the adjective masana- “divine”) is
mentioned. It lies at hand that with this divine land reference is made to Istanuwa,
which lies in the bend of the Sahiriya or Sangarios river or the province of Hapalla
(presumably northeast of Beyköy) and the importance of which in Arzawan cult
is highlighted by the so-called Istanuwan songs. Alternatively, with the adjective
“divine” reference may be made to Tarhuntassa, which is qualied as such in §§ 41
and 45. Note that the construction of a road is also reported as a commemorative
event by Tudhaliyas IV in the Yalburt text (§§ 27-28).
§ 14
T
he description of Kupantakuruntas’ achievements continues with a statement, also
in the 1st person sg. (-mu “I”), but this time with the verbs in the present/future
in
-wa: TIWA2-TIWA2-wa “I will continue to provide” (cf. Yalburt § 37 for this verb)
and à-wa “I will make (use of)” – the latter verbal form not to be mixed-up with
the introductory particles à-wa. The object is expressed by *202, an endingless
form of the noun meaning “sanctuary” which presumably represents the N-A(n)
pl. It is further specied by HÁ(TI)-saUTNA “of Hatti”, which is marked by the G sg.
in -sa. In other words: Kupantakuruntas pledges to keep the Hittite sanctuaries in
his realm in reference.
§ 15
In the next phrase the verb renders the 1st person sg. of the past tense, again, as in
§ 9 above: sá-sá-ha “I continuously rendered support” (cf. Karkamis A15b, § 15).
The support is rendered HÁ(TI)UTNA “(to) Hatti”. Kupantakuruntas professes here
to be the legitimate heir of Hittite rule. However, as we will see below, his con-
quests over sea and on land lead him into regions such as Ura, Lamiya (§ 25), and
Tarhuntassa (§ 41), which denitely formed an integral part of the Hittite Empire.
§ 16
In this phrase the verb (ta-ta6) renders the 3rd person sg. of the past tense in -ta,
because the subject changes from Kupantakuruntas to his realm, Mira. The realm
Mira, then, “has placed” i-i 6000 ma ma “these 6000 rams”, in which i-i renders
the A(m/f) pl. of the demonstrative pronoun i- “this” and the doubling of *110
ma depicting a ram marks the plurality of the sacricial animals involved. The
rams for offering purposes are placed UTNA “(in) the land” of modern Beyköy,
which, as we will see (§§ 19-20) below, lies in the western part of the province
of Hapalla, called Atapali. Note that the demonstrative pronoun i- “this” is also
attested for the Istanuwan songs in cuneiform Luwian (KUB 25.39 Rs. i § 27:
i-ya “these (N-A(n) pl.)”, see Woudhuizen 2018, 119-120).
§ 17
The next achievement by Kupantakuruntas is conducted in the 1st person sg. of the
past tense, again: TAMA-ha “I built”. The object is UMINA+mi, which in this text
33
clearly refers to the citadel of a town. It is stated that 10 of these citadels have been
built by the great king in his realm Mira (note that Mira is marked by the Loc. sg. in
-ti). Then follows the enumeration of the 10 towns in question. Mira-town is for its
mention in the legend of the stamp seal from Beycesultan, dated ca. 2000 BC, likely
to be identied as modern Beycesultan (Woudhuizen 2012). Next, Parasa is known
from Hittite texts (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 302), it recurs in the following phrase
as a centre of the cult of Kupapa. Finally, Tarkuwa-town is named after the king of
Mira mentioned in the rock relief at Karabel, Tarkuwas, presumably, as we have
noted above, the older brother of Kupantakuruntas’ father Mashuittas (cf. Hawkins
1998, 6, Fig. 4; 18).
§ 18
Alongside citadels, Kupantakuruntas also built (TAMA-ha “I built”) a palace
(URA+PARNA) and a temple (MASANAPARNA) i-ā-i “for these” (D pl. of the de-
monstrative pronoun i- “this”), after which follows the enumeration of 3 gods,
the Luwian divine triad consisting of the storm-god Tarhunt, the tutelary deity or
god of the eld, and the goddess Kupapa, specied here as the queen of Parasa.
The last entry of this phrase, wa-[ā], may, against the backdrop of Babylon 2, §
2 wa-a, likely be interpreted as “while praying”.
§ 19
This phrase deals with a feat of a vassal of Kupantakuruntas, the king of Hapalla.
The latter PARNA(+r)-ta6 ARHA “destroyed” (3rd person sg. of the past tense in
-ta) a total number of 6 towns, which are enumerated in the middle of the phrase.
Among the TNs, that of la-la-taUMINA no doubt refers to Lalanda (del Monte/Tischler
1978, 240-241) in the Lower Land near the border of Hapalla; in variant writing
of la-la-na-ta6
UMINA it recurs in § 45. Further, la+r(i)-maUMINA may be a Larima,
not necessarily identical with the one in the Hulaya region of the Hittite province
of Tarhuntassa (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 244). Finally, ta4-la+r(i)UMINA may well
render the Loc. sg. in +r(i) of the TN Tala (cf. del Monte/Tischler 1978, 389).
§ 20
Yet another vassal of Kupantakuruntas, the king of Atapali, PARNA(+r)-ta6 “for-
tied” (3rd person sg. of the past tense in -ta) a total of 5 towns, among which
features ī infansmna-naUMINA “this town (of) a junior ofcial” (with the endingless
A(m/f) sg. of the demonstrative pronoun ī- “this”) in nal position. As herewith
reference is made to modern Beyköy, this is evidently located in Atapali, and
the latter accordingly must be situated along the western connes of Hapalla.
Among the TNs, that of Nahita is paralleled for Hittite texts (del Monte/Tischler
1978, 279), which does not necessarily imply identity.
§§ 21-23
In this section the parts of the realm of Kupantakuruntas are specied, which
are ruled by kings. In total there are distinguished 6 kings: (1) of Wilusa, (2)
34
of Hapalla, (3) of the land of Urawalwas, (4) of Assuwa, (5) of Mira (i.e the
great king himself), who is also (6) the great king of Arzawa (with i “this”, the
endingless N(m/f) sg. of the demonstrative pronoun i- “this”). The names of the
lands of Assuwa and Arzawa are rendered in abbreviation, ASAUTNA and ARA-wa,
respectively, whereas with the land of Urawalwas (cf. Laroche 1966, no. 1440)
reference is likely made to Seha (Woudhuizen 2014, 121 with note 367), also
known as the land of Muwawalwas. Note the use of the enclitic -ha “and” as
attached to the last entry in § 21, in between AS[UWA]A and UTNA.
§ 24
The verb ta6 is endingless, but likely represents the 3rd person sg. of the present/
future in -ti. At any rate, the subject is the king of Hatti, although deceased, not
living, as inferable from the use of the word á+ya “hero”. Now, the verb ta- ex-
presses the meaning “to stand,” but in light of the context appears to be used here
for “to provide”. The deceased king of Hatti, then, provides the URA+UMINA
“capital” for the total of 11 towns and lands which are enumerated in the follow-
ing. Of the towns and lands, the rst three are located in the province of Kizzu-
watna: Tarsa, Adana, and Lawazantiya (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 408, 54, and
237-238, respectively). Just as in § 8, the remaining eight TNs are distinguished
from the preceding ones by the use of the negative na4, which again likely means
that these are ruled not directly, but indirectly by one or more vassal kings. In
any case, we are confronted here with Amana and Mukish, grouped together by
the enclitic conjunction +ha “and”, Halpa, Karkamis, Ugarit, a land the name
of which is damaged beyond repair, Hamath, and Gublu or Byblos, all situated in
the North Syrian province headed by the king of Karkamis (del Monte/Tischler
1978, 11-12, 275, 71-74, 81-82, 451, respectively; Hamath is known from
Neo-Hittite Luwian hieroglyphic texts and Gublu from the El Amarna texts).
§ 25
This phrase is similar to the previous one, although the verb is omitted and the
subject now is Mira. If rightly analyzed as such, Mira serves as the capital for
eight towns and lands enumerated in the following. It owes this position to the
eet, represented by two signs in the form of a ship – two again expressing
plurality (like ma ma “rams” in § 16). Introducing the enumeration of TNs the
scribe used the introductory particle wa, similarly to our colon (:). Featured
among the names of towns and lands are Parha (in Pamphylia), Pulasati “Phil-
istia” in the southern Levant, Ura and Lamiya (harbor towns of the Hittites in
coastal Cilicia) (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 302, 457-458, 242, respectively; for
Philistia, cf. the Peleset of the Sea Peoples’ texts by Ramesses III). Furthermore,
it may reasonably be suggested that la-sà-ti-naUTNA is identical with Lasti[ ] near
Ura (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 245). Finally, it is worth noting that sà KATA-sa
species the otherwise unrecorded Walukata as being part of the Lower Land –
note the use of the genitive particle sà “of”, corresponding to cuneiform Luwian
SA of the same function (KUB 35.54 Vs. ii 40).
35
§§ 26-28
In this section there are four subjects in total, the great princes Muksus, Kula-
namuwas
, Tuwatas, and Piyamakuruntas. Accordingly, the verb ā-ta6 “they
made” renders the 3 person of the pl. in -nta. The object is ā-sa-ka-lú-naUMINA
“Ashkelon” ARHA mi-zi+r(a)UTNA “(along) the border (of) Egypt”, which is
made HARNAS “(into) a fortress” navis2 “(by) ship”. The ship sign is preceded
by an adjective, ka-?-?-ha6, of which two signs are unfortunately unclear, but
“for battle” seems a reasonable guess. Owing to the enclitic -mu “for me”, it
is clear that the great princes act in this maritime undertaking on behalf of the
great king Kupantakuruntas. Most important among the great princes is Muksus,
whose name is the only one in the entire text marked as such by the determina-
tive of personal names. He is said to exercise power ā-nà UTNA UMINA -wa MI
WI “in the land(s) and town(s of) Mira (and) Wilusa”, in which expression ā-nà
corresponds to the Akkadian preposition A-NA “in”, the introductory particle
-wa functions as the enclitic conjunction “and”, and MI and WI are abbreviations
of the country names Mira and Wilusa, respectively. Now we have already noted
(§ 2) that the personal name Muksus, like Walmus, is of a non-Luwian type and
that only these two names are marked by the N(m/f) sg. in -sa. Notwithstanding its
Phrygian origin, the name Muksus is already attested for the Madduwattas-text
from the reign of Tudhaliyas II (1425-1390 BC) and Arnuwandas I (1400-1370
BC), be it in a section damaged beyond repair (Beckman et alii. 2011, 94-94).
The memory to the maritime conquests by the Muksus of our present text up to
and
including Ashkelon along the border with Egypt was kept alive in Greek
myth in the legendary tales about Mopsos (Houwink ten Cate 1961, 44-50, esp.
45).
The names of the remaining three great princes Kulanamuwas, Tuwatas, and
Piyamakuruntas are all of Luwian type. The rst and third name are mentioned in
Hittite texts (Laroche 1966, no. 665 [still wrongly transcribed as Kuwatnamuwas];
no. 980), whereas the second name recalls that of Tuwatis, a great king of Tabal
mentioned in various Early Iron Age Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions. Finally,
the name of Kulanamuwas is also recorded for Late Bronze Age Luwian hi-
eroglyphic rock inscriptions from Haniyeri, İmamkulu, and Sipylos (Hawkins
1983, 398).
§ 29
In this phrase great king Kupantakuruntas is again the subject and the verb
á-i-wa is conducted in the 1st person sg. of the present/future in -wa. With a
view to the context, the verbal root á-i- “to make, do” is used here in its religious
sense “to sacrice”. The object is expressed by ya 40 and a sign in the form
of a metal weight. The form ya renders the N-A(n) pl. in -a of the demonstra-
tive pronoun i- “this”, so in sum we arrive at the translation “these 40 (metal
units)”. Even though UTNA and ASATAR are undeclined, it seems evident that
the 40 units of metal that will be sacriced by Kupantakuruntas are “(from
that) land”, referring to Ashkelon in the previous phrase, and are destined “for
(the fabrication of) a throne”.
36
§ 30
Even though the verb TAMA is undeclined, it seems clear that the text continues
in the 1st person sg., presumably of the past tense. If so, TAMA represents TA-
MA-ha “I built” as recorded for § 17. The object is formed by MASANAPARNA
“temple”. The six gods in total mentioned are evidently the beneciaries of this
temple. We come across here the Luwian divine triad consisting of the storm-
god Tarhunt, the tutelary deity or god of the eld, and the goddess Kupapa,
again, like in § 18. The god of the eld is specied here by a toponym as being
the one from [ka]-ta-WATA-naUTNA “Kizzuwatna” (Fraktin § 3; cf. del Monte/
Tischler 1978, 211-216). The last god in the enumeration of divinities is the one
from á-pa-saUTNA “Ephesos” (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 26-27).
§§ 31-32
The verbal form TAMA-mu-ha confronts us with a variant spelling of regular TA-
MA-ha “I built”. The object is UMINA+mi “citadel(s)”, which, although unde-
clined, obviously renders the plural as an enumeration of 25 place-names in sum
follows. These citadels are located à+ta ARA-waUTNA “in Arzawa”; note that à+ta
“in” is preposition here, and not postposition as in §§ 4 and 12. The remaining
element ASU “good” functions as adverb, and likely expresses the meaning “lav-
ishly”. In the enumeration of place-names, we come across Apasa “Ephesos” (see
preceding phrase), Kurupi(ya) (member of the Assuwa-coalition, see del Monte/
Tischler 1978, 228), Smyrna, and Asaruti or Assaratta (also associated with As-
suwa, cf. del Monte/Tischler 1978, 46). All these places are located in later Lydia:
Ephesos and Smyrna along the Aegean coast, whereas Kurupiya has been plau-
sibly identied by Jacques Freu with Mt. Koruphè on the promontory between
Ephesus and Smyrna (Woudhuizen 2014, 120; 123; 129; 136) and Assaratta has
been cogently argued by Michael Bányai (forthc.) to be identical with Sardis on
account of its association with the Warmala or Hermos river (Fig. 6)4. Further-
more, ha6+r-pa-hi-liUMINA may well be identical with Harpanhila (del Monte &
Tischler 1978: 89), whereas ā-ti-pa-li-àUMINA needs to be distinguished from the
Hapallan province of Atapali.
§§ 33-35
In this section follows an enumeration of 14 towns and lands ī-na há-pa-laUMINA
“in Hapalla” (with ī-na corresponding to the Akkadian preposition I-NA “in”).
The introductory phrase starts with the negative na4 “not”, which, as in §§ 8 and
24, seems to indicate that the towns and lands in question are ruled not directly
by the great king of Arzawa but indirectly by his vassal king of Hapalla (that is
the reason why these 14 TNs are not included in the preceding enumeration of 25
Arzawan towns). Then follows the sequence á-na-ma wa-na, of which the second
element is likely to be identied as wana- “stele”. If this is correct, it is reasonable
to consider the preceding á-na-ma as a reex of PIE *h1nómṇ) “name” (Mallory/
Adams 2007, 356). It follows that the Arzawan language is distinct in this respect
4 A reex of PIE *gwhermós “warm” (Mallory/Adams 2007, 344-345) with for Luwian
regular loss of the voiced velar.
37
from the language otherwise attested for Luwian hieroglyphic, which is character-
ized by á+tì-ma (Köylütolu § 4), linked up with Hittite lāman “name” by means
of interchange between [t] and [l]. At any rate, the foregoing analysis leads us
to the conclusion that in the 14 towns and lands of Hapalla following in the
enumeration a name-stele has been erected. As far as the names are concerned,
Alusa, Anasara, and Nassa are paralleled for Hittte texts (del Monte/Tischler
1978, 11, 16, and 280, respectively). As opposed to this, ī-ka+rUTNA seems more
likely to be paralleled by Luwian hieroglyphic Ika as attested for the Kululu lead
strip 1, §§ 28 and 45 than by Hittite Ikara (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 137). If so,
this entry likely renders the Loc. sg. in +r(i).
§ 36
The subject of this phrase appears to be Muksus. The verb is expressed by à, which,
if we are right about the subject, likely represents the 3rd person sg. of the
present/
future in -ti of a(ia)- “to make, do” in its religious sense “to sacrice”5. If so, Muk-
sus will sacrice APA-sa-sa-waUTNA “(in) the land (of) Apaisos” URA+HANTA-
WAT la+PÁRNA “(on behalf of) the great king, Labarnas”, and he will do so to
the series of 8 gods that follows, among which features the Luwian divine triad
with which we are already familiar and which consists of the storm-god Tarhunt,
the tutelary deity or god of the eld, and the goddess Kupapa.
§ 37
The preposition PÁRA-na “for the benet of” rules the accusative case (Woudhuizen
2011, 390) and is regularly followed by i-ā, the N-A(n) pl. in -a of the demonstra-
tive pronoun i- “this”. Accordingly, Muksus will further do KWA “what(ever else)”
for the benet of the gods just mentioned, considered here as a collective.
§ 38
This phrase partly repeats § 36 and forms the closure of the topic on the religious
obligations by Muksus on behalf of the great king: “(So) Muksus (on behalf of)
the great king (in) the land (of) Apaisos”.
§ 39
After the religious obligations of Muksus, the text here continues with those of
another primary vassal, great prince Kulanamuwas. The latter is specied here
by the abbreviation MA as the vassal ruler of Masa. Now, the religious obliga-
tion of Kulanamuwas consists of the task that luluti “he will placate” (= redu-
plicated variant of the verb lu-)6 -li “for himself” (= reexive -ti by interchange
between [t] and [l]), mu-ka-sa<+r> “(by) invocation” (cf. mu-ki-SARA- in Ka-
rahöyük-Elbistan § 6) MASANAKULANA “the god of the army”.
5 Note that the present/future is more likely than the past tense here against the backdrop
that the religious activities by great prince Kulanamuwas in § 39 are also in the present/future.
6 The verbal root lu- is also present in lu-sá- c. ar+ha “to absent (oneself)” in Assur f-g §§
45 and 51; note that reduplication renders a frequentative aspect.
38
§ 40
While his foremost great princes Muksus and Kulanamuwas are busy with their
religious obligations in their respective realms, Apaisos and Masa, the great king
himself, as he states in his own words: ASA-wa “I will remain seated” ASATAR
“(on) the throne” ARAUTNA “(of) Arzawa”.
§ 41
The verb TIWA-TIWA, which occurs twice, is undeclined, but in view of the
preceding AMU “I” doubtless represents the 1st person sg. of the past tense in
-ha, TIWA-TIWA-ha “I regularly campaigned” (cf. TIWA2-TIWA2- “to walk regu-
larly” in Karatepe § 35). There are mentioned three lands in which these military
campaigns were launched: Tarhuntassa, Kaska territory, and Masa. As noted in
the discussion of § 15 above, Tarhuntassa denitely formed an integral part of
the Hittite Empire until its downfall ca. 1190 BC.
§ 42
The verb is expressed by the image of a gift bearing person. There are listed 6
kings in sum, who brought gifts, among which feature the ones from Atipali (=
writing variant of Atapali of § 20), Kizzuwatna (KATA-WATA-naUTNA, cf. § 30) and
Karkamis (cf. § 24). Again, Kizzuwatna and Karkamis formed an integral part of
the Hittite Empire until its downfall ca. 1190 BC. It may be that with ā-la-sá-?UTNA
reference is made to Alasiya (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 6), but this is uncertain
because of the damaged sign indicated here by a question mark. The sequence
TALMI-ma4 [ ] UTNA no doubt renders the meaning “(the kings of) all land(s)”.
§ 43
In this phrase the subject is the great king, Kupantakuruntas, again. The verb ā is
undeclined, but likely represents the 1st person sg. of the past tense in -ha, a(-i-
a)-ha “I made”. At any rate, the verb governs a double accusative, as the object
UMINA+mi ma-sa-sa “the citadel of Masa” (note that Masa is marked by the G
sg. in -sa) is made into mi?-ā-na UTNA “my (own) land” (with the possessive
pronoun of the 1st person sg. mi(a)- marked by the A(m/f) sg. in -na).
§ 44
This phrase is damaged beyond repair. In general outline, it recalls §§ 36 and 38.
§ 45-46
The subject of this section is Kupantakuruntas, again, but the verbs sa-ta+r-ha-
ta6 and à+r-wa-na-ta6 are conducted in the 3rd person sg. of the past tense in
-ta. It seems likely that sa-ta+r-ha-ta6 confronts us with the reduplicated variant
of
the verb tarh- “to be victorious” (cf. tá-ta+r-ha-tá in Beyköy 1, see Woudhuizen
2018, 80-81), the rst syllable for some unknown reason being subject to assibi-
lation. In any case, it is clear that Kupantakuruntas “continued to be victorious”
UTNA “over the land(s)” which are enumerated in the preceding. Furthermore,
39
the root of à+r-wa-na-ta6 likely comes into consideration as a reex of the verb
harwana- “to send”, characterized by the loss of the initial laryngeal (on the
loss of the laryngeal in Luwian, see Woudhuizen 2011, 412-413). If so, Kupan-
takuruntas sent 8000 (troops) to Hapalla in order to ensure his victories over the
enumerated lands. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that among the enumerated
lands and towns (16 in sum) we come across those in the neighborhood of Hap-
alla, like the Hulana river land (del Monte/Tischler 1978: 529-530), the land
of Kalasma with the town Lalha (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 163-164 and 241,
respectively, the latter marked here by the N(m/f) or G sg. ending in -sa), Pitassa
(in a spelling varying from its mention in § 12), Tarhuntassa (in a spelling vary-
ing from its mention in § 41), and the town Lalanda (again in a spelling varying
from its mention in § 19). Furthermore, Watarwa is a toponym known from
Hittite texts, and TARKASNA-la+r(i)UTNA presumably confronts us with the Loc.
sg. in +r(i) of a land named after the ruler of Hapalla in the reign of Mursilis II,
Targasnallis (Bryce 2010, 214). Finally, it is worth mentioning that Kupantaku-
runtas did not (negative na4) march against Lula (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 251,
associated with Tarhuntassa; note that this name, like Lalha, is also marked here
by the N(m/f) or G sg. ending in -sa).
§§ 47-48
This section starts with mi+r(a)-àUTNA à-ta “in Mira” (with postposition à-ta
“in”), which is followed by the enumeration of 25 place-names. Among these
TNs feature mi<+r(a)>-àUMINA “Mira-town”, Tarkuwa, and Mitasa, which we
already came across in § 17. Note furthermore that Urawana is paralleled for
Hittite texts in form of Urauna (del Monte/Tischler 1978, 459, associated with
Kalasma). After this follows the remark that Kupantakuruntas ta-ta6 “placed”
HARNAS sa mi+r(a)-àUTNA “(at) the fortress of Mira” (with genitive particle sa
“of” like in § 25) 6,000 (troops) á+r-wa-na “(for) missions” (N-A(n) in -a of a
noun harwan- “mission” derived from the verb harwana- “to send”, with loss of
the initial laryngeal, again).
§§ 49-50
The subject of this section is á+r-nú-wa-na-ta6 “Arnuwandas”, HANTAWAT
HÁ(TI)UTNA “king (of) Hatti”. The ruler in question is known as Arnuwandas III,
the penultimate Hittite great king, who ruled shortly from ca. 1209 to ca. 1205
BC (for his sealings, see Güterbock 1940, no. 64; Herbordt/Bawanypeck/Hawkins
2011, 100; 208-210; Tafel 52-53 [= Kat. 138-139]). Against the backdrop of the
association of his name with MASANA, we are likely to be dealing here with the
expression MASANA á-i-mi “having become god”, a euphemism for having died
as known from Fraktin § 3. This information coincides with that of § 24, in which,
as we have seen, the king of Hatti is addressed as a hero – a term used primarily
in association with deceased kings. It is said of this king that -tá “because of this”
na4 hu-wa-ta6 nú-wa-ta6 “he did not run (into and) renew (his hold on)” in sum 7
towns and lands. The towns and lands enumerated are: Tarhuntassa (in a spelling
40
varying from its mention in §§ 41 and 45), Ura (also mentioned in § 25), wa-su
la-wa
UMINA
“holy Lawazantiya” (with the TN la-wa-ta
4
-ti of § 24 occurring here in
abbreviation), la-mi-i
HAPA-UTNA
“the river land (of) Lamiya” (occurring as la-mi-à in
§ 25),
WARPA HÁ(TI)
UTNA
ā-ru-na-sa “crown domain(s of) Hatti of the sea” (cf. Hit-
tite aruna- “sea”), WARPA i-ku-wa-na
UTNA
hu+r-nà-i
UTNA
“(further) crown domain(s
of Hatti): Konya (and) Hurna” (= Hittite Ikkuwaniya, see del Monte/Tischler 1978,
137-138, and Hurna, see del Monte/Tischler 1978, 126, associated with Mount Ha-
harwa). Kupantakuruntas is entirely neglecting here the reign of Suppiluliumas II
(ca. 1205-1190 BC), which he apparently did not recognize and which provides him
with the pretext to campaign in Hatti-lands while at the same time keeping up the
appearance to act in the interest of the Hittite Empire (§§ 14-15). It follows from
this observation that Suppiliulumas II had a serious problem along his western and
southern borders with a hostile Arzawan great king who was supposed to be his
loyal partner.
3. significancE of bEyköy 2
The Luwian hieroglyphic Beyköy 2 document constitutes a remarkable item of
research history, initially recorded in 1878 but not published until now. The text
is unique in a number of ways. Firstly, it was composed in western Asia Minor,
an area that has produced little documentary evidence so far. Previously we had
only scraps of texts from this region consisting of a mere two phrases at most.
Secondly, Beyköy 2 dates back to a time at the end of the Bronze Age which is
not well documented. Until now, the latest text from the imperial period had been
the Südburg inscription, written at a time when the reign of Suppiluliumas II had
reached a mature stage. Beyköy 2 was evidently composed after Hittite rule had
collapsed. And thirdly, with 50 phrases it is the longest text from the imperial pe-
riod, relegating the Yalburt inscription with its 44 phrases to second place. These
physical characteristics alone make Beyköy 2 unique, regardless of its contents.
The inscription reveals that at the beginning of the 12th century BC a powerful
great kingdom existed in western Asia Minor. Kupantakurantas, the great king
who ruled in this region and ordered the inscription, aims to report his achieve-
ments at home and abroad. It is the third ruler by this name that we know of. The
rst was a contemporary of Arnuwandas I and is mentioned in the Maduwattas-
text.
The second was a contemporary of Mursilis II and Muwatallis II. After Mursilis
II had conquered the west, he installed Kupantakurantas II as a vassal to serve
the great king of Hatti – in perpetuity.
Kupantakurantas II’s grandson was Mashuittas of Mira. Under his rule, the west
gained strength. Tudhaliyas IV soon faced problems again in the west and captured
500 chariots from Tarhunaradus of Seha. Also, Mashuittas was addressed as “great
king” by a Hittite ruler whose name is lost. The issue at stake at the time was Wilu-
sa. As the hieroglyphic text shows, the king of Wilusa, Walmus, was reinstalled by
Mashuittas, and thus obviously became a vassal of Mira instead of Hatti.
Kupantakurantas III’s basic realm appears to have consisted of Mira and Hapalla.
41
At the time the inscription was composed, however, it had grown to include six
kingdoms: (1) Mira and (2) Arzawa, directly governed by the great king himself;
(3) Hapalla, (4) Wilusa, plus what appears to be (5) Assuwa and may have been
a district of Mira, and the territory ruled by King Urawalwas, that is presumably
identical with (6) Seha.
The king of Hapalla is said to have destroyed six towns, while the king of Atapali,
the western province of Hapalla, fortied ve towns. For four of those, the names
are given. The fth is “this place,” i.e. modern Beyköy. Beyköy was therefore
located in the kingdom of Hapalla.
Arzawa has a long tradition and comes across as the most prestigious kingdom
of the entire realm, even more so than Mira. The kingdom evidently included the
Aegean coast. The place-names given can be identied on a modern map: Smyr-
na (İzmir), Kurupiya (the peninsula south of İzmir), and Apasa (Efes). It is not
clear how far inland the kingdom stretched. The text says that Kupantakuruntas
built 25 citadels in Arzawa.
Mira is the most likely seat of Kupantakurantas. A candidate for its capital is Sar-
dis, since this was the center of gold production and the seat of wealthy Iron Age
rulers. The name Sardis appears to be reected in Assaratta, which is associated
with Assuwa. In other words, Sardis lay in a district called Assuwa that was part
of the kingdom of Mira. This would explain why Assuwa and Mira alternate in
their signicance in texts from the Empire period – the terms may have been
pretty much synonymous.
Above all, Beyköy 2 illuminates the period during the Sea People invasions – a
time that has thus far been completely obscure. Kupantakurantas III speaks high-
ly of Arnuwandas III, the last ruler of the Hittite kingdom, whom he recognized.
As we know, Arnuwandas III had no son. When he died, his younger brother
Suppiluliumas II assumed the vacated throne. But Kupantakurantas III does not
mention this last Hittite king. Either he did not recognize him as a legitimate rul-
er, or Suppiluliumas II had already died and the central part of his kingdom had
been devastated by advancing Kaskans. It appears as if the southern and south-
eastern districts of the Hittite realm were uncontrolled. This gave Kupantakuran-
tas III the right to march into these territories, as the text implies. Coming over
land, his forces attacked Kaska, Masa, and Tarhuntassa. He then established a
eet and began conquering coastal cities: (1) Parha (evidently Perge on the Kai-
stros river in Pamphylia); (2) Ura (often identied with Silifke on the Cilician
coast); (3) Lamiya (also on the Cilician coast, presumably on the river Lamos);
and (4) Philistia. The name Philistia might represent the southern coast of the
Levant (Palestine), but since we know that the term was also used farther north,
it might also represent the region around Ugarit. In any case, the forces of the
great king of Mira stormed far south and even established a fortress in Ashkelon,
“on the border with Egypt”, as the text emphasizes.
Kupantakuruntas states that this maritime campaign to southeastern Anatolia and
the Levant was conducted not by himself but by four great princes: Muksus, Ku-
lanamuwas, Tuwatas, and Piyakuruntas. Of these, Muksus is the most prominent,
42
as his name is singled out by the determinative of personal names and more
sections are dedicated to him. Bearing a Phrygian type of name, he was seated
in Apassawa or Apaisos on the Dardanelles. The memory of the conquest of
Ashkelon by Muksus has been preserved in the legendary tales of Mopsos in
Greek historical tradition. The Lydian historian Xanthos recalls how a powerful
western Anatolian ruler “penetrated as far as Ascalon during a campaign against
Egypt” (Houwink ten Cate 1961, 45).
Beyköy 2 thus provides additional evidence that the states of western Asia Mi-
nor, under the central rulership of the great king of Mira, actively participated
in the attacks that brought down a large number of coastal cities in the eastern
Mediterranean at the transition between the Bronze and the Iron Age. People
from western Asia Minor actively took part in the upheavals that have been
transmitted to us as the so-called Sea Peoples’ invasions. The naval leadership
of an aristocrat from the Troad helps explain the many parallels between the
Tjekker mentioned in the Sea Peoples’ inscription from Medinet Habu and the
Early Iron Age Teukros from Troy. In addition, the text shows that historiogra-
phy existed in western Asia Minor some eight hundred years before Herodotos.
This of course raises the question as to why, if this text was of utmost signi-
cance for archaeological research, Mellaart did not publish it. Mellaart was a
specialist in archaeology and historical geography, but not in inscriptions and
texts. The translation was the result of painstaking research by scholars who were
senior to Mellaart. Mellaart thus considered this to be other people’s work, and
was convinced for many years that a publication would soon materialize. When
one of us (EZ) asked Mellaart during a telephone conversation in August 1995
what could be done to have the important cuneiform Beyköy Text published, he
replied calmly: “Just wait another ve years!” (see Zangger 2017, 216-217).
4. argumEnts for and against authEnticity
After this paper had been submitted and accepted for publication, a number of
people in the eld of Luwian hieroglyphic studies heard about the imminent ap-
pearance of a document that owing to its sheer size would constitute about one
third of all thus far known Luwian hieroglyphic texts from the Bronze Age. At
this point it emerged that J. David Hawkins had known about the document since
1989, and Mark Weeden since 2012. Both scholars, we learnt, were convinced
that Beyköy 2 was a forgery produced by Mellaart.
Mellaart’s name has indeed sometimes been connected with artefacts of doubt-
ful provenance, above all the Dorak treasure. However, the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara set up a commission to investigate this particular case
and it arrived at the conclusion that Mellaart had acted correctly and could thus
not be blamed for any wrongdoing. The police in İzmir also thoroughly inves-
tigated the case, with commission delivering the same judgment: Mellaart was
not guilty. We have also looked into the cases where Mellaart was accused of
“imagining evidence” (Hodder) and have found the accusations unconvincing.
43
Above all, Mellaart has never been convicted of having committed forgery. In
our opinion, he encountered a wealth of artefacts during his research and did not
have the nancial resources to record them as properly as one would wish from
today’s perspective.
The following arguments have thus far been put forward in support of the claim
that Beyköy 2 is a forgery:
a. The inscription contains signs from the Imperial period as well as from
the Early Iron Age. – As has been stated before, the sign *376 (§ 6, etc.) marked
by the two slanting strokes at its lower side to form *377 is a typical feature
of Luwian hieroglyphic texts from an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age.
However, the sign has recently also been identied in this form on a Hittite clay
tablet (Waal 2017, 304-305, Fig. 7), and was thus already in use during the Late
Bronze Age.
b. The endings for the nominative and accusative singular of the communal
gender in -sa and -na are in the main omitted. – This is in contrast with the proce-
dure in texts dating from Early Iron Age. However, the omission of theses endings
is a typical feature of texts dating to the Late Bronze Age (Woudhuizen 2011, 103-
104) and characteristic even for Linear B texts. Rather than being an argument for
forgery, this observation underlines the authenticity of the document.
c.
Sign *376 is used both for i and zi. – This conicts with the current paradigm
in Luwian hieroglyphic studies that *376 is used exclusively for the expression of the
value zi. However, the polyphonic nature of *376, being used for i and zi, has been
proved on the basis of an exhaustive and unbiased overview of the bilingual evidence
(Woudhuizen 2011, 92-97). Beyköy 2 conrms the polyphonic nature of *376, which
has signicant repercussions for the reading of Luwian hieroglyphs in general. Much
of the work published during the past twenty years
needs to be reevaluated.
d. Unnatural syllabications occur in the text. – Beyköy 2 represents the only
large document reecting the Luwian language as it was spoken in Arzawa (as
opposed to Hattusa). We simply do not know what was common practice among
scribes in western Asia Minor. However, there does not seem to be anything unu-
sual about the way this text is composed.
e. The document contains unknown ligatures. – Since it is the only document
of this size that has thus far come to light, it is bound to contain symbols and liga-
tures that have not been seen before. Therefore, the existence of these signs argues
in favor of the authenticity of the document, since a forger would have carefully
avoided any aberrations.
f. T
he person identied as ma-sa-hù+i-ti (= Mashuittas) should be read as
ma-sa-AVUS+zi-ti. – The name Mashuittas occurs only once so far, as that of a great
king in a Hittite cuneiform letter (KBo XVIII 18, see Hagenbuchner 1989, 317);
we did not know until now how the name would be spelled in hieroglyphs. Evi-
dently, there was only one great king called Mashuittas, so Beyköy 2 now produces
bigraphic (Hittite cuneiform and Luwian hieroglyphic) evidence for his existence.
This is indeed another strong argument for the authenticity of the document.
44
g. T
he spelling Pulasati is a “Masperonian relic” for “Philistia” in the south-
ern Levant. – The term Pulasati was thus far only known from Egyptian hiero-
glyphs. In Beyköy 2 it occurs for the rst time in Luwian hieroglyphs – as a genuine
Luwian hieroglyphic reex of Egyptian pwrst. It is spelled exactly as one would
expect, and Mellaart’s/Alkım’s transliteration as “Philistia” makes perfect sense.
h. Contrary to the spelling rules known thus far, the [n] before a dental is
sometimes written, as most conspicuous in the case of la-la-na-ta6 (§ 45) along-
side la-la-ta (§ 19) “Lalanda”. – If taken as an argument in favour of a forgery, the
forger must be assumed to be an ignoramus in the eld of Luwian hieroglyphics,
which would collide with his brilliant mastery of the grammar which is typical
for Late Bronze Age texts. It seems more economical, therefore, to assume that
the western Anatolian tradition in writing in hieroglyphic differs in this respect
from that of the rest of Anatolia, likely under the inuence of cuneiform Luwian in
which the writing of [n] before a dental is standard.
None of the above issues is of any relevance for the gist of the text. On the other
hand, there are numerous arguments suggesting that the document must be au-
thentic:
a. Mellaart could not read Luwian hieroglyphs, let alone compose texts
with them.
b. The document itself exhibits a sophistication in grammar way beyond
the interpretative skills of the scholars who worked on it.
c. The style of the drawing is characteristic for the 19th century compare
the corpus by Messerschmidt of 1900.
d. The blocks were drawn in the wrong order. Mellaart produced pencil
drawings of the entire document on four A4 pages and then a separate ink draw-
ing of each page. These drawings – with the stones in the wrong order – reached
J. David Hawkins. It is quite clear from Mellaart’s estate that the correct order
of the stones was only recognized shortly before Alkım died. The bequest con-
tained a complete interpretation of the document marked “Beyköy, rearranged
text. U. B. Alkım 1980” (Fig. 2).
e. The document contains more than 150 toponyms, of which two thirds
are not even identiable at this point. A forger might have invented a few place-
names to add an exotic touch, but why as many as one hundred?
f. Four of the symbols used in the document are thus far unknown.
g. On three occasions, the order of signs has been accidentally reversed.
h. In one instance, the pattern of writing in columns has been changed and
the text is written in a horizontal line from left to right.
i. The documents retrieved from Mellaart’s study reveal many years of
careful analysis of these texts, re-arranged manuscript passages, new page num-
berings, and hand-drawn lists of kings and maps. They show how over the years
the archaeologist increasingly managed to grasp the information provided in the
texts and thereby improve his interpretations. But he was clearly struggling, and
it evidently took Mellaart many years to get acquainted with the material.
45
If the allegation is made that the document was forged, it should be backed up
with arguments as to why, how, and by whom. Composing the factual content of
the document would require many years of research to establish a plausible and
consistent political geography and the appropriate chronological charts with the
sequences of rulers – something that the entire scholarly community has so far
failed to achieve despite a century of research. There would have to have been
countless stages of development, drafts, and prototypes. And it would all have to
have been done manually without the help of computers, which were not yet in-
vented. Absolutely nothing in Mellaart’s study records a step involving creation
– all his efforts were dedicated to analyzing what was given to him. And what
would have been the motivation for forgery? Mellaart would not publish the
document; he would not even mention it in any of his publications. He clearly
left the interpretation of the document to Alkım.
All in all, how likely is the scenario that Mellaart fabricated this text compared
to the alternative: that some ancient documents were discovered during the sec-
ond half of the 19th century, made it into governmental Ottoman possession, and
that Turkish scholars began to work on these documents soon after the scripts
were deciphered and the languages had become readable? After all, tens of thou-
sands of Late Bronze Age documents were retrieved during the rst half of the
20th century; it would thus not be surprising if a few had already been found
before. People in the eld are indeed aware that the collections of the archaeo-
logical museums in Turkey contain unpublished documents of signicant value.
The papers in Mellaart’s le yield a glimpse into this material.
We therefore decided that this document should be published so that its merit
and authenticity could be evaluated and discussed by the scientic community.
5. othEr luwian hiEroglyphic inscriptions from mEllaart’s filEs
Beyköy 2 is the most prominent Luwian hieroglyphic inscription from the Imperi-
al period ever found, and as such also stands out among the documents from Mel-
laart’s estate. However, Mellaart’s les contained three other large hieroglyphic
inscriptions: one from Edremit (Fig. 3), one from Yazılıtaş (Fig. 4), and one from
Dağardı (Fig. 5: E-F), as well as four fragments, one from Dağardı (Fig. 5: D),
again, one from Şahankaya (Fig. 5: C), and two from Beyköy (Fig. 5: A-B).
The inscription from Yazılıtaş (“inscribed stone”) was found as early as in 1854,
when the hieroglyphs were still interpreted as being Egyptian (?)! The notes in
French, which apparently go back to Perrot, read as follows:
“Longeur près de six metres, hauteur 30-35 cms. Inscriptions rupestre en hièro-
glyphique Egyptiens(?) sculptée en haut relief près du sommet de Mandira Dagh
(“Yazılıtaş” sa Ayarmend) visitée en 1854 et copiée par Subni Sami + variante chose”.
According to the map provided by Mellaart, Yazılıtaş was located at 1344 meters
above sea level in the mountain range 36 km northeast of Pergamon. “Mandra Dağ”
46
is to be identied with Mount Ahuwanati in Luwian. The inscription was hewn into
the bedrock near the summit and might therefore still be visible today. The remark
that it was rendered in high relief presumably also holds good for Beyköy 2 and the
other inscriptions as this is a regular feature of Late Bronze Age stone inscriptions.
According to Mellaart’s handwritten notes, the inscription from Edremit was
found in 1878, immediately after the one in Beyköy. Mellaart writes: “The local
authorities had taken the blocks and kept them with other remains at the Belediye
[municipality] Garden.” Perrot copied it in 1878, immediately after he had copied
the Beyköy 2 text.
The two documents consist almost entirely of place-names. The Edremit inscrip-
tion comprises 43 place-names beginning with towns on Lesbos and ending with
the mountain were the text was engraved. A typical feature of the inscriptions
from Edremit and Yaz ılıtaş is that the determinatives for “town” (*225) and “land”
(*228) are encircled when having a bearing on an island; for convenience’s sake,
these are transliterated as UMINA and UTNA. In the inscription from Edremit, fur-
thermore, the determinative of a personal name is written below the name marked
as such instead of at the start of it.
Edremit
§ 1 URA+HANTAWAT+infansm “Great prince Muksas,
mu-ka-sa ā-nà MI WI country-lord in Mi(ra and)
UTNA-dominus HARNAS-sa Wi(lusa), conquered the
ta+r-ha-ta6 a5-la-na-ta6
UTNA (following) fortress(es in
um+li-wa-na-ta6
UTNA the lands of) Alanda (and)
Muliwanda (total 43):
wa-na-ta6-saUMINA [la-sa]-paUMINA Antissa, the island (of)
um+mi-tu-mi-naUMINA Lesbos, Methymna,
mu-ti-li-naUMINA [?-?-?]UMINA Mitylene, the islands (of)
[?-?]-saUMINA [ā]-pa+r(a)UMINA [ ], [ ]sa, Imbros, Lemnos,
la-mi-naUMINA ta6-na-ta6
UMINA Tenedos, Alanda-town,
a5-la-na-ta6
UMINA ku-ru-saUMINA Chryse, Watama, Atar,
wa-ta6-maUMINA ā-ta+rUMINA [ ], Kamusa, Astyra,
[ ] ka-mu-saUMINA Tatuwanasa, Kilipana,
á-sa-tu+r(a)UMINA Pirwi/zuna, Wahapatasa,
ta6-tu-wa-na-saUMINA Abydos, Awi/zunalasa,
ki-li-pa-nàUMINA pi+r-wí/zu-naUMINA mount Wi/Zumiwasa,
wa-ha-pa-ta-saUMINA Kamanata, the land (of)
ā-ta6-pa-wa-saUMINA Muliwanda, Wanatasatar,
ā-wí/zu-na-la-saUMINA Arisbe, Perkote, Pityeia,
WANTIwí/zu-mi-wa-saUMINA La[ ], Apartur, [ ]sa,
ka-ma-na-ta6
UMINA Nana[ ], Parion, Samatasa,
um+li-wa-na-ta6
UTNA [ ], Adrasteia, Winatasa,
wa-na-ta6-sa-ta+rUMINA Gargara, the land (of) mount
47
ā+r-sa-paUMINA pa-ru-ki-ta6
UMINA Leleges, Atarnatur,
pi-tu[-?]UMINA la[-?-?-?]UMINA Adramyttion [= Edremit],
ā-pa+r-tu+rUMINA [?-?]-saUMINA (and) Matarsa.”
nà-nà[-?-?]UMINA pa+r-mu-saUMINA
sa-ma-ta6-saUMINA [?-?-?]UMINA
ā-ta+r-sa-ta6
UMINA wi-nà-ta6-saUMINA
ká+r-ka!-la-saUMINA
WANTIla-la-ka<-sa>UTNA
ā-ta+r-na-tu+rUMINA
ā-ta+r-mu-ta6
UMINA ma-ta+r-saUMINA
§ 2 à-wa á-ta6-la-wa-sa “And Atalawas represented
um+li-wa-ta6
UMINA á-sa4
?-waUTNA the crown (in) Muliwanda-
WARPA-ta6 town (and) the land (of)
Asa?wa.”
§ 3 ma-la-mu-sa tu-ha-pi-sa infansm “Malamus, son of Tuhapis,
á-ka-tár-ha-sa la-ku-pa<-sa> (and) Akatarhas, son (of)
infansm pi-há-sa-ta [?-?-?]UTNA Lakupas, continued to be
glorious (in) the land [ ].”
§ 4 [ ] MASANA[ ] MASANA[ ] (dedication to the gods)
For the rst section of § 1, cf. Beyköy 2, § 26. The verb is expressed here by
ta+r-ha-ta6, the 3rd person sg. of the past tense in -ta of tarh- “to conquer”,
whereas the object is formed by HARNAS-sa, the N-A(n) sg. in -sa (otherwise
attested only for texts from an advanced stage of the Early Iron Age) of the noun
harnas- “fortress” used here for the expression of the plural. The list of place-
names with a bearing of the realm of great prince Muksas informs us about the
extent of his Trojan realm. Now, in this list three clusters can be distinguished
(here provided in their Greek form):
I. (west) Antissa, Lesbos, Methymna, Mytilene, Imbros, Lemnos, Tenedos;
II. (northeast) Abydos, Arisbe, Perkote, Pityeia, Parion;
III. (southeast) Gargara, mount Leleges, Adramyttion.
With the exception of Gargara and mount Leleges (cf. Hom., Il. 20.92-96; 21.86),
all these names were already correctly identied by Alkım or Mellaart. Only two
verbs appear in the entire text. The verb in § 2 consists of WARPA-ta6, the 3rd
person sg. of the past tense in -ta of the root warpa- “to represent the crown”. As
opposed to this, the verb in § 3, pi-há-sa-ta, renders the 3rd person pl. of the past
tense in -nta of the frequentative in -sa- of the root piha- “to shine, be glorious”.
Note that the personal names in the latter two phrases are characterized by the
N(m/f) sg. in -sa or, in case of the patronymics, the G sg. in -sa.
48
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. The inscription from Edremit, discovered in 1871.
Fig. 4. The inscription from Yazılıtaş, discovered in 1854.
Copied by Charles Perrot in 1878 and depicted here in the ink tracing
produced by James Mellaart during the 1970s.
Fig. 4.
49
Fig. 5. Remaining inscriptions: Beyköy 3-4 (A-B), Şahankaya (C), Dağardı 1
(D), and Dağardı 2 (E-G). Copied by Charles Perrot and depicted here
in the ink tracing produced by James Mellaart during the 1970s.
50
Yaz ılıtaş
§ 1 [ ] la-sa-paUTNA ā-ru-na “Lesbos, the sea, the land
WANTIā-hu-wa-na-ta6
UTNA (of) mount Ahuwanda,
á-pa-wi-saUMINA ku-ti-nà-saUMINA Apawisa, Kutinasa, Alanda-
a5-la-na-ta6
UMINA town, Adramyttion, Atapa,
á-ta+r-mu-ta6
UMINA ā-ta6-paUMINA mount Sarwanda, mount Ida,
WANTIsa+r-wa-na-ta6 WANTIa5-ta6-ā Palinata, Awarna, Suwisa,
pa-li-nà-ta6
UMINA á-wa+r-naUMINA Hyllarima, Mar?wanasa,
su-wi-saUMINA wa-la+r(i)maUMINA Atarneus, Wi/Zurua,
ma+r?-wa-na-saUMINA Arinasa, Wi/Zumarna,
ta6-ta6+r-na-saUMINA wí/zu-ru-āUMINA Awatanasa, the sea, the town
á+r(i)-na-saUMINA (of) mount Leleges, Winata,
wí/zu-ma+r-naUMINA the island(s of) Muwatallis,
ā-wa-ta6-nà-saUMINA ā-ru-nàUMINA the land (of) Wi/Zumanda,
WANTIla-la-ka-saUMINA the fortress (of) mount
wi-na-ta6
UMINA mu-ta6-laUTNA Harna, Masturiwantasa:
wí/zu-ma-na-ta6
UTNA great king (of) the land (of)
WANTIhá+r-naHARNAS Seha Walwamuwas, great
ma-sa-tu+r(i)-wa-na-ta6-saUMINA king, son (of) great king
ASA+haUTNA URA+HANTAWAT Kupantakuruntas [ ].”
WALWA-MUWA infansm
URA+HANTAWAT
ku-pa-tá-KURUNT [ ]
Dağardı 1
(D) infansm+HANTAWAT “Prince Masanatarhunas,
MASANA-TARHU(NT)-na prince, lord (of)
infansm+HANTAWAT dominus Masturiwantasa [= Dağardı],
ma-sa-tu+r(i)-wa-na-ta6-saUMINA lord.”
dominus
Dağardı 2
(E) infansm+HANTAWAT ASA+haUTNA “Prince (of) Seha
á-sa-há[-?] ASA+haUTNA Asaha[ ]s, prince (of) Seha,
infansm+HANTAWAT [son (of)] Walwa[muwa]s.”
WALWA[-MUWA infansm]
(F) ā-ta+r-naUMINA PÁRA-há-maUMINA “Atarna, Pergamon,
TIWATA-ta+r(a)UMINA Thyateira, Adrasteia,
á-ta+r-sa-ta6-i?UMINA sa-ta-laUMINA Satala, Kurtasa,
ku-ru-ta6-saUMINA Wi/Zunatarha, Kalawasa,
wí/zu-na-ta+r-haUMINA Pitane, Adramyttion, the
51
ka-la-wa-saUMINA pi-ta6-na-saUMINA land (of) mount Taminasa.”
ā-ta+r-mu-taUMINA
WANTIta6-mi-na-saUTNA
(G) á-na[-?] wí/zu-ma-na-ta6
UTNA “Ana[ ], the land (of)
ā-ru-tu-naUMINA ā-ta+r-naUMINA Wi/Zumanda, Artuna, Atarna,
WANTIhá+r-na[HARNAS]ki-la-saUMINA the fortress (of) mount Harna,
ki-su[-?]UMINA ma-sa-pa?[UMINA] Kilasa, Kisu[ ], Masapa,
[?]-wa-na-saUTNA [?]-ta6-mi[-?] the land (of) [ ]wana, [ ]tami[ ].”
As is clear from their contents, Yazılıtaş and Dağardı 1-2 are dedicated by the
rulers of Seha, while Yazılıtaş was the work of great king Walwamuwas and the
inscription from Dağardı stem from the princes Masanatarhunas and Asaha[ ]s.
The latter may have functioned as Sekundogenitur, governing the capital of the
inland part of the realm, Masturiwantasa, named after a former king of Seha,
Masturis. At any rate, it seems deducible from (D) that the latter town is likely to
be identied as the nd spot of the inscriptions, Dağardı.
This inscription establishes once and for all the location of Seha. The following
place-names are of relevance in this pursuit (provided in their Greek form):
1. Lesbos, the sea, Adramyttion, Atarneus, mount Leleges (Yazılıtaş)
2. Pergamon, Thyateira, Pitane, Adramyttion (Dağardı).
With the exception of Atarneus and mount Leleges, again, all these names were
already correctly identied by Alkım or Mellaart. Hence, there can be no doubt
that Seha is to be located in the Kaikos valley. The overlap between the place-
names of Seha and those of category III (southeast) of the Troad (see above) may
be explained by the fact that Yazılıtaş postdates Edremit as the principal of the
former, Walwamuwas, was a son of Kupantakuruntas III, whereas the principal
of the latter, Muksas, was a contemporary of Kupantakuruntas III.
Şahankaya
(C) URA+HANTAWAT TARKU-ta6+li “great king Tarkutallis”
HANTAWAT+infansm ku-ku-li “prince Kukulis”
HANTAWAT+infansm wa-pa+r-mu “prince Waparmus”
HANTAWAT+infansm “prince Masanatarhunas”
MASANA-TARHU(NT)-na
Beyköy 3-4
(A) HANTAWAT+infansm “prince Mashuittas, (son of)
ma-sa-<hù>+i-ti great king Alantallis”
URA+HANTAWAT á-la-na-ta6+li
(B) á-la-na-ta6+li infansm “son (of) Alantallis”
52
Fig. 6. The political geography of Asia Minor around 1200 BC shows how the
states in western Asia Minor had gained signicance (boundaries after
Starke 2002).
53
6. thE arzawan languagE
The Luwian hieroglyphic texts from western Anatolia inform us about the Arzawan
language. It is therefore worthy to remark that in these texts we come across the
following evidence for (pro)nominal declension and verbal conjugation:
From the use of Akkadisms like the genitive particle SA “of”, and the prepositions
A-NA “in” and I-NA “in”, however, it may safely be deduced that the Arzawan scribes,
writing in Luwian hieroglyphic, were also acquainted with the cuneiform script.
The latter inference coincides neatly with the fact that another source on the
Arzawan language is the Istanuwan songs in cuneiform Luwian. Note, however
,
that the distinction between the two scripts did involve a certain amount of
code-switching, as, for example, the N and A(m/f) pl. are both expressed by -i in
Luwian hieroglyphic, but by -nzi and -nza in cuneiform Luwian.
(PRO)NOUN
sg. pl.
N —, -sa
A —, -na -i
N-A(n) —, -sa -a
D -āi
G -sa
Abl. -ti
Loc. -ti, +r(i)
VERB
sg. pl.
3rd pers. pres./fut. -ti
1st pers. past tense -ha
3rd pres. past tense -ta -nta
2nd pers. imp. —
participle act. -nt-
participle mid.-pas. -mi-
Table I. Overview of the grammar.
54
It is further worth mentioning in this connection that, on account of the corre-
spondence the D sg. of the enclitic pronoun of the 3rd person -la to Lydian -λ,
the Arzawan language can be shown to be a direct forerunner of the later Lydian.
7. closing rEmarks
The large texts from Edremit, Yazılıtaş, and Dağardı provide us with many place-
names and thus with detailed information about the political geography of western
Asia Minor during the late Imperial phase. The realm of the great prince Muksus
consisted of Mira and Wilusiya; both names are given in an abbreviated form that
was not recognized by Alkım and Mellaart. However, the text only relates places
in Wilusiya, centering on the Troad and thus coinciding with the realm of the kings
of Troy. This kingdom included the islands Lesbos, Lemnos, Imbros, and Tenedos,
the places on the southern shore of the Dardanelles (Arisbe, Perkote, Pityeia) and
the settlements in the Gulf of Edremit (e.g. Adramyttion). Place-names are listed
clockwise from northwest to southeast. They are for the most part not known from
Hittite documents, but coincide with the names transmitted in Greek; much as the
description of the whole kingdom parallels that given by Homer (Iliad 24.546).
The inscriptions from Yazılıtaş and Dağardı fulll the same purpose for the king-
dom of Seha, which evidently lay south of Wilusiya and centered around the Kaikos
valley. There is some overlap between the two, since Adramyttion and even Mount
Ida are said to belong to Seha as well.
In any case, with the retrieval of these documents, Seha, Wilusiya and, by impli-
cation, Masa can now be put solidly on a map. The “guessing game” involved in
the political geography of western Asia Minor, as James Macqueen once called
it, is therefore over, having occupied Hittilogists for almost a century. All the
major kingdoms in the west can now be accommodated. Furthermore, the docu-
ments described here indicate that Luwian was spoken and written in northwest-
ern Asia Minor, even though it is still unclear how large the relevant share of the
population was. The gap in our knowledge of the Late Bronze Age in western
Asia Minor appears, now, to have been closed.
bibliography
Bányai, M. forthcoming: West Anatolische Geographie und Geschichte.
Beckman, G.M./T.R. Bryce/E.H. Cline 2011: The Ahhiyawa Texts (series: Writings from the
Ancient World, 28), Atlanta, GA.
Bryce, T.R. 2010: The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford (New Edition).
Götze, A. 1933: Die Annalen des Muršiliš, Hethitische Texte in Umschrift, mit Übersetzung
und Erläuterungen Heft VI, (series: Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Ge-
sellschaft, 38), Leipzig.
Gusmani, R. 1964: Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatrischer Skizze und Inschriftensamm-
lung (series: Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher), Heidelberg.
55
Güterbock, H.G. 1940: Siegel aus Boğazköy I (series: Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 5),
Berlin. Hagenbuchner, A. 1989: Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter, 2. Teil: Die Briefe mit
Transkription, Übersetzung und Kommentar (series: Texte der Hethiter, 16), Heidelberg.
Hawkins, J.D. 1983: Kuwatnamuwa, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6), Berlin/New York, 398.
Hawkins, J.D. 1998: Tarkasnawa King of Mira, ‘Tarkondemos’, Boğazköy Sealings and Kara-
bel, Anatolian Studies 48, 1-31.
Herbordt, S./D. Bawanypeck/J.D. Hawkins 2011: Die Siegel der Grosskönige und Gross-
königinnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa (series: Boğazköy-Ḫat-
tuša, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, 23), Darmstadt-Mainz.
Houwink ten Cate, Ph.H.J. 1961: The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera
during the Hellenistic Period, Leiden (dissertation).
Laroche, E. 1966: Les Noms des Hittites, Paris.
Liebhart, R.F./C. Brixhe 2009: The Recently Discovered Inscription from Tumulus MM at
Gordion, A Preliminary Report, Kadmos 48, 141-156.
Mallory, J.P./D.Q. Adams 2007: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford (Reprint of 2006 edition).
Masson, E. 1980: Les inscriptions louvites hiéroglyphiques de Köylütolu et Beyköy, Kadmos
19, 106-122.
Melchert, H.C. 2001: Cuneiform Luwian Lexicon (series: Lexica Anatolica 2), Chapel Hill,
NC (on line version [original publication: 1993]).
Mellaart, J. 1993: The Present State of “Hittite Geography”, in: Mellink, M.J/E. Porada/T.
Özgüç (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors, Studies in
Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 415-422.
Messerschmidt, L. 1900: Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum (Mitteilungen der Vorderasia-
tischen-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft, Volume 5, Heft 4), Berlin.
Monte, G.F. del/J. Tischler 1978: Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6, Die
Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (series: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas
des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften], Nr. 7/6), Wiesbaden.
Otten, H. 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy, Ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. (series: Studi-
en zu den Boğazköy-Texten Beiheft 1), Wiesbaden.
Starke, F. 2002: Das Hethitische Reich und seine Nachbarn im 15.-14. Jh. v. Chr. (Karte), in:
Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter, Stuttgart.
Waal, W. 2017: Anatolian Hieroglyphs on Hittite Clay Tablets, in: Kertai, D./O. Nieuwen-
huyse (eds.), From the Four Corners of the Earth, Studies in Iconography and Cultures
of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F.A.M. Wiggermann (series: Alter Orient und Altes
Testament, Band 441), 297-307. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2011: Selected Luwian Hieroglyphic Texts: The Extended Version (series:
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 141), Innsbruck.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2012: Stamp Seal from Beycesultan, Journal of Indo-European Studies
40, 1-10.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2013: Three Luwian Hieroglyphic Late Bronze Age Inscriptions, Ancient
West & East 12, 1-15.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2014: Geography of Western Anatolia, in: Faranton, V./M. Mazoyer (eds.),
Homère et L’Anatolie 2 (series: Collection Kubaba, Série Antiquité), 119-136.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2016: Documents in Minoan Luwian, Semitic, and Pelasgian (Publications
of the Henri Frankfort Foundation, 14), Amsterdam.
Woudhuizen, F.C. 2018: The Luwians of Western Anatolia, Their Neighbours and Predeces-
sors.
56
Wright, W. 1884: The Empire of the Hittites, with Decipherment of Hittite Inscriptitons, London.
Zangger, E. 2017: Die Luwier und der trojanische Krieg – eine Entdeckungsgeschichte,
Zürich.
Eberhard Zangger Fred Woudhuizen
Luwian Studies Kleijn Barlaken 45
Postfach 166 NL-1851 CS Heiloo
8024 Zurich The Netherlands
Switzerland fredwoudhuizen@yahoo.com
e.zangger@luwianstudies.org
