² Hansen.

³ Primary publications: Ünal et al.; Anon., , ‘Ein hethitisches Schwert mit akkadischer Inschrift aus Boğazköy’, Antike Welt, 23.4 (1992), 256–7 and figs. 1–3Google Scholar; Ertekin, A. and Ediz, İ., ‘The unique sword from Boğazköy/Hattuša’, in Mellink, M. J., Porada, E., and Özgüç, T. (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç (Ankara, 1993), 719–25, with illustrationsGoogle Scholar; Ünal, A., ‘Boğazköy Kilicinin Üzerindeki Akadca Adak Yazisi Hakkinda Yeni Gözlemler’, in Mellink, , Porada, , and Özgüç, (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography, 727–30Google Scholar; Neve, P., ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 1992’, AA (1993), 621–52Google Scholar (esp. 648–52, with photographs in figs. 27–8).

⁴ Translation and transliteration following Ünal et al. 51 and Ünal (n. 3), 727–8; Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 721.

⁵ Ünal et al. 52; Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 721–2.

⁶ Cf. Drews, R., The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (Princeton, 1993), 197–8 and fig. 3 cGoogle Scholar; Hansen 213–15; Buchholz, H.-G., ‘Eine hethithische Schwertweihung’, Journal of Prehistoric Religion, 8 (1994), 20–41Google Scholar; Salvini, M. and Vagnetti, L., ‘Una spada di tipo egeo da Boğazköy’, PP 276 (1994), 215–36 and figs. 1–2Google Scholar; Cline, E. H., ‘Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor: Minoans and Mycenaeans abroad’, in Niemeier, W.-D. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Liège, 1995), 266, 270–3.Google Scholar

⁷ Ünal et al.; Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3).

⁸ The Type B identification was originally suggested by Hansen and tentatively confirmed by C. Macdonald in 1992, according to correspondence of 15 June 1992 cited by Hansen, 213 n. 1; see now Hansen, 213–15, for a brief explication of his reasoning. Also in agreement with this identification are Mellink, M. J., ‘Archaeology in Anatolia’, AJA 97 (1993), 106, 112–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 215–36.

⁹ Sandars, esp. 27–8, pl. 19.7; cf. Bittel, K., ‘Kleinasiatische Studien’, Ist. Mitt. (1942), 175Google Scholar; Bittel, K. and Schneider, A., ‘Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei, 1942’, AA 58 (1943), 207–8 and fig. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sandars, 23, 25, 27; ead., ‘Later Aegean bronze swords’, AJA 67 (1963), 117; Fortenberry, C. D., Elements of Mycenaean Warfare (Cincinnati, 1990), 148–9, 167, 369–72 (nos. 246–60).Google Scholar

¹¹ Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 722–4; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier (pers. comm., 12 May 1994); N. K. Sandars and R. Maxwell-Hyslop (information courtesy of O. R. Gurney, pers. comm., 1 Dec. 1994).

¹² Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 722.

¹³ Sandars, 17.

¹⁴ Ibid. 17, 24, pl. 18.5; cf. also the sword from the Dendra tholos tomb, which also has two rivets across the blade and three in the tang (Sandars, 27).

¹⁵ Ibid. 17, 22.

¹⁶ Ibid. 17; Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 722, 723. Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 220 with figs. 3 a–b cite additional parallels from both Mycenae and Dendra which have ribbing in relief on the spine. A sword found in Tomb 4 at Ialysos on Crete, which Sandars, 28, identified as Type B and which would seem to be a good parallel for the Hattušas sword, particularly in its length, has been reidentified as a Type C sword; cf. Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C., ‘some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries B.C.’, BSA 79 (1984), 69 (no. 18).Google Scholar

¹⁷ I. Kilian-Dirlmeier (pers. comm., 12 May 1994); cf. now ead., Die Schwerter in Griechenland (auβ;erhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (Stuttgart, 1993).

¹⁸ Sandars, 28.

¹⁹ Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 219–25. On the other hand, Buchholz (n. 6), 22, has now identified the Hattušas sword as definitely Aegean in origin, but as a variant of Type E. Unfortunately, he presents no proof for this assertion, and a brief investigation by the present author revealed as many, if not more, problems with a Type E identification as with the previous Type B identification. Principal among these would be the objections that the Hattušas sword is more than twice as long as the longest of the Type E weapons, which are usually referred to as daggers or dirks because of their short length, and that Type E weapons have rounded shoulders, while the Hattušas sword has square flanged shoulders; cf. Sandars (n. 10), 132–3, 149–50; Driessen and Macdonald (n. 16), 58–61, 71; Foltiny, St., ‘schwert, Dolch und Messer’, in Buchholz, H.-G. (ed.), Archaeologica Homérica, iE: Kriegswesen, pt. 2 (Göttingen, 1980), 257–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ Sandars, 28, suggested that the ‘slightly aberrant swords of the Dodecanese and opposite coasts of Anatolia are what might be expected from colonial or trading stations, where Cretan and Mainland weapons were copied by local workshops, though confused with weapons of succeeding types … with which the makers seem also to have been acquainted.’

²¹ See now Neve (n. 3), 651, who also suggests a west Anatolian–Aegean workshop as the origin for the sword discovered at Hattušas. It should be noted that finds of Mycenaean or Minoan weapons, or even imitations thereof, are quite rare in the eastern Mediterranean. In addition to the new discovery at Hattušas, there are only six others known: at İzmir, Panaztepe, and Fraktin in Anatolia; Gezer in Israel; and on the Ulu Burun (Kas) shipwreck. See references given in Cline (n. 6), 272. As Sandars (n. 10), 128, has noted, ‘Minoans and Mycenaeans seldom made presents of their swords’; thus, a role as arms dealers for the eastern Mediterranean seems unlikely. Mycenaean warriors or mercenaries travelling or fighting outside the Aegean may better account for the few finds which do exist.

²² Hansen, Abstract (p. xiii); cf. also Cline (n. 6), 270–3.

²³ Page, D., History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, 1959), 102–12Google Scholar; Huxley, G. L., Achaeans and Hittites (Oxford, 1960), 32–45Google Scholar; cf. also discussions in Muhly, J. D., ‘Hittites and Achaeans: Ahhiyawa redomitus’, Historia, 23 (1974), 137–8Google Scholar; Bryce, T. R., ‘Ahhiyawa and Troy: a case of mistaken identity?’, Historia, 26 (1977), 30–2Google Scholar; Easton, D. F., ‘Hittite history and the Trojan war’, in Foxhall, L. and Davies, J. K. (eds), The Trojan War: Its Historicity and Context (Bristol, 1984), 23–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Hansen, 214.

²⁵ On the redating cf. the summary by Easton (n. 23). 30–4; id., ‘Has the Trojan war been found?’, Antiquity, 59 (1985), 189.

²⁶ Hansen acknowledges that the sword was dedicated c.1430 BC (cf. Hansen, Abstract, p. xiii), but offers neither an era for the Trojan war nor an explanation of how a sword dedicated c.1430 BC could relate in any way to that conflict. It is, in fact, not at all clear in Hansen's discussions whether he wishes to retain a traditional 13th cent. BC date for the Trojan war or move the entire event back to the 15th cent. BC, as Vermeule has suggested; cf. Vermeule, E. T., ‘“Priam's castle blazing”: a thousand years of Trojan memories’, in Mellink, M. J. (ed.), Troy and the Trojan war (Bryn Mawr, 1986), 87–92.Google Scholar

²⁷ KUB XXIII 11; KUB XXVI 91; KUB XL 62 i + XIII 9; KUB XXIII 14 ii. 9; KUB XXXIV 43 10; and the text on the sword at Hattušas. Cf. previously the compilation in Del Monte, G. F. and Tischler, J., Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der hethitischen Texte (Wiesbaden, 1978), 52–3.Google Scholar A seventh text, KBo XII 53 rev. 7′ is mentioned by Del Monte and Tischler, but appears to have little, if any, direct relevance.

²⁸ Mellaart, J., ‘Western Anatolia, Beycesultan and the Hittites’, in Mélanges Mansel (Ankara, 1974), 501Google Scholar; Astour, M. C., Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age (Partille, 1989), 28, 50–2, 68–9, table ivGoogle Scholar; Roux, G., Ancient Iraq (New York, 1992), 256, table v.Google Scholar Note that although Gurney, O. R., The Hittites (New York, 1990), 181Google Scholar, has recently dated Tudhaliya II to c.1390–1370 BC, this seems a bit too low, particularly if there are links between Aššuwa and Thutmose III as well as between Aššuwa and Tudhaliya II (see n. 44 below), which would be a possible indication that the reigns of Tudhaliya II and Thutmose III may have overlapped to some extent. Following Kitchen's dates for Thutmose III c. 1479–1425 (Kitchen, K. A., ‘The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age’, in Åström, P. (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, pt. 1 (Göteborg, 1987), 52)Google Scholar, the dates for Tudhaliya II would lie in the 15th rather than the 14th cent. BC.

²⁹ Houwink, P. H. J. ten Cate, The Records of the Early Hittite Empire (Istanbul, 1970), 62.Google Scholar

³⁰ Full transliteration and translation in Carruba, O., ‘Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte, I: Die Tuthalijas und die Arnuwandas’, SMEA 18 (1977), 158–61.Google Scholar The secondary literature concerning this inscription is growing rapidly, particularly since the discovery of the sword at Hattušas; see e.g. Ünal et al. 51–2; Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 229–30; Zangger, E., Ein neuer Kampf um Troia: Archäologie in der Krise (Munich, 1994), 59–60.Google Scholar

³¹ Warren, P. M. and Hankey, V., Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol, 1989), 169Google Scholar; Cline, E. H., Sailing the Wine-dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford, 1994), 7.Google Scholar It is conceivable that Asššuwa may have had a longer lifespan, if the coalition were formed sometime prior to the reign of Tudhaliya II; but there are no data currently available, for there are no known documents which deal with this area of Anatolia from the time of Ammuna (c.1550 BC) until that of Tudhaliya II, a period of nearly 100 years (R. H. Beal, Email communication, 14 Mar. 1994).

³² See e.g. Georgacas, D. J., ‘The name Asia for the continent: its history and origin’, Names, 17 (1969), 1–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For specific Linear B tablets and references see n. 43 below.

³³ Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53; Garstang, J. and Gurney, O. R., The Geography of the Hittite Empire (London, 1959), 106–7, map 1Google Scholar; Jewell, E. R., The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the Second Millennium B.C. (Ann Arbor, 1974), 296, 367, 370 (map 20), 384–5Google Scholar; Wood, M., In Search of the Trojan war (New York, 1985), 179,182Google Scholar; Macqueen, J. G., The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor (London, 1986), 38–9 and fig. 21Google Scholar; Smit, D. W., ‘Backgrounds to Hittite history: some historical remarks on the proposed Luwian translations of the Phaistos Disc’, Talanta, 18–19 (1988), 60–1 and figs. 1–2Google Scholar; Gurney (n. 28), xiv fig. 1; Ünal et al. 52; Zangger (n. 30), 58–9; Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 232–6.

³⁴ Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 105, 121–2; cf. Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 52.

³⁵ Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 105–7, 120–3; Page (n. 23), 102–3, 106; Huxley (n. 23), 33–4; Houwink ten Cate (n. 29), 62, 72, 77, 80; Jewell (n. 33), 273, 287–8, 291–6; Bryce (n. 23), 28–30; Güterbock, H. G., ‘Troy in Hittite Texts? Wilusa, Ahhiyawa, and Hittite History’, in Mellink, M. J. (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War (Bryn Mawr, 1986), 35, 39–40Google Scholar; Hansen, O., ‘Reflexions on Bronze-Age Topography of NW Anatolia’, Anatolica, 20 (1994), 227–31.Google Scholar

³⁶ RE, s.v. ‘Teuthrania’; Grundy, G. B., Murray's Small Classical Atlas (New York, 1904), maps 11–12Google Scholar; Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 96–7; Hammond, N. G. L., Atlas of the Greek and Roman World in Antiquity (Park Ridge, NJ, 1981), map 13.Google Scholar

³⁷ See e.g. Erkanal, A., ‘Panaztepe Kazisiniu 1985 Yili Sonuçlari’, VIII. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi I (26–30 May 1986) (Ankara, 1986), 258Google Scholar; Erkanal, A. and Erkanal, H., ‘A new archaeological excavation in western Anatolia’, Turkish Review Quarterly Digest, 1.3 (1986), 67–76Google Scholar; Mellink, M. J., ‘Archaeology in Anatolia’, AJA 91 (1987), 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ersoy, Y., ‘Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum’, BSA 83 (1988), 55–82Google Scholar; Jaeger, B. and Krauss, R., ‘Zwei Skarabäen aus der mykenischen Fundstelle Panaztepe’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft zu Berlin, 122 (1990), 153–6.Google Scholar Cf. Buchholz (n. 6), 28–30, for a discussion of the site of Panaztepe in the context of Aššuwa; Neve (n. 3), 651, discusses the possibility of locating İzmir on the southern edge of the territories belonging to Aššuwa; Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 235–6, similarly argue that Aššuwa must have been located in an area of western Anatolia influenced by Mycenaean Greece.

³⁸ Translation and transliteration following Houwink ten Cate (n. 29), 62 (cf. also 72 n. 99, 81); Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53; Beal, R. H., The Organization of the Hittite Military (Heidelberg, 1992), 302.Google Scholar

³⁹ Transliteration following Carruba (n. 30), 172, and R. H. Beal (pers. comm., 1 Feb. 1994); cf. also Houwink ten Cate (n. 29), 62, 72 n. 99, 80; Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53.

⁴⁰ Transliteration following Ünal (pers. comm., 13 Jan. 1994); cf. also Houwink ten Cate (n. 29), 72 n. 99,; Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53.

⁴¹ See references given in nn. 47 and 48 below.

⁴² Jewell (n. 33), 290.

⁴³ These are listed on Mycenae tablets MY Au 653 +, MY Au 657; Pylos tablets PY Aa 701, PY Ab 315, PY Ab 326, PY Ab 515, PY Ae 134, PY Cn 4, PY Cn 254, PY Cn 285 +, PY Cn 1197, PY Cn 1287, PY Eq 146, PY Fn 324 +, PY Fr 1206, PY Jn 750, PY Jn 829, PY Jn 832, PY On 300, PY Vn 1191, PY Xa 639; and Knossos tablets KN Sc 261, KN Df 1469 + 1584 + fr. Note Chadwick, J., ‘The Group sw in Mycenaean’, Minos, 9 (1968), 62–5Google Scholar, in which he suggested that the value swi be assigned to the group ^*64.

⁴⁴ Jewell (n. 33), 289; Morpurgo, A., Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon (Rome, 1963), 39Google Scholar; Maddoli, G., ‘Potinija asiwija, Asia e le relazioni micenee con l'Anatolia settentrionale’, SMEA 4 (1967), 11–22.Google Scholar Aššuwa was apparently also known in contemporary New Kingdom Egypt. There it appears to have been recorded, particularly during the reign of Thutmose III, as J-s-jj, better known as Isy, or even as A-si_x–ja. The last rendition, argued most recently by Helck, bears a remarkable similarity to Linear A a-su-ja, Linear B a-^*64-ja, and the later term ‘Asia’. An identification of Isy with Aššuwa seems more likely than with Cyprus (which is most likely Egyptian ‘irs3, Alašia). The most strident of the previous objections previously raised against the identification of Isy with Aššuwa, e.g. by Stevenson Smith, were nullified by the redating of the above Hittite texts to the 15th cent. BC. Cf. Vercoutter, J., L'Égypte et le monde égéen préhellènique (Cairo, 1956), 86–95, 139–41, 179–82Google Scholar; Smith, W. Stevenson, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East (New Haven, 1965), 10Google Scholar; Helck, W., Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Darmstadt, 1979), 28–9, 34–5Google Scholar; Muhly, J. D., ‘The land of Alashiya: references to Alashiya in the texts of the second millennium B.C. and the history of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), Acts of the 1st International Congress of Cypriot Studies, i (Nicosia, 1972), 208–9Google Scholar; Cline (n. 31), 60, with references.

⁴⁵ See most recently, with bibliography, Bryce, T. R., ‘The nature of Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia’, Historia, 38 (1989), 1–21Google Scholar; id., ‘Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans: an Anatolian viewpoint’, OJA 8 (1989), 297–310; Ünal, A., ‘Two peoples on both sides of the Aegean sea: did the Achaeans and the Hittites know each other?’, in Mikasa, HIH Prince Takahito (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and ist Millennium B.C. (Wiesbaden, 1991), 16–44Google Scholar; Cline (n. 31), 121–5 (nos. C2–26).

⁴⁶ An alternative proposal (G. M. Beekman, pers. comm.; Huxley (n. 23), 17), that Ahhiyawa, as understood by the Hittites, referred to different parts of the Mycenaean world at different times, changing location over the course of several centuries (mainland Greece in the 15th–13th cents. BC but Rhodes or the Dodecanese in the 12th cent.), might also account for the available textual and archaeological evidence. An instance of such ‘geographic relocation’ over time may be seen, for example, in Mesopotamian texts which discuss trade and contact with ‘Magan’ and ‘Meluhha’: these two areas were to be found in the Persian Gulf/Indus Valley region according to Mesopotamian texts of the third millennium BC, but were located in the region of Ethiopia according to Mesopotamian texts of the first millennium; cf. Oppenheim, A. L., Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1977), 63–4, 350, 408Google Scholar, with detailed additional bibliography.

⁴⁷ Cf. detailed arguments for dating this letter to the reigns of Arnuwanda I, Muršili II, Muwatalli, or Arnuwanda IV, in Forrer, E., ‘Ahhijava’, in Ebeling, E. and Meissner, B. (eds), Reallexikon der Assyriologie, i (Berlin, 1932), 56–7Google Scholar; Sommer, F.,Die Ah̬ h̬ ijavā-Urkunden(Munich, 1932); 268–74, pl. 6.1Google Scholar; Bossert, H. T., Asia (Istanbul, 1946), 24Google Scholar; Page (n. 23), 108; Huxley (n. 23), 4–5 (no. 9), 37–8; Houwink ten Cate (n. 29), 72 n. 99; id., ‘Contact between the Aegean region and Anatolia in the second millennium B.C.’, in Crossland, R. A. and Birchall, A. (eds), Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean (London, 1973), 151Google Scholar; Carruba, O., ‘Über historiographische und philologische Methoden in der Hethitologie’, Orientalia, 40 (1971), 214Google Scholar; Laroche, E., Catalogue des textes hittites (Paris, 1971), 25 (no. 183)Google Scholar; Jewell (n. 33), 286, 338; Hooker, J. T., Mycenaean Greece (Boston, 1976), 125 (no. 6)Google Scholar; Košak, S., ‘The Hittites and the Greeks’, Linguistica, 20 (1980), 41Google Scholar; Easton (n. 25), 192; Marazzi, M., ‘Gli “Achei” in Anatolia: un problema di metodologia’, in Marazzi, M., Tusa, S., and Vagnetti, L. (eds), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica (Taranto, 1986), 397. 398Google Scholar; Smit (n. 33), 53, 59; Bryce, , OJA 8 (n. 45), 299–300Google Scholar; Ünal (n. 45), 20 (no. 12), 30; Ünal (pers. comm., 13 Jan. 1994). I am grateful to O. R. Gurney, J. Klinger, and A. Ünal for their thoughts on the dating of this text.

⁴⁸ The above transliterations and translations follow Sommer (n. 47), 268; Hagenbüchner, A., Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter (Heidelberg, 1989), 319–20 (no. 219)Google Scholar; Ünal (n. 45), 20 (no. 12), 30; cf. also Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53.

⁴⁹ Ünal (n. 45), 20. See also Huxley (n. 23), 5, 38, for a similar, yet opposite, conclusion reached thirty years previously, in which he argued for the Mycenaean king following in the footsteps of the Hittites and destroying the remnants of the Aššuwan alliance; cf. also outdated comments by Page (n. 23), 108.

⁵⁰ Hansen, 214.

⁵¹ Cf. Sommer (n. 47), 314–19, pl. 8.1; Güterbock, H. G., ‘The Hittites and the Aegean World, 1: the Ahhiyawa problem reconsidered’, AJA 87 (1983), 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easton (n. 25), 189, 194; Bryce, , Historia, 38 (n. 45), 10Google Scholar; id., OJA 8 (n. 45), 303.

⁵² Goetze, A., Madduwattas (Leipzig, 1928)Google Scholar; Sommer (n. 47), 329–49, pl. 9; Otten, H., Sprachliche Stellung und Datierung des Madduwatta-Textes (Wiesbaden, 1969)Google Scholar; Heinhold-Krahmer, S., Arzawa: Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen (Heidelberg, 1977), 255–75Google Scholar; Bryce, T. R., ‘Madduwatta and Hittite policy in western Anatolia’, Historia, 35 (1986), 1–12.Google Scholar

⁵³ Compare especially Mellink, M. J., ‘Postscript’, in Mellink, M. J. (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War (Bryn Mawr, 1986), 95–6Google Scholar; Vermeule (n. 26), 85; cf. also Webster, T. B. L., From Mycenae to Homer (London, 1958), 121–2.Google Scholar Note that Güterbock and Bryce, in addition to Vermeule and Mellink, have previously proposed hypotheses regarding Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia during the 15th and early 14th cents. BC; in addition to the references above, cf. Güterbock, H. G., ‘Hittites and Akhaeans: a new look’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 128 (1984), 114–22Google Scholar; id. (n. 51), 133–8; Bryce, , Historia, 38 (n. 45), 12Google Scholar; id., OJA 8 (n. 45), 307; Mellink, M. J., ‘The Hittites and the Aegean world, 2: archaeological comments on Ahhiyawa–Achaians in western Anatolia’, AJA 87 (1983), 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vermeule, E. T., ‘The Hittites and the Aegean world, 3: response to Hans Güterbock’, AJA 87 (1983), 142–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ See now Buchholz (n. 6), 28–30, 32, who briefly reiterates the evidence for Hittite-Mycenaean interactions on the western coast of Anatolia, concluding that the new sword lends credence to the hypothesis of a Mycenaean presence, probably in the form of Mycenaean warriors in this area, most probably in the region of Panaztepe.

⁵⁵ The two joining sherds from this bowl were found in a late 15th–early 14th cent. BC level at Hattušas—a context which may well correlate with the reign of Tudhaliya II; cf. Bittel, K., ‘Tonschale mit Ritzzeichnung von Boğazköy’, RA (1976), 9–14 and figs. 1–3Google Scholar; Güterbock (n. 53), 115 and fig. 6. For the Aegean parallels, found e.g. on the Miniature Fresco at Akrotiri on Thera, on a marble slab depicting the head of a warrior at Ayia Irini on Kea, and on various additional objects in sundry materials, cf. Caskey, J. L., ‘Excavations in Keos, 1964–1965’, Hesperia, 35 (1966), 375, pl. 90 bCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borchhardt, J., Homerische Helme (Mainz, 1972), passimGoogle Scholar; Morgan, L., The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge, 1988), 109–15 and fig. 64, pls 151–8 and 173–7.Google Scholar Conversely, a locally made Mycenaean sherd at Miletus is decorated with a drawing of what might be a Hittite cap/helmet, showing that the Mycenaeans may well have been aware of Hittite military or ceremonial regalia; cf. Weickert, C., ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957, III: der Westabschnitt’, Ist. Mitt. 9–10 (1960), 65 and pl. 72.1Google Scholar; Güterbock (n. 53), 115 and fig. 5.

⁵⁶ Cf. Blegen, C. W., Caskey, J. L., and Rawson, M., Troy III (Princeton, 1953), 256, 278–9, 297–8, 301–2Google Scholar; Jewell (n. 33), 170, 172; Mee, C., ‘Aegean trade and settlement in Anatolia in the second millennium BC’, Anat. St. 28 (1978), 127, 130Google Scholar; Vermeule (n. 53), 142–3; ead. (n. 26), 85, 87–8; Mellink, ‘Postscript’ (n. 53), 94; ead. (n. 37), 13; Ersoy (n. 37), 55–82, pl. 5; Ertekin and Ediz (n. 3), 722; Buchholz (n. 6), 28–32; Salvini and Vagnetti (n. 6), 220, 225, and fig. 4 a.

⁵⁷ Recorded in Proclus, Chrest. i; cf. discussion in Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 97; Kullmann, W., Die Quellen der Ilias (Wiesbaden, 1960), 189–203.Google Scholar Achilles—and Ajax too—later went raiding in this area again, during the Trojan war.

⁵⁸ Kullmann (n. 57), 189–203; Clark, M. E., ‘Neoanalysis: a bibliographical review’, Classical World, 79.6 (1986), 379, 382–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is well known that a few elements in Homer's Iliad predate the traditional setting of the Trojan war, perhaps by as much as several centuries. Examples usually cited include the warrior Ajax and his use of a tower shield (cf. Il. vii. 219–20; xi. 485; xvii. 128), which had been replaced long before the 13th cent. BC; the use of ‘silver-studded’ swords (φάσγανον ἀργυροήλονor ξίφος ἀργυροήλον cf. Il. ii. 45; iii. 361; vii. 303–4); and perhaps even the figures of Idomeneus, Meriones, and Odysseus. Yet another example may be the story of Bellerophon (Il. vi. 178–240), a Greek hero possibly dating from before the Trojan war, who was sent to Lycia by Proteus, king of Tiryns, and eventually awarded a kingdom in Anatolia by Iobates, father-in-law of Proteus. However, according to the ‘Neoanalysis School’, which goes a step further, a number of the stories, details, and entire episodes found within the Iliad may actually be taken from, or be imitations of, other epic cycles which originally dealt with events from an era before the Trojan war. Cf. full references given by Clark (above) in an extensive review of relevant ‘Neoanalytical’ bibliography up to 1986. Note that Vermeule, E. T., ‘Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Age’, PCPS 213 (1987), 122, 131Google Scholar has also suggested that there might be ‘a body of Bronze Age poetry pardy embodied in major Greek epic’. Morris, S. P., ‘A tale of two cities: the miniature frescoes from Thera and the origins of Greek poetry’, AJA 93 (1989), 534CrossRefGoogle Scholar (cf. also 515–22, 531–3, and fig. 4), has also recently intimated that the LM I A Thera frescoes might provide evidence that small, ship-borne Achaean expeditions to the Anatolian coast were taking place even earlier, perhaps as far back as the 17th–16th cents. BC. While one may disagree with Morris's identification of the coastline in question as that of Anatolia, it is clear that there were tales of epic adventure circulating in the Aegean already during the 17th 16th cents. BC, and that such tales found expression in art as well as literature.

⁵⁹ Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 97 and n. 1; cf. Wood (n. 33), 22, 206.

⁶⁰ Cf. Gurney (n. 28), 107 and map 1; Macqueen (n. 33), 38–9 and fig. 21; Bryce, , Historia, 38 (n. 45), 21 and map 1Google Scholar; also Del Monte and Tischler (n. 27), 53, and maps in Wood (n. 33), 179, 182; contra Garstang and Gurney (n. 33), 97 and map 1.

⁶¹ An alternative tradition, mentioned by both Apollodorus (ii. 6. 4) and Diodorus (iv. 32), held that Herakles had 18, rather than 6 ships under his command when he raided Troy, with 50 rowers in each—giving a total of 900 men, hardly a ‘scanty’ contingent. Note that Herakles’ expedition against Troy is depicted on the east pediment of the Temple of Aphaia on Aegina; cf Hiller, S., ‘Two Trojan wars? On the destructions of Troy VIh and VIIa’, Studia Troica, i (1991), 145Google Scholar; Woodford, S., The Trojan war in Ancient Art (London, 1993), 46–8 and figs. 1–2.Google Scholar Cf also discussions in Nilsson, M. P., The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley, 1932), 196–8Google Scholar; Webster (n. 53), 125 6; Andrews, P. B. S., ‘The falls of Troy in Greek tradition’, Greece and Rome, 12 (1965), 28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schachermeyer, F., Die ägäische Frühzeit, v: Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Vienna, 1982), 93–112Google Scholar; Vermeule, E. T., Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, 1972), 275–6Google Scholar; ead. (n. 53), 142–3; ead. (n. 26), 87–8; Bloedow, E., ‘The Trojan war and Late Helladic III c’, PZ 63 (1988), 48–51Google Scholar; Hiller (above), 145–8, 150–3. Vermeule has suggested that evidence for such an attack might be seen in the ‘vigorous housecleaning’ visible in House VI F at Troy, while Bloedow has hypothesized that this ‘so-called First Trojan War’ might rather be seen in the destruction of Troy VIh.

⁶² Cf. Grote, G., History of Greece, i (London, 1846), 388–9, 396–7Google Scholar; Andrews (n. 61), 28–37. Finley, M. I. (The World of Odysseus (New York, 1956), 46)Google Scholar, among others, has suggested that there were ‘many “Trojan” wars’; cf. also the discussion in Webster (n. 53), 116–17, 120, 125–6.

⁶³ Page (n. 23), 102–12; Huxley (n. 23), 32–45; Bryce (n. 23), 30–2; cf. summary of redating by Easton (n. 23), 30–4.

⁶⁴ Hansen, 215. As noted above, in linking the Aššuwa rebellion with the Trojan war, Hansen has erroneously revived a hypothesis held by scholars prior to the redating of the texts documenting the Aššuwa rebellion; such a hypothesis can no longer be held valid.

⁶⁵ Bloedow (n. 61).

⁶⁶ Cf. Grote (n. 62), 120–5, 210–20; also discussions by Huxley (n. 23), 49; Bryce, , Historia, 38 (n. 45), 13Google Scholar; Bernal, M., Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation, ii: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (New Brunswick, NJ, 1991), 452–6, 459Google Scholar; Zangger (n. 30), 160. Perhaps most important is the legendary connection of the Atreid dynasty at Mycenae with Anatolia. According to Thucydides (i. 9. 2), Pelops, father of Atreus, came to Greece from Asia. We may also notice that Pindar (Ol. i. 24) refers to ‘the Lydian Pelops’, while Pausanias (v. 1. 7) refers to ‘Pelops the Lydian, who crossed over from Asia’. As noted above, the name ‘Asia’, which refers to Lydia in its earliest attestations by Greek authors and was later extended to include most of west Anatolia, is thought to derive from the Hittite name ‘Aššuwa’. It may be of further interest to note that Pelops is specifically connected with chariotry and that the name of the charioteer in Pelops’ famous race against Oenomaos, Myrtilos, is perhaps paralleled by the Hittite royal name Muršili; cf. Paus. v. 10. 6–7; vi. 20. 17; viii. 14. 10–12. In addition, according to the later Greeks (cf. Strabo viii. 6. 11; Apollod, ii. 1. 4; ii. 2. 1–2; ii. 4. 1; ii. 4. 4; Paus. ii. 16. 2–3; ii. 25. 7–8), bronze age Tiryns had legendary links to Anatolia through Proteus’ Lycian wife Antia/Stheneboea and their hybrid son Megapenthes, but was then ruled by Perseus, who was of mixed Egyptian and Greek descent and who had also been the original founder of Mycenae. Bronze age Argos, which had been originally taken over by the Egyptian Danaos, was later ruled by this same Megapenthes, who was of mixed Lycian, Egyptian, and Greek descent. It is of interest to note that there were other, related traditions linking bronze age Tiryns and Lycia [Lukka?] in particular, such as the story of Bellerophon. (On Lycia and bronze age Lukka, which may be the first name on Tudhaliya II's list of Aššuwan towns and districts, cf. now Mellink, M. J., ‘Homer, Lycia, and Lukka’, in Carter, J. B. and Morris, S. P. (eds), The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin, 1995), 33–43Google Scholar, with earlier bibliography.)

⁶⁷ Cf. Zangger (n. 30), 253–4, for a similar suggestion concerning an alliance between Mycenaeans and Aššuwa, but at a time prior to the Aššuwa rebellion, and with the intended purpose (and successful result) of destroying the ‘Minoan empire’ some time between 1450 and 1400 BC. (It should be noted that data, references, and ideas concerning Aššuwa and the Aegean were exchanged between Zangger and the present author via email communications in the autumn of 1993 during our simultaneous, yet independent and ultimately dissimilar, investigations into this topic.) Unfortunately, Zangger's hypothesis is not supported by the evidence provided and is further hindered by its dependence upon a dubious recent ‘translation’ of the Phaistos Disk; cf. J. Best and Woudhuizen, F., Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus (Leiden, 1988), 57–8, 79, 82Google Scholar; Woudhuizen, F., The Language of the Sea Peoples (Amsterdam, 1992), ix, xi, 11–41 (esp. 36–7), 76–7Google Scholar; Smit (n. 33), 49–62; all cited and discussed by Zangger (n. 30), 57, 61–4, 253–4. Although there may indeed have been an alliance between Mycenaeans and Aššuwa during the 15th cent. BC, as the present paper also argues, it seems unlikely that such an alliance originally came about for the express purpose of destroying the ‘Minoan empire’, as Zangger has hypothesized. It is a shame, for the existence of such an earlier alliance would have provided an additional explanation as to why Mycenaean mercenaries may have been willing to fight on behalf of Aššuwa against the Hittite empire c.1430 BC.

⁶⁸ Bryce (n. 23), 32 (cf. also 30–1 with earlier bibliography); also Albright, W. F., ‘some Oriental glosses on the Homeric Problem’, AJA 54 (1950), 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huxley (n. 23), 31–6. Cf. also Bryce (n. 23), 31, in connection with Hansen's unlikely discussion (215 n. 14) of the Hittites as Amazons.

⁶⁹ Contra Hansen, 214, who suggested that the Trojans were allied with the Hittites against the Mycenaeans.

⁷⁰ Cf. Vermeule (n. 61), 275–6; ead. (n. 53), 142–3; ead. (n. 26), 87–8. On the date of Troy VIf and the Mycenaean pottery found within cf. Blegen et al. (n. 56), 19 and passim; Mee (n. 56), 146–7; id., ‘The Mycenaeans and Troy’, in Foxhall, L. and Davies, J. K. (eds), The Trojan war: Its Historicity and Context (Bristol, 1984), 45Google Scholar; Hiller (n. 61), 152.

⁷¹ Blegen et al. (n. 56), 15–17 and passim; Blegen, G. W., Troy and the Trojans (London, 1963), 37Google Scholar; most recently Allen, S. H., ‘Trojan Grey Ware at Tel Miqne-Ekron’, BASOR 293 (1994), 39–51Google Scholar, with bibliography.

⁷² On Bellerophon's descendants as Trojan allies cf. Il. ii. 876–7; vi. 152–211; on the various tales surrounding Paris’ visit to Menelaos cf. the Cypria and Hdt. ii. 113–17, also Graves, R., The Greek Myths, ii (New York, 1960), 268–78Google Scholar with further references.

⁷³ See Cline (n. 31), 68–74.