Letter from a king of Hatti (probably
Hattusili III) to a king of Ahhiyawa—
The “Tawagalawa Letter” (CTH 181)
Traditionally called the “Tawagalawa Letter,” this third and probably final tablet
of a long diplomatic dispatch from a Hittite Great King—probably Hattusili III—
to his unnamed counterpart in Ahhiyawa is actually very little concerned with
this eponymous individual. A far more important role in the relations between
the two countries is played by Piyamaradu, a freebooter who enters greater Hatti
to cause trouble, rebuffs the friendly overtures of the Hittite monarch, and then
withdraws to land controlled by Ahhiyawa. Here the Hittite king asks that his
correspondent use his influence either to assure Piyamaradu of his own good
intentions or to deny the latter the use of Ahhiyawan territory as a base of operations. Incidentally, we learn that an earlier dispute between Hatti and Ahhiyawa
over the land of Wilusa has now been settled amicably
The document commonly referred to by scholars as the “Tawagalawa Letter” was written by a Hittite king to his Ahhiyawan counterpart. In it, the writer complains of the activities of a renegade Hittite subject Piyamaradu, who had been raiding Hittite vassal territory in western Anatolia and stirring up resistance against his overlord; the addressee of the document had apparently given tacit support to these activities, and granted Piyamaradu refuge in Ahhiyawan territory, to prevent his falling into Hittite hands. Neither the author’s nor the addressee’s name is preserved in what remains of the document—only the third of the three tablets which once made it up. Most scholars assign authorship to Hattusili III, thus 120 the ahhiyawa texts giving the document a mid-thirteenth century date, though O. R. Gurney in an article published posthumously (2002) has revived an earlier view that Muwattalli II, brother and predecessor-but-one of Hattusili, was the king in question. (We shall, however, assume for the sake of the discussion below that it was Hattusili.) Similarly, we do not know the identity of the Ahhiyawan king. The text does, however, refer to his brother Tawagalawa, who had apparently come to western Anatolia to receive and transport to Ahhiyawan territory local rebels who had sought protection from Hittite authority. (“Tawagalawa” is commonly assumed to represent the Greek name Eteokles, Mycenaean E-te-wo-ke-le-we). But as Itamar Singer first pointed out (1983), the document makes only brief reference to Tawagalawa and is much more concerned with its author’s list of complaints against Piyamaradu. The letter mildly rebukes the Ahhiyawan king for the support he has given Piyamaradu in the past, but its main purpose is to win Ahhiyawan cooperation in curbing the renegade’s anti-Hittite activities in the future. This accounts for its author’s largely conciliatory tone. Hattusili refers to an ultimately unsuccessful campaign he had conducted in the west. At the point where the broken text begins, he claims that he had marched to the west to quell an uprising in the Lukka lands, where loyalties appear to have been divided; some of the Lukka people had appealed to Tawagalawa and had been brought to him by Piyamaradu, presumably to arrange relocation in Ahhiyawan territory; others who had apparently been forcibly removed from their homeland by Piyamaradu had appealed to their Hittite overlord to rescue them. Gurney (1997) proposed that the events referred to here are those also attested in the fragmentary remains of Hattusili’s Annals, which refer to a major rebellion in Lukka. In any case, it is clear from the letter that Piyamaradu was seen as the fomenter and leader of the anti-Hittite movements in the west and was the chief target of the Hittites’ western campaign on this and probably other occasions. An attempted diplomatic settlement with him, initiated by Hattusili through his envoys while he was already on the march westwards, came to nothing when Piyamaradu allegedly quibbled over peace terms and remained defiant. His forces were eventually flushed out of a stronghold called Iyalanda after putting up vigorous resistance to their attackers, but Piyamaradu himself escaped capture and fled to Millawanda. The Hittite king pursued him to Millawanda, but entered its territory only after Piyamaradu had refused his demand to give himself up. This prompted Hattusili to send an appeal to the Ahhiyawan king, who allegedly responded by ordering Millawanda’s local ruler Atpa (Piyamaradu’s son-in-law) to hand over the renegade (§5). But when Hattusili entered Millawanda, Piyamaradu had already gone, taking flight from Millawanda by ship. He reestablished himself in Ahhiyawan territory, presumably on one of the islands controlled by the Ahhiyawan king off the western coast of Anatolia—beyond the reach of the Hittites, AhT 4 121 but close enough to continue his attacks on Hittite territory once Hattusili’s forces had left the area. Hence Hattusili’s approach now to the Ahhiyawan king. He suggested three courses of action the Ahhiyawan might take: a) persuade Piyamaradu to surrender to the Hittite authorities; b) allow him to stay in Ahhiyawan territory, on the clear understanding that he would remain there and engage in no further anti-Hittite activities; c) compel him to move to another country, taking his family and retinue with him (§12). The outcome of Hattusili’s appeal is unknown. But it is unlikely, in view of subsequent events, that Ahhiyawan support of anti-Hittite activities in western Anatolia was in any way curtailed by the appeal. If anything, the Ahhiyawan king and his successor(s) continued to strengthen their influence in the region. Of particular significance is the fact that by this time Millawanda had become Ahhiyawan territory. That is evident from Hattusili’s negotiations with his Ahhiyawan counterpart over Piyamaradu after the latter had fled to Millawanda, and from the fact that the local ruler of Millawanda at the time, Atpa, was clearly subject to the Ahhiyawan king’s authority. We have seen that Mursili II had firmly reasserted Hittite sovereignty over Millawanda in his third regnal year (ca. 1319) after it had unsuccessfully sought to align itself with Ahhiyawa. But subsequently, it had come under Ahhiyawan control, perhaps during the reign of Mursili’s successor Muwattalli II (ca. 1295–1272), and perhaps with Muwattalli’s agreement as he sought to stabilize affairs in the west before his showdown with the Egyptians in Syria. Archaeological evidence indicates a significant Mycenaean presence in Millawanda in this period. That ties in well with the textual evidence that indicates the consolidation of Ahhiyawan political control over this important western Anatolian territory. Millawanda was henceforth to serve as the base for the further spread of Ahhiyawan/Mycenaean influence on the mainland. It was in fact to remain the only major center of Ahhiyawan power on the Anatolian mainland. The letter provides us with some interesting information about earlier relations between its author and its recipient. Hostilities had apparently broken out between them over the country called Wilusa (§§12–13), which lay in northwestern Anatolia. (We shall have more to say about Wilusa below.) This is the only occasion in the Ahhiyawa corpus where there is a reference to what appears to have been direct conflict between Hatti and Ahhiyawa. In all other cases, hostile action by Ahhiyawa against Hatti appears to have been limited to support for the activities of local insurrectionists like Piyamaradu. However, we do not know what the nature or the scale of the hostilities was on this occasion, whether it amounted to outright war, a skirmish or two, or merely a verbal dispute conducted through diplomatic channels. (The verb ku-ru-ri-iñ-ñu-e-en used in this context could mean any of these things.) In any case, if Hattusili’s claim that he was young at the time can be taken at face value, it may indicate that the episode 122 the ahhiyawa texts in question occurred early in his regnal career, or perhaps even during the reign of his brother Muwattalli. Already at that time Hattusili exercised considerable political and military authority within the Hittite kingdom. We should also note the significance of Hattusili’s regular references to his Ahhiyawan counterpart as a “Great King,” and as “my brother,” “my peer” (e.g., §6). These terms were not used lightly in international royal terminology. In the Near Eastern context, “Great Kingship” was confined to the rulers of Hatti, Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni and (after Mitanni’s fall) Assyria. And only “Great Kings” addressed their peers as “my brother.” Thus the Ahhiyawan king is accorded by Hattusili a status that must have far exceeded his actual importance in the Near Eastern world in general, particularly when compared to the pharaoh of Egypt and the rulers of Mesopotamia, from whom there is not a single reference to a king or kingdom of Ahhiyawa. The Ahhiyawan king of the Tawagalawa letter was but one of a number of rulers of the small kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age Greek world, albeit one whose territory included islands off the Anatolian mainland and a major base on the mainland. From Hattusili’s point of view, he had become an important participant in the Near Eastern scene, to the extent that he warranted acknowledgement as a Great King and royal brother—terminology that implied full diplomatic equality between the two kings, and might serve a useful purpose in the Hittite’s attempts to win over a man whose cooperation he was so anxious to secure. Indeed the “Great King” tag for the Ahhiyawan ruler appears to have survived in Hittite records for some time, perhaps until it was struck out of diplomatic parlance during the drafting of Tudhaliya IV’s treaty with Shaushga-muwa of Amurru.
Κείμενο[]
[ … ] went and destroyed the town of Attarimma. He burned it down together with the fortified royal compound. [Then] when the people of Lukka appealed to Tawagalawa, he went to those lands. They likewise appealed to me, so that I came down to those lands. When I arrived in the town of Sallapa, he (Piyamaradu) sent a man to meet me, (with the message): “Take me into (your) service! Send the Crown Prince to bring me to Your Majesty!” I sent the Crown Prince to him: “Go set him on the chariot with you in order to bring him here.” But [that one] squelched the Crown Prince and refused. But isn’t the Crown Prince the social equal of the King? He held his hand, but in response he refused. He belittled him before the lands. And on top of this he said: “Bestow kingship on me here on the spot! If not, I will not come.”
§2 (i 16–31) But when I arrived in the town of Waliwanda, I sent to him:
“If you desire my dominion—because I am now coming to the town of Iyalanda,
let me not find any of your men in Iyalanda. You shall not allow anyone back
in, nor become involved in my domain. I will look after my subjects [myself]!”
But when [I arrived] in Iyalanda, the enemy engaged me in battle in three places.
[These places] were rough terrain. I ascended on foot [and] fought the enemy
[there]. The population there [ … ] But his brother Lahurzi [set] an ambush for
me. Just inquire, my brother, if this isn’t so. Wasn’t [Lahurzi] in the battle? Didn’t
I encounter him [in] the territory of Iyalanda? [But he left there] in accordance
with his candid statement about Iyalanda: “I will not go to Iyalanda [again].”
§3 (i 32–34) I, Great King, have sworn that these things about which I have written to you (indeed) took place. May the Storm-God listen, [and] may [the (other) gods] listen to how these things [happened].
§4 (i 35–52) When [I had destroyed] the land of Iyalanda, seeing as I had destroyed the entire land, I left [there] the single fortress of Atriya out of concern for the town of [ … ] Then I came [back] up [to Iyalanda. While] I was [in] the land of Iyalanda, I destroyed [ … ] the entire land. [But] to the civilian captives [ … ] When there was no more water [ … ] My forces [were small … ] I did not pursue [ … ] I came up [ … ] If [ … ] not back [ … ] In the town of Aba[ … ] And [I wrote to Piyamaradu] in Millawanda: “Come here to me!” [And to … ] on(?) the border I wrote: “I have lodged a complaint against him in this matter, that Piyamaradu keeps attacking this [territory] of mine.” Does [my] brother [know] it or not?
§5 (i 53–ii 8) But when [the messenger of] my brother met me, he did not bring me [any greetings] or any gift. He just spoke [as follows]: “He has written to Atpa: ‘Turn [Piyamaradu] over to the King of Hatti!’” [ … ] Then I went to Millawanda; I went because of this matter: “May the subjects of my brother hear the words [that] I will speak to Piyamaradu.” Then Piyamaradu departed by ship, while Atpa and Awayana listened to the charges that I made against him. Why are they covering up the matter—because he is their father-in-law? I made them take an oath that they would report the whole business to you. Didn’t I send over the Crown Prince (saying): “Go drive over there, take him by the hand, set him on the chariot [with] you in order to bring him here before me”? He refused. When Tawagalawa himself, (as the representative of?) the Great King, crossed over to Millawanda, Kurunta was [already(?)] here. The Great King drove to meet you—wasn’t he a mighty king? Didn’t he [travel(?) … ] under a pledge of safe-conduct? Why did he not [meet(?)] me? If he says this: “I feared an assassination plot”—didn’t I send my son, the Crown Prince, to meet him? I instructed him: “Go swear an oath for him, take him by the hand, and bring him before me.” As for the assassination plot about which he was afraid—is bloodshed permissible in Hatti? It is not!
§6 (ii 9–50) But when the messenger of my brother said to me: “Take that
person; don’t [ … ] him,” I said this: “If some [ … ] or my brother had spoken
to me, I would have heard his [ … ] word. But now my brother, a Great King,
my peer, has written to me—should I not listen to the word of my [peer]?”
And
I myself drove out [to … ]
If [ … ], my brother would once more have said:
- “He hasn’t listened to my [message]; he hasn’t accommodated me.”
Would I have not in reply asked my brother this:
- “Did [ … ] comply?”
I actually went, and when I set foot there, I said to Atpa:
- “Because [ … ] sent to you: ‘Go take him to the
King [of Hatti],’ bring him here.
Then without hesitation he wiped out the [ … ]
command. He will without hesitation [again(?)] wipe out the command. [And if
he says]: ‘I am afraid,’ I am ready to send a nobleman, or I’ll send a brother. Let
[this person] remain in his place (as a hostage).
But he still kept saying: ‘I continue to be afraid.’”
Then Atpa said to me: “O, Your Majesty, give a hand to the
heir!” [ … ] gave to that one. Then with that [ … ] If [ … ] had done much [ … ],
I would have left [him] alone under a guarantee. Then I made [Atpa] swear an
oath [to me] and gave him a hand, [saying to him]: “I will place you [ … ] I
will [ … ] the matter to you. [ … ] I will place. [I will write(?)] about it to [my]
brother, the King of Ahhiyawa.” [But] he refused [ … ] my dead, down [ … ]
the towns of Himusa and Dahdahhu [ … ] Kingship to me [ … ]
(lines ii 41–50 too fragmentary for translation)
§7 (ii 51–54) But that person’s man [ … ] the matter [ … ] Because his household [ … ] and my oaths [ … ] someone because of the matter, before [ … ] some deity will [ … ] him in favor.
§8 (ii 55–iii 6) And yet again, out of consideration for my brother, [I have
done] nothing at all. [And if] my brother should perhaps complain: “[I will go]
to the King [of Hatti] so that he might send me on my way,” I have herewith
sent Tapala-Tarhunta, the charioteer. Tapala-Tarhunta is not a person of low
rank: (even) in (my) youth he mounted the chariot with me, and as a charioteer he often mounted [the chariot] with your brother Tawagalawa. And [have
I not offered … ] Piyamaradu a pledge of safe-conduct? In Hatti (the practice
of) safe-conduct is as follows: If they send bread [and] beer(?) to someone, they
may inflict no harm upon him. In (the spirit of) safe-conduct, I brought these
things, (saying):
- “Come! Give me an explanation and I will send you on your
way. And when I send you on your way, I will write about it to my brother. If
you are satisfied, let it be! If you are not satisfied, then my man will take you to
Ahhiyawa just as you(!) came. If that’s not acceptable, then let this charioteer
remain (as a hostage) in your(!) place, while you(!) come and return there.”
Who is this charioteer? Because he has married into the Queen’s family—and
in Hatti the family of the Queen is very important—isn’t he more than an in-law
to me? Let him remain in his place while he comes and returns. Take care of
him, my brother, and let your [man] bring him.
Convey my trustworthy pledge
of safe-conduct to him as follows: “Do not cause any further offense to His Majesty! [ … ]”
I will turn [him] loose again, and [ … ] will [ … ] him. [My brother
should know that] I will send him on his way.
§9 (iii 7–21) But if he doesn’t [accept(?) these (words of assurance)], then, my brother, make [ … ] of its [ … ] Many civilian captives have slipped across to your(!) [territory], and you, my brother, have [taken(?)] 7000 civilian captives from me. My man will come and you, my brother, must line up your noblemen! Because he, with force, brought [ … ] Then, my brother, [ … ] And my man shall be present. [If … ] he says: “I came as a fugitive,” he shall remain there. [But if he says]: “He compelled me,” then [he shall return(?)] If [ … ] (lines iii 22–37 too fragmentary for translation)
§10a (iii 38–51) [ … ] they march back in [ … ] with whom he is angry [ … ] keeps allowing in [ … ] it belongs [to …]-ili. §9 (iii 7–21) But if he doesn’t [accept(?) these (words of assurance)], then, my brother, make [ … ] of its [ … ] Many civilian captives have slipped across to your(!) [territory], and you, my brother, have [taken(?)] 7000 civilian captives from me. My man will come and you, my brother, must line up your noblemen! Because he, with force, brought [ … ] Then, my brother, [ … ] And my man shall be present. [If … ] he says: “I came as a fugitive,” he shall remain there. [But if he says]: “He compelled me,” then [he shall return(?)] If [ … ]
(lines iii 22–37 too fragmentary for translation)
§11 (iii 52–62) Further, he keeps saying this [ … ]: “I will cross over to the land of Masa or the land of Karkiya, but I will leave behind here the civilian captives, my(!) wife, children, [and] household.” Will it (indeed) be like this plan? While he leaves behind his wife, children, and household in my brother’s land, will your land support him? This person keeps attacking my territory. But if I … it to him, he returns to your land. Do you approve, my brother? Did you now [ … ] this?
§12 (iii 63–iv 15) O, my brother, write to him this one thing, if nothing (else): “Get up and go off to Hatti. Your lord has reconciled with you. If not, then come over to Ahhiyawa, and in whatever location I settle you, [ … ] Get up [and] resettle in [another] location. So long as you are hostile to the King of Hatti, be hostile from another land! Do not be hostile from my land. If you(!) would rather be in Karkiya or Masa, go there. The King of Hatti has persuaded me about the matter of the land of Wilusa concerning which he and I were hostile to one another, and we have made peace. Now(?) hostility is not appropriate between us.” [Send that] to him. If you/he were [to … ] Millawanda, then my servants would flee en masse to that [ … ] one. And, my brother, I have [ … ] over against the land of Millawanda.
§13 (iv 16–26) [ … ] Piyamaradu [ … ] And to me, my brother, in the matter [ … ] Send it to me. And concerning the matter [of Wilusa] about which we were hostile—[because we have made peace], what then? If [a certain ally] confesses an offense before his ally, [because he confesses] the offense before his [ally], he does not reject [him. Because] I have confessed [my offense] before my brother, [ … And] let it [ … ] no further to my brother.
§14 (iv 27–31) And if [my] brother [ … ], then send(?) back to me [ … ] while the [ … ] of my servant [ … ] rejects [ … ] and them(?) to the population [ … ]
§15 (iv 32–57) But my brother already [wrote to me as follows: “ … ] You have used force against me.” [But I was still] young. If [ … ] I wrote, was [it] not [ … ]? If likewise to me [ … ] such [an utterance] comes from his(?) mouth [ … ], the troops will be angry [ … ] is crazy. And from that [ … ] he speaks. Why [will] I [ … ] them? Such an utterance [ … before] the Sun-God. If this utterance [is … ] for me, [ … ] I have used force. But now the message [of my brother that] came orally, came to the Great King [ … We will set] this legal dispute down before ourselves. You, [my brother], send me one of your servants. The one [who] brought you [that message]—that message is corrupted—I [will set] it (down) here separately. [And] let [that man] be beheaded. If your man has altered your message, let that man be beheaded [too]. Let them stew(?) [and … the head] that they cut off. And where will that bloodshed lead? Because your servant spoke [this (false) message], he alone [must die. If the message] did not come from your mouth, then the servant [ … ] it. Did he not determine it on your behalf? If [the Great King, my] peer, had spoken it, the servant would have [ … ] it. That message somehow once [ … ]