Wilusa

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Asia Minor in the 13th century BC The situation of Wiluša and neighboring states according to u. a. Strong and Hawkins

Wiluša is a West Minor Asian state of the late Bronze Age mentioned in Hittite texts . It is first mentioned around 1400 BC. BC (as Wilušiya , which research is mostly equated with Wiluša, even if an identity is not proven) and for the last time in the late 13th century BC. Mentioned. Wiluša came between 1294 and 1272 BC. BC, during the reign of Muwatalli II , as a vassal state under Hittite rule. A larger part of the research equates Wiluša with the Homeric Ilios / Troy or connects it with the late Bronze Age settlement layers on the Hisarlık Tepe in the Troad , but this equation is controversial and uncertain due to the imprecise and sometimes contradicting information in Hittite texts.

Classification of Wiluša in western Asia Minor geography

The location of Wiluša depends on the localization of other countries, because the Hittite (vassal) states attested in written sources are little more known than individual situation relationships. The latter is also the reason why the localizations of many other states, regions and places in Asia Minor were unclear and controversial for a long time and still are for many. As a result, even some larger states were localized very differently on maps of Asia Minor for the period of the Hittite Empire up to the 1980s, see also Hittite historical geography . The discovery of a bronze plaque in the Hittite capital Hattuša , published and evaluated in 1988 by Heinrich Otten , represents a significant advance, at least for the geography of the south and south-west of Asia Minor . It is the writing of a state treaty from the second half of the 13th century Century BC Between the great king Tudḫaliya IV. And Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša . Important for the reconstruction of the geopolitical situation at that time is the information on the borders of Tarḫuntašša, which bordered on the already safely localized Kizzuwatna to the east, on the Lukka countries , whose location was disputed until then, and their location in western South Asia Minor, roughly corresponding to the ancient landscape of Lycia , is now secured. The place Parḫa and the river Kaštariya mentioned in this connection in the State Treaty and their equation with the city of Perge and the river Kestros , attested in classical times , are of great importance. These identifications are now practically represented by all researchers.

A fragment of the annals (probably by Ḫattušili III ), in which Parḫa serves as the starting point for a campaign to Lukka , shows that the two areas are close. The identification of Lukkas is further strengthened by the hieroglyphic inscription from Yalburt , which deals with a campaign by Tudḫaliyas IV. In the Lukka lands, and mentions some cities that can be easily identified with cities of classical Lycia . So z. B. heth. Wiyanawanda / Winuwanda = ancient Greek Oinoanda , heth. Awarna = Aramaic 'WRN = lyk. Arñna (Greek Xanthos), heth. Talawa  = Lycian Tlawa = Ancient Greek Tlos and some others.

Classification of Wiluša in the Arzawa states

At its most important mention, Wiluša is counted among the (former) Arzawa countries. The Arzawa empire is from the 15th century BC. Well attested and used in the 14th century BC. BC, when it had risen to the leading power in Asia Minor for a time - during a period of weakness in the Hittite Empire - diplomatic contacts with Egypt, among others, as evidenced by some Amarna letters . Towards the end of the 14th century BC It was gradually conquered by Šuppiluliuma I and Mursili II . The former Arzawareich was then divided into small states in which vassal kings were installed. After this conquest, Arzawa no longer appears in the sources as an independent empire, only as the general name of its successor states. These vassal states included Mira-Kuwaliya (most likely including the core area of ​​the former Arzawareich), the Šeḫa river country, north of Mira, and Appawiya and Ḫapalla . After evaluating the above-mentioned inscriptions and the state treaty, the location of Tarḫuntašša in the south and Lukka in the south-west of Asia Minor is considered to be secure, only western Anatolia remains for the localization of Arzawa and its successor states (the Hittites are the Kaškäer , im Northeast and east the countries Azzi - Ḫajaša and Išuwa certainly attested).

The situation of Miras can to some extent be grasped by various sources. Thus, after the defeat of Arzawa, Oinoanda (cf. the above-mentioned equation with Wiyanawanda ) is documented as a border town of Miras, and that was already in the 14th century BC Chr. An inscription in the Latmos can probably be dated to the Great Empire due to the shape of the signs . The inscription does not contain a continuous text, but only individual groups of characters. A “man from Mira” (VIR REGIO Mi-ra / ia) and a “Grand Prince Kupaya” (MAGNUS.REX.FILIUS Ku-pa-ia) are mentioned. The identification of the Kupaya with the Kupantakurunta of Mira is possible, but not certain. A third fixed point results from the reading of the Karabel inscription from the 2nd half of the 13th century BC. By John David Hawkins : the text mentions a King Tarkasnawa of Mira after the Hawkins reading, which is largely accepted in research . But that Mira as early as the 14th century BC BC reached as far as the Karabel, is not documented by Hittite sources.

To the north, west or north-west of Mira, the Še Flussa river country probably joined. Mainly because of its name, people often wanted to locate it in one of the great river systems of the west, the great meander (modern: Büyük Menderes), the Hermos (Gediz Nehri) or the Kaïkos (Bakir Çayi). Most researchers today advocate a localization of Šeḫa in Hermostal, which seems to be the most likely solution. The area south of it should originally have belonged to the Arzawa core area. An equation of Apaša, the capital of Arzawa with Ephesus is therefore likely, if not completely certain.

It is not known how far Šeḫa extended south after the defeat of Arzawa. It is quite possible that Mira was initially the main beneficiary of the reorganization in the West. This does not mean, however, that the heartland of the former Arzawareich was necessarily completely incorporated into Mira and it does not rule out that later (in the 13th century BC) further shifts of the borders took place.

Due to the flight of Mašḫuiluwa , a ruler of Mira in the late 14th century BC. BC, in the land of Maša, a proximity of Miras to Maša is possible. The same applies to the flight of the Manapa-Tarḫunta from Šeḫa to Karkiša, which could indicate a proximity of Karkiša to the Šeḫa river country. For Šeḫa, an interest in events on Lazpa (with a high probability the island of Lesbos ) can be ascertained, so that a proximity to Wilusa is also possible. However, this does not necessarily imply that Šeḫa also included the Kaïkostal, as is sometimes said. For Šeḫa, and possibly also for Mira, a closeness, perhaps even a neighborhood, to Wiluša can be determined.

Sources on the location of Wiluša

This article or section needs to be revised: further sources must be at least briefly discussed here (chronologically!) Starting with the mention of Wilusiyas as part of the Aššuwa coalition in the annals of Tudhalija I / II., Which are briefly mentioned below is, but (also) belongs here so that the article is easier to understand.
Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The most important sources for a localization of Wiluša are:

Alakšandu Treaty (CTH 76)

In the Alakšandu Treaty, a neighborhood of Wiluša to the Land Maša can be established, since Muwatalli defeated the Land Maša and another, whose name has not been preserved, for Wiluša (§4). An earlier northern approach of the country Maša was based on the northern localization of countries like Lukka. The latter is no longer tenable today (see above).

Also from the Alakšandu contract (§ 8) a proximity to Arzawa (maybe this means Mira) and Šeḫa can be seen.

Another paragraph (§ 11) of the same treaty deals with the Alakšandu's military service obligations. Afterwards he is supposed to help the great king in campaigns that are carried out from Karkiša, Maša, Lukka and Waršiyalla. Since in the Hittite state treaties an army succession was often entered for neighboring countries of the contracting party, some researchers are convinced that Wiluša must have been near Lukkas (and the other countries). As a result, however, an equation with Troy would hardly be possible, since the Lukka countries can be shown to be in southwestern Anatolia. Other researchers attach little or no importance to this statement in the contract text for various reasons.

Manapa Tarḫunta Letter ( CTH 191)

The letter addressed by Manapa-Tarḫunta, a Hittite vassal king of the Šeḫa river country, to the Hittite great king - according to the prevailing opinion Muwatalli II. (Ruled approx. 1294–1272 BC) - is mentioned first (§ 3, lines 3–6 ) a Hittite campaign to Wiluša, which Manapa-Tarḫunta, although obliged to do so as a vassal, did not join because he was too sick. It is unclear whether the army moved further or back towards Wilušas after its stay in Šeḫa (the word EGIR-pa = appa = "again" or "back" - allows both translations). In the first case (the troops set off / continued to defeat Wiluša again (= again)) a location of Wiluša north of Šeḫa, i.e. also in the Troas, would be entirely plausible, since the Hittite army had to pass through Seha to reach it ; in the latter case (the troops withdrew to defeat Wilusa) not. Manapa-Tarḫunta then reports of a serious offense by the Arzawian rebel Pijamaradu , who apparently had occupied Šeha and put his son-in-law Atpa in front of Manapa-Tarḫunta. Furthermore, Pijamaradu attacked the island of Lazpa (very likely Lesbos ) and abducted or lured people there in the service of a deity, possibly purple dyers, who were indirectly subordinate to the Hittite king.

A larger part of the research assumes that the events described are related and that Pijamaradu would have attacked or occupied Wiluša as well and that Pijamaradu was the reason for the Hittites to intervene in Wiluša. In that case, Wiluša's proximity to Šeḫa and Lazpa would be very likely, and a position in the Troas entirely plausible. However, Pijamaradu is mentioned in the text of $ § 3–6. A temporal connection with his actions in Šeḫa and on Lazpa is also not mandatory, especially since Pijamaradu is first mentioned in line 7, which is clearly separated from line 6 by a paragraph and already belongs to § 4. Therefore, it is also possible that the Hittites' army march to Wiluša is not related to the actions of Pijamaradu and that Wiluša may have been in another region.

Milawata letter (CTH 182)

Finally, the Milawata letter could suggest that Wiluša is close to the domain of the unknown addressee, where the overthrown King Walmu of Wiluša is staying. This was not only a vassal of the Hittite great king, but also of the addressee. The recipient of the letter was ruler of Milawata (probably = Millawanda / Milet ) or of a Hittite vassal state bordering Milawata in the west, probably Mira. Research currently considers Tarkasnawa to be the most likely recipient of the Mira.

Other sources

In the ritual text KUB 15.38 Wiluša is mentioned again next to Karkiša and Maša, in addition Arzawa, Kuntara appear, which corresponds to the Talawa (probably Tlos ) , which can be assigned to the Lukka countries, and Iyalanti, which probably corresponds to the Iyalanda mentioned in other sources, which has not yet been reliably localized .

A verse rhyming with staves is handed down to the cult chants of the city of Ištanuwa , which according to some researchers mentions the name Wiluša.

So far not a Hittite period inscription has been found north of Hermos, which could be used for a more precise determination of western Asia Minor geography.

Source rating

The sources seem to contradict each other regarding the location of Wiluša. On the one hand, the proximity to possibly Šeḫa and Lazpa suggest a localization in northwestern Anatolia. A location of Wiluša in the northwest would not be a location of Wiluša in the Troas.

It should also be remembered that the extent of the land of Šeḫa at the time of Muwatalli II, i.e. at the time of the Manapa-Tarḫunta letter and the Alakšandu treaty, the most important sources, is not known, neither the northern nor the southern border are for certainly known this time.

A north-westerly location of Wiluša (possibly in the Troas) raises the question of where Maša and Karkiša are to be located.

The probability that the land of Maša, which bordered Wiluša, can be located in the south, has increased considerably due to the discovery of an inscription in Ḫattuša ( southern castle ). In this text the country Maša is mentioned together with the countries Lukka and Wiyanawanda, known from the Yalburt inscription, which are located in the Lycian region. The two countries Karkiša and Maša are therefore localized very differently on different maps (Karkiša e.g. in Caria or in Mysia ).

Likewise, in the Alakšandu Treaty, the country of Lukka, along with Karkiša and Maša, is named as the starting point of campaigns, which would also point to the south-west of Asia Minor.

The counter-arguments, namely when Lukkas is mentioned in the Alakšandu Treaty, the much broader, general term Lukka people is meant, seems due to the repeated grouping Maša, Karkiša, Lukka, as well as the mention of Lukkas and Mašas along with many other countries on the southern castle - Inscription not plausible. When listing individual countries, the general term Lukka would hardly be expected.

The argument that the repeated grouping Maša, Karkiša, Lukka is not due to geographical proximity is not valid because of the language of the Alakšandu Treaty, which speaks of campaigns “from that area” (apez KUR-eaz).

In view of the fact that Karkiša, Maša and Lukka can hardly be located north today, a northern location of Wiluša also loses plausibility.

The problems of a southern localization lie in the localization of the two vassal states Šeḫa and Mira. If one wants to locate Wiluša in the south, one has to assume that parts of the former Arzawakern area also fell to Šeḫa, so that this would have extended to about the meander . The sources can neither prove nor disprove this. As mentioned above, the extent of Šeḫa is rather unclear.

To equate Ilios - Wiluša and Tarwiša - Troy

An identity of Wilušiya and Wiluša is presumed. However, the localization of the country Tarwiša, mentioned only once, together with Wilušiya, strongly depends on the location of that country. An arrangement of the around 1400 BC The countries mentioned in the annals of Tudḫaliyas I (CTH 142), clockwise so that Wilušiya and Tarwiša are in the Troas, represents an interpretation.

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

The linguistic equations are also not very easy. Although the loss of a digamma (W) is according to the Greek law, the "s" would have to be retained if it were borrowed towards the end of the Bronze Age. At that time the s in Greek had already disappeared. See myk. ee-si / ehensi / <* h 1 sénti. The only option left is to use different suffixes to argue, which is at least theoretically possible. So z. B. the Anatolian suffix –usa, which is also otherwise known, has been replaced by the Greek suffix –ios. The same applies to the equation Troia - Tarwiša. A purely linguistic identification of the names is possible, but a few unassigned intermediate steps must be expected.

Egyptian sources for western Asia Minor geography

In the Egyptian reports on the Battle of Kadesch , in addition to the well-known countries Arzawa, Pitašša, Karkiša, Maša and Lukka, another country, Dardaniya, which is not known from Hittite sources, is mentioned. This name can now be brought together relatively easily with the ethnonym Dardanoi , known from the Iliad , which would point to the Troas after the name was used by Homer .

Propagating a situation in the Troad simply on the basis of the linguistic correspondence is not enough. For this purpose, there must be further indications of the situation of Dardaniya, which is currently not the case. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the Dardaniya region in the Hittite Empire was known under a different name. However, if one does not want to place both countries in the Troad, there is no convincing evidence to equate Dardaniya with Wiluša.

That in an Egyptian list of place names by Amenhotep III. The mentioned country Wjrj is probably not to be equated with Wiluša, since it does not fit into the geographical context.

Assignment of terms as identification of Troy with Wiluša

In the list of oaths of the Alakšandu treaty, the term DINGIR KASKAL.KUR. mentioned. Many scientists equated the term with underground watercourses. When an underground spring cave was finally excavated in Troia, which also exactly corresponded to the written information, further evidence of the identity of Troy and Wiluša was seen in it.

Meaning of KASKAL

The sumerogram ? (KASKAL) is used in various forms in the Akkadian and Hittite languages. A literal translation is not possible. In the Amarna letters of Aziru to Akhenaten the phrase ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ ANŠE.MEŠ at-ta-din a-na KASKAL ni Šu (“May you use the horses and donkeys for the great journey”). In this context, KASKAL refers to “the great way”. KASKAL is often mentioned in connection with striking borders and border routes. The type of border that is represented by paths, mountain passes, rivers or boundary stones is irrelevant.

Meaning of KUR

KUR is often used as a designation of the foreign country or a region, e.g. B. for KUR Danuna for the Adana region . Originally the term was intended by the Sumerians for the mountainous country in which unknown peoples lived and repeatedly immigrated as nomads. The horse, which was still unknown in Sumer, was given KUR.RA as an addition to its name and in the same way indicates an introduction from the mountainous region. The holy temple, which also stood on the mountain heights, was called E-KUR or E-GAL-KUR , which can be translated as “mountain house”, “large mountain house” or “mountain temple”. In these temples or palaces, sacrifices for the DINGIR KASKAL.KUR were regularly carried out, but without being limited to the mountain area.

Meaning of DINGIR KASKAL KUR

The small kingdom of Emar was in a vassal relationship to the Hittites and was commanded from the administrative seat of Karkamiš . Texts from the 13th century BC are from the Emar archive. In which the god DINGIR KASKAL.KUR.RA. MEŠ ŠA KIRI 6 E 2 GAL-li 3 ("God of the great palace on the mountain, who vouches for its confinement") is mentioned next to his female partner in connection with cult victims. Geographically, this god was responsible for the palace and palace garden, which in turn was surrounded by two rivers.

At other religious cult festivals, the same deities were also worshiped, who were invoked as oath gods even with field dimensions due to striking borders. In the story of Gilgamesh and Huwawa , this term is applied to a border river in the mountains, but without the God term DINGIR .

The mythological background goes back to the beginnings of the land of Sumer, in which the Sumerians started from the idea that the world was founded on underground pillars and surrounded by an ocean ( Apsu ). The overall interpretation must therefore be based on the original application. In this respect, the term DINGIR KASKAL.KUR can be extended to mountains, rivers and underground watercourses, since according to the ideas of the time, the home of the “gods of the foundation of the earth” was “in the underworld”.

Earlier translations of "underground watercourse", "spring basin", "mountain pass" or "path under the earth" reproduce this range of terms well, but without individually offering the appropriate explanation. DINGIR KASKAL.KUR can be interpreted as “God / gods of the great ways / boundaries (in) the underworld”, but without claiming a literal translation.

Apollo

In the Iliad, Apollo is the main god of the Troians. His cult is now said to have been archaeologically proven in the city by means of some stone steles found in Troia. Apollon is also said to appear in the Alakšandu treaty among the oath gods. There is a loophole in the contract at this point. After a small gap in the text it says [] x-ap-pa-li-u-na-aš. It remains unclear whether the whole word has been preserved or only a part, and it is just as unclear whether it is a god's name, an attribute of a god or a remnant of the name of the city to which a god belongs.

The fact that the fragmentary remaining sign at the edge of the gap is the divine determinative - Appaliunaš would really be a god's name, and indeed completely preserved - is only one of many possibilities. A proof of the Apollo cult in Wiluša is not found by this fragmentary name.

literature

On West Asia Minor geography

  • Itamar Singer : Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century BC According to the Hittite Sources. In: Anatolian Studies 33. Special Number in Honor of the Seventy-Fifth Birthday of Dr. Richard Barnett. British Institute at Ankara 1983, pp. 205-217.
  • Massimo Poetto: L'iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt, Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell 'Anatolia sud-occidentale. Studia mediterranea. Vol. 8. Gianni Iuculano Editore, Pavia 1993. (Edition of the Yalburt inscription with commentary)
  • John David Hawkins : The Hieroglyphic inscription of the Sacred Pool complex at Hattuša (Südburg). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1995. (In this work the most important large-period hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions are edited and translated)
  • Heinrich Otten : The bronze plaque from Boğazköy. A State Treaty of Tuthalija IV. Studies on the Boğazköy Texts. Supplement 1. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1988. (Edition and commentary on the treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Kurunta von Tarḫuntašša)

To locate the Arzawa states

  • Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat , S. Herbordt: A Hittite grand prince inscription from the Latmos. in: Archäologischer Anzeiger , 2001, pp. 363–378. (To the Latmos inscription)
  • John David Hawkins: Tarkasnawa, King of Mira, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel Anatolian Studies 48, 1998, pp. 1–31. (To the Karabel inscription and a possible location of Miras)
  • Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer : Arzawa, investigations into its history according to the Hittite sources. Texts of the Hittites. Vol. 8. Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg 1977. (Fundamental work for western Asia Minor geography, even if it understandably no longer represents the current state of research everywhere)

The location of Wiluša

The text sources
  • Philo Hendrik Jan Houwink ten Cate: Sidelights on the Ahhiyawa question from hittite vassal and royal correspondence. in: Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux. 28, 1983, 84, pp. 33-79. (Edition and Commentary on the Manapa Tarhunta Letter)
  • Gary Beckman: Hittite diplomatic texts. Writings of the ancient world. Vol. 7. Scholars press, Atlanta 1996. (This book contains all so-called Arzawa contracts, including the Alaksandu contract, in translation)
  • Joachim Latacz : Troy and Homer. The way to solve an old riddle. Köhler and Amelang, Munich, Berlin 2001, pp. 131-139. (This book contains a recent German translation of the Alaksandu contract by F. Starke)
Special literature
  • Frank Starke : Troy in the context of the historical, political and linguistic environment of Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium. in: Studia Troica. 7, 1997, pp. 447-487. (Most researchers who assume the identity of Wilusa and Ilios refer to this article and Hawkins 1998)
  • John David Hawkins: Tarkasnawa, King of Mira, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel. in: Anatolian Studies. 48, 1998, pp. 1-31. (Based on the interpretation of the Karabel inscription, an attempt is made to reconstruct the western Anatolian geography)
  • Joachim Latacz: Wilusa (Wilios / Troia). Center of a Hittite member state in northwest Asia Minor. ( Memento from November 17, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 569 kB)
  • Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer: To equate the names Ilios-Wilusa and Troia-Taruisa. in: Christoph Ulf (Ed.): The new dispute about Troy, a balance sheet. Beck, Munich 2003, pp. 146-168.
  • Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer: Has Ilios' identity with Wiluša been finally proven? in: Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. 45, 2004, pp. 29-57. (Article that deals in detail with the problems of localizing Wilusas and the possible identification with Ilios)
  • Gerd Steiner : The Case of Wiluša and Ahhiyawa. Bibliotheca Orientalis 64 No. 5-6, 2007, pp. 590-611.
  • Vangelis D. Pantazis: Wilusa: Reconsidering the Evidence. In: Klio . Volume 91, 2009, number 2, pp. 291-310 (equates Wilusa with the Bronze Age site of Beycesultan )
  • Diether Schürr: Is Troy the Wilusa of the Hittites? About name associations and their fatal role in the historicization of Hisarlık. GEPHYRA 18, 2019, pp. 33-57 - online at Academia.edu

For linguistic equation

  • Ivo Hajnal : Uiluša - Taruiša. Linguistic reviews of the contribution by Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer. in: Christoph Ulf (Ed.): The new dispute about Troy, a balance sheet. Beck, Munich 2003, pp. 169-173.
  • Ivo Hajnal: Troy from a linguistic point of view. The structure of an argument. Innsbruck Contributions to Linguistics Vol. 109. Innsbruck 2003.

To the Egyptian sources

  • Peter W. Haider: Western Asia Minor according to Egyptian sources of the New Kingdom. in: Christoph Ulf (Ed.): The new dispute about Troy, a balance sheet. Beck, Munich 2003, pp. 174-192.
  • Peter W. Haider: Troy between the Hittites, Mycenaeans and Mysers, Does the Troian War have a historical background? in: Hannes D. Galter (Hrsg.): Troia, Mythen and Archeology. Oriental Studies in Graz. Vol. 4. RM Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft, Graz 1997, pp. 97–140.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Heinrich Otten : The bronze plaque from Boğazköy. A State Treaty of Tuthalija IV. Studies on the Boğazköy Texts. Supplement 1. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1988.
  2. ↑ Massimo Poetto: Membership to Luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell'Anatolia sud-occidentale. Iuculano, Pavia 1993.
  3. ↑ According to the prevailing interpretation. However, the opinion is also held that Karkiša, Maša, Lukka and Waršiyalla are intended as the target of possible campaigns. For this discussion, see Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer: The text commentary from a philological and historical perspective. In Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer, Elisabeth Rieken (ed.): The "Tawagalawa letter": Complaints about Piyamaradu. A new edition (= Studies on Assyriology and Near Eastern Archeology, Vol 13). , De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2019, p. 156 (accessed via De Gruyter Online).
  4. ↑ So already Johannes Friedrich : The State Treaties of the Hatti Empire in Hittite language . In: Communications of the Middle East-Egyptian Society . Vol. 31, No. 1, 1930, p. 67 Note 4. Later especially Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer : Has the identity of Iloas and Wiluša been finally proven? . In: Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici . Vol. 46, 2004, pp. 37, 40 and Peter W. Haider: Western Asia Minor according to Egyptian sources of the New Kingdom . In: Christoph Ulf (Ed.): The new dispute over Troy - a balance sheet . CH Beck, Munich 2003, p. 185.
  5. ^ Trevor R. Bryce : History . In: H. Craig Melchert (Ed.): The Luwians . Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 76 took the view that Lukka should be understood here in a larger sense ( Luwier ). No relevance measure the John David Hawkins: Tarkasnawa King of Mira. 'Tarkondemos', Bogazköy sealings and Karabel . In: Anatolian Sudies . Vol. 48, 1998, p. 29 and Mauro Marino: Nuove Considerazioni sullo Terre di Lukka . In: Mesopotamia . Vol. 40, 2005, p. 22 at. Countries mentioned are semi-nomadic and therefore useless for localization Trevor Bryce: The Kingdom of the Hittites . Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, p. 54 .; Steiner 2007, Sp. 594-596, 604.
  6. ↑ To the letter in more detail: Harry A. Hoffner, Jr .: Letters from the Hittite Kingdom. Society of Biblical Literature, Houston 2009, pp. 293-296;
    Gary M. Beckman, Trevor R. Bryce , Eric H. Cline : The Ahhiyawa Texts (= Writings from the Ancient World 28). Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2011, pp. 140-144 (AHT 7).
  7. ↑ See this and the explanation in the next sentence, including Heinhold-Krahmer 2003, p. 37.
  8. ^ Itamar Singer: Purple-Dyers in Lazpa. In: BJ Collins, MR Bachvarova and IC Rutherford (Eds.): Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbors. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17-19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta. Oxbow Books, Oxford 2008, pp. 21–43 ( online as PDF )
  9. ↑ s. on this question also Susanne Heilhold – Krahmer: The text commentary from a philological and historical perspective. In: Susanne Heinhold – Krahmer, Elisabeth Rieken (ed.): The "Tawagalawa – Brief". Complaints about Piyamaradu. A new edition (= Studies on Assyriology and Near Eastern Archeology, Vol 13). , De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2019 p. 273f. (accessed via De Gruyter Online)
  10. ^ Gary M. Beckman, Trevor R. Bryce , Eric H. Cline : The Ahhiyawa Texts (= Writings from the Ancient World 28). Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2011, p. 331.

Web links

  • "Wilusa was (W) Ilios". The classical philologist Joachim Latacz on the Mycenaean roots of the "Iliad" and the dispute over Troy - Interview. Die Welt , September 1, 2001, accessed September 2, 2014 .