to Tudhaliya after a dispute with‘a man of Ahhiya’called Attarissiya.
‘Ahhiya’is a rare, early shorter form of‘Ahhiyawa’.Andsowe
assume that Attarissiya (whom Forrer identified with the legendary
Greek king Atreus, or at least his namesake) was a Mycenaean Greek.
As the designation‘man’(LÚ) indicates, Attarissiya was not a
king, for which the term LUGAL would have been used. He may
have been a Greek of noble origin who had established himself on
the Anatolian mainland, either as an agent of a Greek mainland
king, or as an independent operator. He had the backing of a small
army of infantry and at least 100 chariots, which he no doubt
intended to use to extend his influence and power in Anatolia.
Madduwatta may originally have been one of Attarissiya’s subjects,
or the ruler of a neighbouring land, forced toflee after falling foul of
him. He took with him a substantial body of followers, including not
only family members and retainers, but also troops and chariots.
Initially, Tudhaliya welcomed the refugee and set him up with a
small principality of his own on the periphery of Hittite subject-
territory. He probably reinforced his already existing nucleus of an
army with additional infantry and chariotry. Terms and conditions
were imposed upon him, very similar to those imposed by later Hittite
kings on vassal rulers. Tudhaliya’s expectation must have been that
the refugee-turned-subject-ruler would provide a useful bulwark
against Arzawan encroachmenton Hittite territory.This would lessen
the need for further costly campaigns in the west by the Hittite king
himself. For despite his alleged string of decisive conquests of the
Arzawan lands and other western states, all these states retained their
independence of Hittite authority–and could at any time re-form
their coalitions and once more threaten the security of the Hittite
kingdom. Setting up a trusted subject-ruler in command of a small
army on the edge of Hittite territory in this region might help reduce
the threat without the need for direct Hittite intervention.
Of course all this depended on the subject-ruler remaining both
loyal to and an effective agent of Hittite interests in the region.
Madduwatta proved to be neither. He had plans of his own.
Through both the remainder of Tudhaliya’s reign and at least the
first years of Arnuwanda’s, Madduwatta repeatedly violated his
obligations to his Hittite overlord– so we may conclude from
LION OR PUSSYCAT? 67