The author proposes a new interpretation of the text on the bowl, which according to J.D. Hawkins’ interpretation mentions a campaign of the Hittite king Tudhaliya I/II to Troy (Taru(w)isa). The main attention is paid to re-examination of the readings proposed by J.D. Hawkins. The first step in this direction was made by F. Giusfredi, who proposed an alternative reading of the sign sequence HATTI.REGIO: DOMINUS.REGIO designating a title «country lord», well-known from the later corpus. This reading stands in perfect correspondence with presumable Syrian background of the inscription and its rather late date. On the other hand, identification of tara/i-wa/i-za/i(REGIO) mentioned in the inscription as Taru(w)isa looks extremely doubtful and can hardly be used as a serious argument for an earlier date. The main problem of the text remains the alleged presence in it of a certain Tudhaliya (MONS[+tu]) bearing the title of Labarna (LABARNA). Although the name Tudhaliya was borne by some of later rulers of the city of Karkamis, the title Labarna is not attested in late texts and presents a crux. However, the identification of «Tudhaliya» in the text is based only on a restoration: in fact, the sign TU following MONS is absent from the inscription. On the basis of a detailed examination of the corresponding part of the bowl, one can arguably assert that the sign TU was never present there and the sequence has to be read simply as (MONS)LABARNA. The latter can be identified as a name of a «mountain(-land)». Given the only known reading of the sign LABARNA, it can be compared directly with («MONS») la-pa+ra/i-na- attested in HAMA 7, which can be identified with Mount Lebanon. If this is the case, reading and function of another geographic name of the text, read previously as tara/i-wa/i-za/i(REGIO), have to be revised. As it was demonstrated by F. Starke, the last sign represents rather not a part of the name, but the «ethnic» suffix –zza/i-. The name of the land proper is tara/i-wa/i(REGIO), and tara/i-wa/i-za/i is an adjective meaning «Tarawean». As such, it must have a referent in the text, which can be naturally seen in the noun REX, the title of Mazi-Karhuha. Thus, the tara/i-wa/i(REGIO) turns out to refer to the own country of the king, not the object of the campaign, which is, in this case, (MONS)LABARNA. In addition to these major points, some other elements of the text need to be revised. In § 1 the sequence interpreted earlier as a verb can be read now as (VIR2.*273)i(a)- za/i-sa5-tà and reinterpreted as a noun meaning «honour-gift» (cf. Luw. /izis(a)ta/ «to honour»). Correspondingly, *A-sa-ma-i(a) is reinterpreted as dat. of Asma. Finally, a new interpretation of the meaning of the verb in § 3 (i(a)-za/i-) is proposed: «dedicate». In conclusion, an attempt is made to give a new historical interpretation of the text and to propose an identification of tara/i-wa/i(REGIO). Given phonetic alternation r/n attested for Luwian, one can suppose that the form /Darawa/i/ is a phonetic invariant of /Danawa/i/. The latter can be regarded as an aphaeretic form of Adanawa, well attested elsewhere. If this is true, tara/i-wa/i(REGIO) can be localised in Cilicia, one of the most significant centres of which was Adanawa (modern Adana). The resulting translation of the text is: § 1. This bowl is the honour-gift for Asma, the country-lord, before Mazi-Karhuha, the king. § 2. When (the latter;) the Darawean, made a campaign to the Mountain(land) Lebanon, § 3. in that year he dedicated it.