K. Kopanias, Cilicia and Pamphylia during the Early Iron Age: Hiyawa, Mopsos and the Foundation of the Greek Poleis (original) (raw)
Related papers
2018
The topic of the present contribution is two ethnic terms of likely Aegean origin specified in the title, which appear, in different guises, in written sources of the late 2nd and early 1st millennium BC across the entire Eastern Mediterranean, from Egypt in the South to the Levant to Cilicia in the North (besides the Aegean itself). My discussion of them will be, however, not quite the same. As for the first one, Ahhiyawa or Hiyawa, I will summarize the recent discussion revolving around recognition of this name in the Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscription KARATEPE, adding some details and placing it in a more general historical context. The second and central part of the paper will concern Danu(na), in which a full linguistic reassessment of this term and a revision of different sources which mention it will be offered. The third part will discuss the distinction between the two terms, also touching upon the problem of ethnolinguistic boundaries in Late Bronze Age Greece.
Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia
Anatolian Studies, 2015
The relationship between the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the bilingual texts emanating from Cilicia has never been systematically studied from the philological viewpoint. In this paper I endeavour to demonstrate that a converging set of formal arguments supports the primary character of the Phoenician versions of the ÇİNEKÖY and KARATEPE 1 bilinguals and the secondary character of their Luwian versions. I interpret this as a metaphor for the relationship between two ethnic constituents of the Neo-Hittite principality of Que, whose coexistence was earlier argued for on independent grounds. According to the proposed interpretation, the Phoenician language was emblematic of the rulers of Que, who claimed Greek descent and therefore attempted to distance themselves from the traditional elites of the neighbouring Neo-Hittite states. The use of the Luwian language was a concession to the indigenous population of Que. The adoption of Phoenician as a language of written expression by the Greek colonists in Cilicia happened at the point when the Linear B script had been forgotten and represented the first step toward the creation of the Greek alphabet.
Where Did the Kings of Danuna of EA 151 rule?
In: Jana Mynářová – Pavel Onderka – Peter Pavúk (eds.): There and Back Again – the Crossroads II. Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014. Prague, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015, 391-408.
The problem of Achaeans in Cilicia in the 12th c. BC revisited (in Russian, English summary)
Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology-XXII, 2018
The article deals with the Greek tradition about the movement of Amphilochus and Calhas with their companions across Anatolia to Cilicia and Syria after the fall of Troy which is traditionally regarded as a part of the story of Mopsos and his march to the East. The authors show that this tradition was originally independent from the legends of Mopsos, and that it has a historical parallel to Achaean component of the Sea peoples’ migration under Ramesses III. In the authors’ view, the legends about cooperation of the «Amphilochus – Calhas group» with the «Mopsos group» in Cilicia are also connected on the basis of their general motives (contrary to their fictional and contradictory details in Greek tradition) with the real interactions between various migrant groups of the 12th century BC in Cilicia.
Aula Orientalis 33/2, pp. 287-308, 2015
RESUMEN: Los datos arqueológicos, filológicos y toponímicos y las fuentes literarias y epigráficas desaprueban la identificación del Tarshish que la Biblia relaciona con Salomón de Israel e Hiram I de Tiro con el lugar llamado Tarteso por algunas fuentes literarias griegas y con la colonia fundada por los fenicios en terrenos de la actual ciudad de Huelva, probablemente en torno al segundo cuarto del siglo IX a.C., se defienda o no la identificación de esta última con Tarteso. Por el contrario, dichos datos y fuentes aconsejan situar el Tarshish bíblico en el Mediterráneo oriental, concretamente en el territorio que un epígrafe asirio llama Tarsisi, directamente relacionado con la ciudad de Tarso. La presencia de dos Tarshish en el Levante mediterráneo refuerza la vinculación de este topónimo bíblico con esta zona y no con la Península Ibérica. ABSTRACT: Archaeological, philological and toponymic data, as well as epigraphic and literary sources disapprove of identifying the Tarshish linked in the Bible to Solomon of Israel and Hiram I of Tyre with the site named Tartessus in some Greek literary sources and with the colony founded by Phoenicians on what is now the city of Huelva, presumably around the second quarter of the ninth century B.C., be the identification of this Phoenician colony with Tartessus proposed or not. On the contrary, they recommend placing the biblical Tarshish in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically in the country of Tarsisi quoted by an Assyrian inscription, closely bound to the city of Tarsus. The presence of another two Tarshish in the Mediterranean Levant bolsters the ties of Tarshish with this area, rather than with the Iberian Peninsula.