‘The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder Beams’: The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa (original) (raw)
Related papers
Azatiwada, Awariku from the "House of Mopsos", and Assyria. On the dating of Karatepe in Cilicia.
A. Payne, Š. Velharticka und J. Wintjes (Hg.), Beyond all Boundaries. Anatolia in the 1st Millennium B.C. OBO 295 , 2021
Several inscriptions from the 8 th century BCE shed some light on the history of the "Neo-Hittite" kingdom of Hiyawa/Qawa/Que, locat ed in Plain Cilicia. They mention the kings Awariku and Warika and a de facto ruler named Azatiwada, the latter famous through his foundation of Karatepe. So far, the chronological relationship between these persons as well as an accurate dating of the related sculptures and stelae could not be determined. Even the question of whether Awariku and Warika are one or two kings is unclear. Superimposed on these problems, further pecu liarities of Hiyawa within the Neo-Hittite culture, such as a strong Cypriot influence in ceramic production or the frequent use of the Phoenician language and script, have remained largely unanswered. A first step in clarifying these problems is the exact dating of the people involved and also of the foundation of Azatiwadaya (Karatepe). In the following essay, all relevant historical and archaeological evidence is re-evaluated to eluci date the dating of Karatepe, and the identity of Awariku. The result places Azatiwada and Karatepe either before 765 BCE, if one accepts that Awari ku and Warika are identical, or in the time between 765 and 740, in case of different persons, which seems more likely. Furthermore, a connection is established between Cypriot influence on the one hand and the use of the Phoenician script and language in Cilicia on the other.
AURA, 2018
Various Greek authors from the Archaic to the Roman period refer to a migration of population groups from the Aegean and West Anatolia to Pamphylia and Cilicia in the aftermath of the Trojan War. The meagre archaeological evidence, as well as the Arcadocypriot and Mycenaean elements in the Pamphylian dialect, fits with this narrative. Furthermore, from (at least) the end of the 10th to the late 8th centuries a kingdom, which was called Hiyawa in Luwian and Qw or ‘mq ’dn in Phoenician inscriptions, controlled Cilicia and possibly also a part of Pamphylia. Its subjects were called Hiyawa in Luwian and dnnym in Phoenician. The term Hiyawa stems from the Hittite geographic term Ahhiyawa, which referred to one of the Mycenaean kingdoms in the Aegean during the LBA; both Ahhiyawa and Hiyawa derive from the ethnonym 'Achaean'. At least one of the rulers of the Kingdom of Hiyawa considered himself to be a descendant of Muksas/mpš, which shows that the later stories about Mopsos were not entirely fictitious. The Achaean settlers in Cilicia gradually fused with the Luwian population. Herodotus later called them Hypachaeans, which implies that they were neither Achaeans or Greeks, nor Luwians or Cilicians. Further waves of Aegean migrants continued to arrive mainly in Pamphylia and Cilicia Tracheia at least until the 7th century. These later migrants were also gradually amalgamated with the indigenous population and their vernacular became heavily influenced by the local Luwian dialects.
Filologia Antica e Moderna NS I/2 (XXIX/48), 2019
The paper focuses on Il. 2.681-694, which introduces the Thessalian army corps led by Achilles. The examination of the compositional patterns and the diachronic and synchronic linguistic analysis show that this hexametric piece traces back to the early stages in processing the Homeric Songs. The pivotal role of Achilles and the contextualization within the Catalogue of the Greek forces in the Trojan War also seem to suggest that Pre- or Proto-Mycenaean Thessaly may have been the starting point of the very first epic heritages. They probably predate the traditions on actual Greek experiences in Anatolia, merged into Homer’s poetry afterwards. Furthermore, some considerations on the setting in Cilicia of Achilles’ raids and the comparison with the Syrian-Anatolian sources indicate that Mycenaean Greeks had probably direct knowledge of Hurrian environments in Kizzuwatna. Women from Kizzuwatna are possibly mentioned in some Linear B Texts. This assumption is consistent with the Cilician origin of the two maidens who are the root cause of the storyline, as well as the Cilician origin of the spouse of Achilles’ alter ego. Ultimately, all that is 'Aeolian' and ‘Aeolic’ in Homer must be understood as something ancestral or very ancient, as well as all that is ‘Cilician’ should be decoded as Hurrian.
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.
A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia (Phoenix 1989)
An inscription from Arsinoe (Cilicia) concerning the foundation of this Ptolemaic settlement by Thraseas son of Aetos. Reprinted in Ch. Habicht, The Hellenistic Monarchies: Selected Papers (Ann Arbor 2006) 243-274, with further bibliography. (Bull. 1990.304, cf. 1995.598, 2003.543; SEG 39.1426)
Compared to other Syro-Anatolian city-states, indigenous documents from Iron Age Cilicia are rare. Whereas Karkamish, for example, has provided us with ca. 80 inscriptions (and counting), only five inscriptions thus far come from Cilicia. One of those is the ÇİNEKÖY inscription of king Waraika of Hiyawa (= Que, classical Cilicia), a Phoenician-Luwian bilingual. Found in 1997, it now supplies the third bilingual text from Cilicia , in addition to the well-known Phoenician-Luwian KARATEPE 1 bilingual , and the extremely eroded and nearly illegible Assyrian-Phoenician İncirli bilingual . As an important political document with historical implications, it is necessary to correctly identify the main protagonists, especially the Assyrian king, and the location of the narrated events. Based on a reanalysis of the river name Sapara (= Seyhan) in ÇİNEKÖY § 8 as hapas pari(ya)n ‘Beyond-the-River’, which is best interpreted as a calque on Phoenician ʾbr nhr and Assyrian eber nāri, I will argue that the building activities described in ÇİNEKÖY § 8-10 do not take place in the heartland of Hiyawa near the Seyhan river, but in the territory of Gurgum, to the east of Hiyawa.
THE ‘ḪILANI’: A LATE BRONZE AGE AMUQ-CILICIAN OR SYRO-CILICIAN ARCHITECTURAL TRADITION?
Olba XXIX, 77-108, 2021
Though the term “ḫilani” refers to an architectural form occurring in northern Syria during the early centuries of the 1st millennium BCE, the Middle Bronze II Building E of Tilmen Höyük in the Islahiye Valley and the Late Bronze I palace of Alalakh IV (15th century BCE) in the Amuq are often given as the earliest examples or prototypes of ḫilani architecture. More recently, another Late Bronze I ḫilani has been excavated at Kinet Höyük, a seaport in eastern Plain Cilicia. The ḫilani of Kinet Höyük was built in the second half of the 16th century BCE. From the very beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE onwards, close contact between the Islahiye Valley, the Amuq and Plain Cilicia have been notably reflected in locally made painted pottery from the Middle Bronze Age. While the designation of such pottery as “Syro-Cilician” underscores the eastern cultural orientation of Plain Cilicia, the term “Amuq-Cilician” enhances the characteristics of the Amuq and Plain Cilicia. This raises the question of whether the ḫilani should be considered an Amuq-Cilician, Syro-Cilician or yet another architectural tradition. After reviewing the different uses of the term “ḫilani” in the scholarly literature, as well as the features that characterize it as an architectural form, the ḫilani of Kinet Höyük is presented in its archaeological context. As an important administrative building (hypothetically the seat of a political authority representing the state of Kizzuwatna), it is then suggested that the ḫilani of Kinet Period 15C originates from a north Syrian cultural influence. Conversely, the sudden appearance of Hittite-related pottery in Kinet Period 15C suggests that the economy of Kizzuwatna was under a certain degree of Hittite control. Economic and strategic interests would have therein motivated the establishment of such a Hittite maritime outpost in Kizzuwatna, while the Hittite diplomatic skills would explain the success of this takeover. Thus, the ḫilani of Kinet Period 15C would have served as an architectural expression of this diplomacy and recall a period in which the Hittite king was politically strong. In the second half of the 16th century BCE, the most likely royal candidate who embodied the requisite qualities would be Telipinu (according to the Middle Chronology) or Murshili I (according to the Low Chronology).