DOCSLIB.ORG

Muški Revisited*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Muški Revisited* doi: 10.2143/AWE.14.0.3108187 AWE 14 (2015) 23-49 MUŠKI REVISITED* CECILY GRACE Abstract Assyrian literary sources from the reign of Sargon II frequently refer to King Mitâ of Muški. Mitâ has been identified as King Midas of Phrygia, due to evidence suggesting these kings reigned at the same time, in the same geographical region. While the Mitâ/Midas identifica- tion is widely accepted, conflicting evidence about the locations of Muški and Phrygia has precluded a conclusive understanding of the link between the two kingdoms. Evidence for the locations of Muški and Phrygia will here be reconsidered and a new interpretation of the connection between the kingdoms during the late 8th century BC is offered. Introduction The identification of Mitâ of Muški and Midas of Phrygia is of great significance for Phrygian studies. It allows the Assyrian evidence for Mitâ’s political activities in south-east Anatolia to provide much needed historical information about Midas’ reign. Chronological and geographical considerations are central here: did Mitâ and Midas rule at the same time, and were Muški and Phrygia located in the same ter- ritory? The first question can be answered affirmatively and will not be the focus of this article.1 However, uncertainties remain regarding the geographical extent of Muški and Phrygia, which have cast doubt on the identification of these kingdoms. This article will revisit evidence for the locations of Phrygia and Muški during the * This article forms part of my PhD thesis. I would like to thank Gocha Tsetskhladze for his dedicated, generous and patient supervision. I would also like to express my appreciation to Hyun Jin Kim for his stimulating discussions, and to the three anonymous referees of AWE for their detailed and informative comments. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own. 1 Assyrian literary sources demonstrate that Mitâ had a minimum reign of 718–709 BC (collected and discussed in Grace forthcoming). These dates are reasonably compatible with Herodotus’ informa- tion (1. 14. 1–2), that Midas ruled before Gyges ascended the Lydian throne in 680 BC. Furthermore, evidence from the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Tyana suggests that both Mitâ and Midas simultaneously had diplomatic links with king Warpalawas who ruled ca. 738–709 BC (for discussion, see Fiedler 2005; van Dongen 2014, 702–03; also see below). Other somewhat inconsistent information about when Midas ruled is provided by later ancient authors. This information has been the focus of a study by Berndt-Ersöz (2008). While she interprets the inconsistencies as indicating that multiple kings named Midas ruled Phrygia, they may also be the result of a lengthy process of adaptation and extra- polation of Herodotus’ pre-680 BC date for Midas. 997901.indb7901.indb 2233 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 24 C. GRACE 8th century BC when Mitâ/Midas reigned. An attempt will be made to reconcile this evidence with the quite different locations reported for the kingdoms prior to the 8th century BC. Finally, a new proposal for the link between the Phrygian and Muški kingdoms will be offered. The Location of Phrygia during the 8th Century BC At the time of Midas’ reign during the late 8th century BC, the Phrygian heartland was located in western Anatolia, extending between Eskişehir in the north, Gordion in the east, Afyonkarahisar in the south and Kütahya in the west.2 Beyond this heartland region, the extent of the Phrygian kingdom is unclear.3 Some 8th-century BC Phrygian archaeological material has appeared as far as Daskyleion to the north- west, Boǧazköy to the north-east, Konya to the south-east and at several sites to the east including Kaman Kalehöyük, Alacahöyük, Alişar Höyük and Çadir Höyük.4 It should not be assumed, however, that the spread of Phrygian material culture is representative of Phrygian political borders.5 This is demonstrated by the Phry- gian material discovered in the kingdom of Tyana.6 This includes an Old Phrygian inscription mentioning Midas’ name found at Kemerhisar, near Niǧde, and 2 Sivas 2012, 112; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, 1; Mellink 1981, 96. The delineation of the Phrygian heartland derives in part from the large number of Phrygian rock cut monuments found in this area. Berndt-Ersöz (2006, 1–3) has pointed out, however, that ‘no survey with the focus on Phrygian rock- cut monuments has been conducted outside the Highlands’. It is therefore possible that the Phrygian heartland extended further than is commonly thought. Also see van Dongen 2014, 698. 3 Genz 2011, 361; Kealhofer et al. 2009, 277; Grave et al. 2012, 379; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, xx–xxi; Sivas 2007, 11; Wittke 2014, 752. 4 Discussion and description of this evidence are here listed by site. For Boǧazköy, see Gates 1996, 297; Anderson 2012, 184; Mellink 1981, 96; 1991, 630; 1993, 293–98; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, 2; Sams 1994, xxix–xxx; 1995, 1157. For Konya, see Sivas 2007, 11. For Kaman Kalehöyük, see Anderson 2012, 184; Gates 1996, 297; Summers 1994, 241–44. For Daskyleion, see Roller 2011, 562; Berndt- Ersöz 2006, 1–2; Vassileva 2005a, 230. For Alişar Höyük, see Bryce 2009, 30; von der Osten 1933, 9–10; Sams 1994, xxix. For Alacahöyük, see Sams 1994, xxx. A Phrygian cult monument has also been found at Karahisar, just north of Alacahöyük (Berndt-Ersöz 2006, 2; Sams 1994, xxx). For Çadir Höyük, see Gorny et al. 2000, 158; Gorny 2003–04, 19, 23. Note that while the common grey pot- tery typical of Middle Phrygian Gordion has also been found at most of these sites, due to its distribu- tion beyond Phrygian territory, this pottery cannot be deemed specifically Phrygian, but rather ‘inner- west Anatolian’ (Bahar 1999, 1; Tsetskhladze 2012, 236; Vassileva 2005a, 231–32). It is also necessary to mention the site of Kerkenes Daǧ, as it was a large Phrygian centre. However, it is believed Kerkenes (later possibly Pteria) was established no earlier than the mid-7th century BC and hence the city can- not have been included in Midas’ kingdom (Summers and Summers 2012a, 26; 2012b, 162–63; Wittke 2014). 5 Summers 1994, 241; Mellink 1993, 293–94; Berndt-Ersöz 2006, xx–xxi. 6 Summers 1994, 241; Fiedler 2005, 392; Mellink 1979. 997901.indb7901.indb 2244 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 MUŠKI REVISITED 25 Phrygian artefacts dating to the 8th century BC found in the Kaynarca tumulus.7 Also, king Warpalawas of Tyana is depicted wearing a Phrygian belt and fibula on the İvris 1 relief at Niǧde.8 If Phrygian political borders did extend some distance beyond the heartland region, these borders are likely to have shifted as a conse- quence of small political changes.9 The Location of Muški during the 8th Century BC Assyrian and Urartian literary sources provide information about the location of Muški during the late 8th century BC. The Assyrian sources, which comprise sev- eral inscriptions and a letter of Sargon II (721–705 BC), provide four pointers as to the location of Muški. 1. Muški marked an Assyrian frontier. In Sargon’s Great Summary Inscription, Assyria is described as extending ‘as far as the border of Egypt and the land of the Muški’.10 2. Muški bordered Tabal. In the Clay Cylinder Inscription, Sargon is recorded as having conquered various kingdoms including Tabal ‘up to the land of Muški’.11 During Sargon’s reign, Tabal was the Assyrian administrative title for a cluster of small Neo-Hittite kingdoms positioned east of the Phrygian heartland, extending from modern Ereǧli in the south, to Aksaray in the north.12 7 For a translation of the inscription, see Orel 1997, 310, T-02b; Brixhe and Lejeune 1984, 260, 264–66, T-02b. For the Kaynarca tumulus, see Akkaya 1991, 25–27, pls. 1–3; Crespin 1999, 69; Fiedler 2005, 391–92. 8 For the İvris 1 relief, see Hawkins 2000b, 516–18; Berges 1998, 185–86, tafel 9. Phrygian artefacts found in the Bayındır tumulus, near Elmalı in southern Anatolia, also provide evidence of Phrygian material culture beyond the borders of the kingdom (Muscarella 2012, 109; Mellink 1991, 625; 1993, 298; Varinlioǧlu 1992, 10–20). 9 Also, the connection between the ‘greater-Phrygian’ region and the Phrygian heartland is unknown, as the nature and frequency of inter-regional Phrygian interaction has not been studied in detail. See Grave et al. 2012; van Dongen 2010, 231; Mellink 1993, 293–98; Wittke 2014, 752–54. 10 Luckenbill 1927, 26, no. 54. See also Threshold Inscription 5 (Luckenbill 1927, 48, no. 96; Fuchs 1994, 362, lines 14–16) and the Summary Inscription from Room 14 (Luckenbill 1927, 41, no. 82; Fuchs 1994, 309, line 22). 11 Luckenbill 1927, 61, no. 118; Fuchs 1994, 290, lines 14–15. 12 Aro 1998, 131–44; Hawkins and Postgate 1988, 38; Hawkins 2000b, 425; Melville 2010, 87; Parpola and Porter 2001, 1–2; D’Alfonso 2012, 186. 997901.indb7901.indb 2255 114/09/154/09/15 009:449:44 26 C. GRACE 3. Muški and the Assyrian province of Que were located on different sides of Tabal. In his letter (ND 2759) to the governor of Que, Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Sargon wrote (line 48): ‘what can all the kings of Tabal do henceforth? You will press them from this side and the Phrygian from that side so that (in no time) you will “snap your belt” on them.’13 The province of Que (later Plain Cilicia), centring on modern Adana, was north of the Mediterranean Sea and south of Tabal.14 4. Muški neighboured the land of Kammanu. In the Annals, it is recorded that after Sargon annexed the land of Kammanu in 712 BC, he built ‘ten strong fortresses…around it’, three of which were ‘on the border of the land of Muški’.15 The land of Kammanu, with its capital city at Melid (Malatya), was bordered by the River Euphrates in the east and by Tabal in the west.16 Using these four points, one borderline of the kingdom of Muški can be drawn from the north-west of Kammanu, westwards across the northern border of the kingdom of Bît-Burutaš to the north-west and west of Tabal.17 Muški would accordingly have marked an Assyrian frontier and been positioned on a different side of Tabal to Que.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rural Agricultural Economies and Military Provisioning at Roman Gordion (Central Turkey) Çakirlar, Canan; Marston, John
    University of Groningen Rural Agricultural Economies and Military Provisioning at Roman Gordion (Central Turkey) Çakirlar, Canan; Marston, John Published in: Environmental Archaeology DOI: 10.1080/14614103.2017.1385890 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Çakirlar, C., & Marston, J. (2019). Rural Agricultural Economies and Military Provisioning at Roman Gordion (Central Turkey). Environmental Archaeology, 24(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2017.1385890 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 25-09-2021 Environmental Archaeology The Journal of Human Palaeoecology ISSN: 1461-4103 (Print) 1749-6314 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yenv20 Rural Agricultural Economies and Military Provisioning at Roman Gordion (Central Turkey) Canan Çakırlar & John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Tentative Lists Submitted by States Parties As of 15 April 2021, in Conformity with the Operational Guidelines
    World Heritage 44 COM WHC/21/44.COM/8A Paris, 4 June 2021 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Extended forty-fourth session Fuzhou (China) / Online meeting 16 – 31 July 2021 Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda: Establishment of the World Heritage List and of the List of World Heritage in Danger 8A. Tentative Lists submitted by States Parties as of 15 April 2021, in conformity with the Operational Guidelines SUMMARY This document presents the Tentative Lists of all States Parties submitted in conformity with the Operational Guidelines as of 15 April 2021. • Annex 1 presents a full list of States Parties indicating the date of the most recent Tentative List submission. • Annex 2 presents new Tentative Lists (or additions to Tentative Lists) submitted by States Parties since 16 April 2019. • Annex 3 presents a list of all sites included in the Tentative Lists of the States Parties to the Convention, in alphabetical order. Draft Decision: 44 COM 8A, see point II I. EXAMINATION OF TENTATIVE LISTS 1. The World Heritage Convention provides that each State Party to the Convention shall submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of the cultural and natural sites situated within its territory, which it considers suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List, and which it intends to nominate during the following five to ten years. Over the years, the Committee has repeatedly confirmed the importance of these Lists, also known as Tentative Lists, for planning purposes, comparative analyses of nominations and for facilitating the undertaking of global and thematic studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early
    Dokuz Eylül University – DEU The Research Center for the Archaeology of Western Anatolia – EKVAM Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea Congressus internationales Smyrnenses X Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods An international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity May 14-15, 2020 / Izmir, Turkey Edited by Ergün Laflı Izmir 2020 Last update: 04/05/2020. 1 Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods. Papers presented at the international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity, May 14-15, 2020 / Izmir, Turkey, Colloquia Anatolica et Aegaea – Acta congressus communis omnium gentium Smyrnae. Copyright © 2020 Ergün Laflı (editor) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the editor. ISBN: 978-605-031-211-9. Page setting: Ergün Laflı (Izmir). Text corrections and revisions: Hugo Thoen (Deinze / Ghent). Papers, presented at the international video conference, entitled “Cappadocia and Cappadocians in the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine periods. An international video conference on the southeastern part of central Anatolia in classical antiquity” in May 14–15, 2020 in Izmir, Turkey. 36 papers with 61 pages and numerous colourful figures. All papers and key words are in English. 21 x 29,7 cm; paperback; 40 gr. quality paper. Frontispiece. A Roman stele with two portraits in the Museum of Kırşehir; accession nos. A.5.1.95a-b (photograph by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Thracians and Phrygians
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Figures List of Tables m Editor's Note vi vii Introduction on behalf of Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM) at Middle East Technical University Ankara, TURKEY AssocProf.Dr. Numan TUNA, the Director Introduction on behalf of the Institute of Thracology Sofia, BULGARIA Assoc.Prof.Dr. Kiril YORDANOV, the Director and Dr. Maya VASSILEVA Opening Speech on behalf of Scientific Institutions Prof .Dr. Machteld J. MELLINK Thracian-Phrygian Cultural Zone 13 Maya VASSILEVA Sofia, BULGARIA Megaliths in Thrace and Phrygia 19 Valeria FOL Sofia, BULGARIA Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic Monuments 29 Mehmet ÔZDOÔAN Istanbul, TURKEY Some Connections Between the Northern Thrace and Asia Minor During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age 41 Attila LASZLO Ia§i, ROMANIA Bryges and Phrygians: Parallelism Between the Balkans and Asia Minor Through Archaeological, Linguistic and Historical Evidence 45 Eleonora PETROVA Skopije, MACEDONIA Sabas/Sabazios/Sabo 55 Alexander FOL Sofia, BULGARIA Burial Rites in Thrace and Phrygia 61 Roumyana GEORGIEVA Sofia, BULGARIA Die Ausgrabung der Megalithischen Dolmenanlage in Lalapasa 65 MuratAKMAN Istanbul. TURKEY The Early Iron Age Settlement on Biiyukkaya, Bogazkoy: First Impressions 71 Jurgen SEEHER German Institute of Archaeology, Istanbul The Early Iron Age at Gordion: The Evidence from the Yassihoyiik Stratigraphie Sequence 79 Robert C. HENRICKSON and Mary M. VOIGT Philadelphia, USA Roman Phrygia 107 D.H. FRENCH Waterford, UK Phrygia: Linguistics and Epigraphies HI Petar DIMITROV Sofia, BULGARIA Phrygian and the Southeast European Namebund 115 Adrian PORUCIUC lasi, ROMANIA Une Inscription en Langue Inconnue 119 Catherine BRIXHE et Thomas DREW-BEAR Lyon, FRANCE Conservation and Reconstruction of Phrygian Chariot Wheels from Mysia 131 Hande KÔKTEN Istanbul, TURKEY Microstructural Studies on Some Phrygian Metallic Objects 147 Macit ÔZENBAS and Lèvent ERCANLI Ankara, TURKEY Panel Discussions 157.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration
    hesperia yy (2008) SEPARATING FACT Pages399-430 FROM FICTION IN THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION ABSTRACT Iron Age settlementsin the northeastAegean are usuallyattributed to Aioliancolonists who journeyed across the Aegean from mainland Greece. This articlereviews the literary accounts of the migration and presentsthe relevantarchaeological evidence, with a focuson newmaterial from Troy. No onearea played a dominantrole in colonizing Aiolis, nor is sucha widespread colonizationsupported by the archaeologicalrecord. But the aggressive promotionof migrationaccounts after the PersianWars provedmutually beneficialto bothsides of theAegean and justified the composition of the Delian League. Scholarlyassessments of habitation in thenortheast Aegean during the EarlyIron Age are remarkably consistent: most settlements are attributed toAiolian colonists who had journeyed across the Aegean from Thessaly, Boiotia,Akhaia, or a combinationof all three.1There is no uniformityin theancient sources that deal with the migration, although Orestes and his descendantsare named as theleaders in mostaccounts, and are credited withfounding colonies over a broadgeographic area, including Lesbos, Tenedos,the western and southerncoasts of theTroad, and theregion betweenthe bays of Adramyttion and Smyrna(Fig. 1). In otherwords, mainlandGreece has repeatedly been viewed as theagent responsible for 1. TroyIV, pp. 147-148,248-249; appendixgradually developed into a Mountjoy,Holt Parker,Gabe Pizzorno, Berard1959; Cook 1962,pp. 25-29; magisterialstudy that is includedhere Allison Sterrett,John Wallrodt, Mal- 1973,pp. 360-363;Vanschoonwinkel as a companionarticle (Parker 2008). colm Wiener, and the anonymous 1991,pp. 405-421; Tenger 1999, It is our hope that readersinterested in reviewersfor Hesperia. Most of trie pp. 121-126;Boardman 1999, pp. 23- the Aiolian migrationwill read both articlewas writtenin the Burnham 33; Fisher2000, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)
    Eupedia Home > Genetics > Haplogroups (home) > Haplogroup R1b Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) Content 1. Geographic distribution Author: Maciamo. Original article posted on Eupedia. 2. Subclades Last update January 2014 (revised history, added lactase 3. Origins & History persistence, pigmentation and mtDNA correspondence) Paleolithic origins Neolithic cattle herders The Pontic-Caspian Steppe & the Indo-Europeans The Maykop culture, the R1b link to the steppe ? R1b migration map The Siberian & Central Asian branch The European & Middle Eastern branch The conquest of "Old Europe" The conquest of Western Europe IE invasion vs acculturation The Atlantic Celtic branch (L21) The Gascon-Iberian branch (DF27) The Italo-Celtic branch (S28/U152) The Germanic branch (S21/U106) How did R1b become dominant ? The Balkanic & Anatolian branch (L23) The upheavals ca 1200 BCE The Levantine & African branch (V88) Other migrations of R1b 4. Lactase persistence and R1b cattle pastoralists 5. R1 populations & light pigmentation 6. MtDNA correspondence 7. Famous R1b individuals Geographic distribution Distribution of haplogroup R1b in Europe 1/22 R1b is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe, reaching over 80% of the population in Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, western Wales, the Atlantic fringe of France, the Basque country and Catalonia. It is also common in Anatolia and around the Caucasus, in parts of Russia and in Central and South Asia. Besides the Atlantic and North Sea coast of Europe, hotspots include the Po valley in north-central Italy (over 70%), Armenia (35%), the Bashkirs of the Urals region of Russia (50%), Turkmenistan (over 35%), the Hazara people of Afghanistan (35%), the Uyghurs of North-West China (20%) and the Newars of Nepal (11%).
    [Show full text]
  • First Capitals of Armenia and Georgia: Armawir and Armazi (Problems of Early Ethnic Associations)
    First Capitals of Armenia and Georgia: Armawir and Armazi (Problems of Early Ethnic Associations) Armen Petrosyan Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Yerevan The foundation legends of the first capitals of Armenia and Georgia – Armawir and Armazi – have several common features. A specific cult of the moon god is attested in both cities in the triadic temples along with the supreme thunder god and the sun god. The names of Armawir and Armazi may be associated with the Anatolian Arma- ‘moon (god).’ The Armenian ethnonym (exonym) Armen may also be derived from the same stem. The sacred character of cultic localities is extremely enduring. The cults were changed, but the localities kept their sacred character for millennia. At the transition to a new religious system the new cults were often simply imposed on the old ones (e.g., the old temple was renamed after a new deity, or the new temple was built on the site or near the ruins of the old one). The new deities inherited the characteristics of the old ones, or, one may say, the old cults were simply renamed, which could have been accompanied by some changes of the cult practices. Evidently, in the new system more or less comparable images were chosen to replace the old ones: similarity of functions, rituals, names, concurrence of days of cult, etc (Petrosyan 2006: 4 f.; Petrosyan 2007a: 175).1 On the other hand, in the course of religious changes, old gods often descend to the lower level of epic heroes. Thus, the heroes of the Armenian ethnogonic legends and the epic “Daredevils of Sasun” are derived from ancient local gods: e.g., Sanasar, who obtains the 1For numerous examples of preservation of pre-Urartian and Urartian holy places in medieval Armenia, see, e.g., Hmayakyan and Sanamyan 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • From Small States to Universalism in the Pre-Islamic Near East
    REVOLUTIONIZING REVOLUTIONIZING Mark Altaweel and Andrea Squitieri and Andrea Mark Altaweel From Small States to Universalism in the Pre-Islamic Near East This book investigates the long-term continuity of large-scale states and empires, and its effect on the Near East’s social fabric, including the fundamental changes that occurred to major social institutions. Its geographical coverage spans, from east to west, modern- day Libya and Egypt to Central Asia, and from north to south, Anatolia to southern Arabia, incorporating modern-day Oman and Yemen. Its temporal coverage spans from the late eighth century BCE to the seventh century CE during the rise of Islam and collapse of the Sasanian Empire. The authors argue that the persistence of large states and empires starting in the eighth/ seventh centuries BCE, which continued for many centuries, led to new socio-political structures and institutions emerging in the Near East. The primary processes that enabled this emergence were large-scale and long-distance movements, or population migrations. These patterns of social developments are analysed under different aspects: settlement patterns, urban structure, material culture, trade, governance, language spread and religion, all pointing at population movement as the main catalyst for social change. This book’s argument Mark Altaweel is framed within a larger theoretical framework termed as ‘universalism’, a theory that explains WORLD A many of the social transformations that happened to societies in the Near East, starting from Andrea Squitieri the Neo-Assyrian period and continuing for centuries. Among other infl uences, the effects of these transformations are today manifested in modern languages, concepts of government, universal religions and monetized and globalized economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuove Scoperte Nella Melid Neo-Hittita 
    Acc. Sc. Torino Quaderni, 28 (2017), 105-122, 10 Þ gg. ©,0(5&2/('Î'(//¶$&&$'(0,$ª 1XRYHVFRSHUWHQHOOD0HOLGQHRKLWWLWD 0ൺඋංඈ/ංඏൾඋൺඇං 5LDVVXQWR Dopo quarant’anni di interruzione, la Missione Archeologica della Sapienza Università di Roma ha ripreso lo scavo dell’area nord del- la collina di Arslantepe, antica Melid, presso l’odierna città di Malatya, in Turchia orientale. La lunga interruzione era dovuta alla necessità di concentrare le risorse nello scavo delle fasi più antiche: i complessi mo- numentali del Tardo Calcolitico e Tardo Uruk (IV mill. a.C.) e la sequenza completa dell’Antico Bronzo (III mill. a.C.). Si tratta di un ritorno alle origini dello scavo di Arslantepe «La collina del leone » così denominata dal leone in pietra, parte della porta della cittadella, che emergeva in super Þ cie. Il progetto della nostra ripresa ha dunque un duplice inten- to: dare alla Porta dei Leoni un contesto topogra Þ co e stratigra Þ co che tuttora le manca; e poi scendere ai livelli inferiori, per colmare il lungo periodo intercorso tra la distruzione della Porta Imperiale e la costruzio- ne della Porta dei Leoni. La campagna del 2008 ha raggiunto il primo scopo: ora sappiamo dunque che la Porta dei Leoni fu costruita alla Þ ne del IX secolo e distrutta alla Þ ne dell’VIII (appunto da Sargon II). La campagna del 2009 ha a ৼ rontato il secondo problema, scendendo al di sotto del salone a pilastri, rimuovendone una fase precedente, incon- trando poi insediamenti di squatters istallati sul rudere del grande muro di cinta post-imperiale, bruciato da un colossale incendio.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hittites
    THE ANCIENT EAST ~ No. VI THE HITTITES BY DR. L. MESSERSCHMIDT The Ancient East Under this title is being issued a series of short, popular but thoroughly scientific studies, by the leading scholars of Germany, setting forth the recent discoveries and investiga­ tions in Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian History, Religion, and A rchceology, especially as they bear upon the traditional views of early Eastern Histc,ry. The German originals have been appearing d1.ring the last eighteen months. The English translations made by Miss Jane Hutchison have been submitted in each case to the Authors, and embody their latest views. Short, helpful bibliographies are added. Each shtdy consists of some 64 to 80 pages, crown 8vo, and cJsts Is. sewed, or Is. 6d. cloth The following are issued: THE REALMS OF THE EGYPTIAN DEAD. By Pro- fes,or ALFRED "WIEDEMANN. THE TELL EL AMARNA PERIOD. By Dr. C. NIEBUHR. THE BABYLONIAN AND THE HEBREW GENESIS. By Professor H. ZIMMERN. THE BABYLONIAN CONCEPTION OF HEAVEN AND HELL. By Dr. ALFRED }EREMIAS. POPULAR LITERATURE IN ANCIENT EGYPT. By l'roft'ssor ALFRED WIEDEMANN. THE HITTITES. By Dr. L. MESSKRSCHMIDT. THE HITTITES BY DR. L. MESSERSCHMIDT TRANSLATED BY]. HUTCHISON WITH NINE ILLUSTRATIONS LONDON: DAVID NUTT 57-59 LONG ACRE 1903 CONTENTS P.AGF. I. HITTITE HISTORY 1. Scantiness of Sources of Information . 9 z. Scope of the Name "Hittite" <) 3. The Different Branches of the Hittite Stock 10 4. The Kheta or Khatti 1 r 5. The Mitani . 12 6. The so-called "Hittite" Treaty 14 7. The Hittite Kingdom of Karkhemish 19 8.
    [Show full text]
  • The Karaçay/Pazarcık Stele of Storm God
    Anadolu Araştırmaları Anatolian Research AnAr, 23, 123–134 DOI: 10.26650/anar.2020.23.814553 Research Article / Araştırma Makalesi The Karaçay/Pazarcık Stele of Storm God Karaçay/Pazarcık Fırtına Tanrısı Steli Ali Çifçi1 ABSTRACT The depiction of storm god on rock reliefs, orthostats and stelae was a very common feature of the Neo-Hittite city states. Similar stelae dating back to the Gurgum kingdom period within the boundaries of Kahramanmaraş province are exhibited today in both regional and local museums. In these stelae, the storm god is usually depicted as facing right, bearded, wearing a helmet, and holding an axe in his right hand with a trident thunderbolt in his left hand under a winged disc. In this study, the Karaçay stele exhibited in the Kahramanmaraş Museum was evaluated. In this context, a new dating is proposed by comparing the style and iconographic features of other similar stelae in the region and by considering the location of the stele. Keywords: Strom-God, Neo-Hittite, Gurgum, Maraş ÖZ Geç-Hitit Kent Devletleri’nin kurulu bulunduğu coğrafyada kaya kabartmaları, 1 Corresponding author/Sorumlu yazar: orthostatlar ve steller üzerinde Fırtına Tanrısı tasvirlerinin yaygın olduğu Ali Çifçi (Dr. Öğr. Üyesi), Marmara University Faculty of Arts and Sciences, bilinmektedir. Kahramanmaraş İli sınırları içerisinde yer alan Gurgum Krallığı Department of History, İstanbul, Turkey Dönemi’ne tarihlenen benzer tasvirler bugün hem bölge hem de yerel müzelerde E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1404-9820 sergilenmektedir. Bu betimlemelerde Fırtına Tanrısı genellikle sağa bakan, sakallı, başlık takan, sol elinde trident şimşek ve sağ elinde balta ile kanatlı güneş kursunun Submitted/Başvuru: 22.10.2020 altında tasvir edilmiştir.
    [Show full text]