Information Exchange and Relations between Ahhiyawa and the Hittite Empire

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 89-97
Author(s):  
Tea Dularidze
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Near East ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Early Age ◽  
Middle Kingdom ◽  
13Th Century ◽  
14Th Century ◽  
Greek Tradition

The majority of scholars identify the long-disputed term Ahhiyawa found in the Hittite texts as Achaea of the Homeric epics. According to the Hittite texts, Ahhiyawa and Hittite relations can be dated from the Middle Kingdom period. The term was first used in the records of Suppiluliuma I (1380-1346). Documents discussed (the records of Mursili II and Muwatalli II) demonstrate that Ahhiyawa was a powerful country. Its influence extended to Millawanda, which evidently reached the sea. Especially interesting is the “Tawagalawa letter” dated to the 13th century BC, in which the Hittite king makes excuses for his blunder committed at an early age. The Hittite king takes a diplomatic step towards the resolution of the conflict and starts negotiations with a party (Ahhiyawa) that could act as a mediator. We can infer from the letter that Ahhiyawa had its representatives in Millawanda, while its relations with the Land of the Hatti were managed through envoys. The powerful position of Ahhiyawa is also evident from Tudhaliya IV’s letter to the ruler of Amurru, where he refers to the kings of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Ahhiyawa as to his equals. Thus, Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts fully corresponds to Homeric Achaea. The invaders have three appellations in The Iliad: the Achaeans, the Danaans, and the Argives. The Achaeans can be found in Hittite documents, while the Danaans are mentioned in the Egyptian sources. Ahhiyawa is the land of the Achaeans, which laid the foundation for the development of the Hellenic civilization in the Aegean. It can be argued that the Greeks were actively involved in the foreign policy of the ancient Near East. The information conveyed by the Greek tradition is supported by the archeological finds confirming the rise of the Hellenes in the continental Greece from the 14th century BC. According to the tradition, the Mycenaeans went far beyond the Near East, reaching Colchis (The Argonaut legend).

The Astronomical Basis of Egyptian Chronology of the Second Millennium BC

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Huber
Keyword(s):  
Solar Eclipse ◽  
Near East ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
New Kingdom ◽  
Middle Kingdom ◽  
The Moon ◽  
Astronomical Observations ◽  
Counter Argument ◽  
Unique Match

Abstract Egyptian dates are widely used for fixing the chronologies of surrounding countries in the Ancient Near East. But the astronomical basis of Egyptian chronology is shakier than generally assumed. The moon dates of the Middle and New Kingdom are here re-examined with the help of experiences gained from Babylonian astronomical observations. The astronomical basis of the chronology of the New Kingdom is at best ambiguous. The conventional date of Thutmose III’s year 1 in 1479 BC agrees with the raw moon dates, but it has been argued by several Egyptologists that those dates should be amended by one day, and then the unique match is 1504 BC. The widely accepted identification of a moon date in year 52 of Ramesses II, which leads to an accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC, is by no means certain. In my opinion that accession year remains nothing more than one of several possibilities. If one opts for a shortened Horemhab reign, dating Ramesses II to 1290 BC gives a better compromise chronology. But the most convincing astronomical chronology is a long one: Ramesses II in 1315 BC, Thutmose III in 1504 BC. It is favored by Amarna-Hittite synchronisms and a solar eclipse in the time of Muršili II. The main counter-argument is that this chronology is at least 10–15 years higher than what one calculates from the Assyrian King List and the Kassite synchronisms. For the Middle Kingdom on the other hand, among the disputed dates of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III one combination turns out to be reasonably secure: Sesostris III’s year 1 in 1873/72 BC and Amenemhet III’s 30 years later.

scholarly journals ON SOME FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES ASSYRIA AND BIAINILI-URARTU (673-672 B.C.)

2016 ◽  
pp. 31-56
Author(s):  
RUSLAN TSAKANYAN
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Near East ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Asia Minor ◽  
Eastern Asia ◽  
The South ◽  
Policy Issues

In the paper are discussed the issues of the Urartian King Rusa II/III’s (685-660(?) B.C.) campaign to Transeuphratian region, the circumstances of the Assyrian conquest of the country Šubria by King Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.), the specification of the year of the medians anti-Assyrian rebellion as well. In the result of the simultaneous research of Ancient Near East history, the author came to conclusion that the campaigns had the tendency to prevent the possibility of the attack of the “House of Torgome” («Տուն Թորգոմա», «Bêṭ-Tôgarmā/Torgāmā») (by the reign of Esarhaddon new dangers had appeared which directed Assyrian attention once again to these regions). The latter had occupied serious position in the Eastern Asia Minor at the close of the VIII century and now was trying to extend the influence in the East and in the South-East posing a threat for Assyria and Urartu. And only from such point of view it is possible to consider the aforementioned campaigns. As to the medians anti-Assyrian rebellion during researches the author came to conclusion that it took place after the Assyrian conquest of Šubria in the same year in 672 B.C.

Prologue to Genesis (1, 1-11, 26): Prophetic Revelation, History, Myth or Metahistory?

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-46
Author(s):  
Михаил Анатольевич Скобелев
Keyword(s):  
Mystical Experience ◽  
Near East ◽  
Literary Form ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
The World ◽  
Genesis 1 ◽  
Book Of Genesis

В статье рассматриваются богословие, композиция и литературная форма сюжетов, входящих в состав Пролога книги Бытия (1, 1-11, 26). Во второй половине XIX - начале XX вв. в результате появления Документальной гипотезы и сопоставления Священного Писания с литературными памятниками Древнего Ближнего Востока большая часть сюжетов, составляющих Пролог, была объявлена мифами и древнееврейским фольклором (Ю. Велльгаузен, Г. Гунекель, Дж. Фрезер). Кроме выявленных ближневосточных параллелей, новому отношению к повествованиям Пролога книги Бытия способствовали: отсутствие в нём ясно выраженной исторической задачи и символичность изложения. Защищая традиционный взгляд на Пролог как на священную историю и пророческое откровение, епископ Кассиан (Безобразов) предложил рассматривать все библейские сюжеты, содержащие теофанию, как метаисторию. Протоиерей Сергий Булгаков, А. Ф. Лосев, Б. П. Вышеславцев, занимавшиеся феноменом мифотворчества, назвали библейское повествование о начале мироздания мифом, но в ином смысле, чем это делали Г. Гункель и Дж. Фрезер. Они обосновали новый положительный взгляд, согласно которому миф не есть выдумка или фантазия, а реальность, основанная на мистическом опыте. В статье анализируется каждый из перечисленных терминов: «история», «миф», «метаистория» применительно к Прологу, а также рассматривается возможность их согласования с традиционным церковным взглядом на эту часть книги Бытия. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fiction but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document