Where Did the Kings of Danuna of EA 151 rule?

potah_Egypt _CROSSROADS II_ A G A M Ahřbet_35 mm C M Y K

9 788073 085759

ISBN 978–80–7308–575–9

edited by Jana Mynářová,Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Myn

ářo

vá, O

nd

erka

and

Pav

úk

(ed

s.)

Proceedings of an International

Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads II

The

re an

d B

ack

Aga

in –

the

Cro

ssro

ads

II

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads IIProceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

edited by Jana Mynářová, Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Charles University in PragueFaculty of Arts2015

strana 1 — titul

The book was published from the financial means allocated for the research project of the Czech Science Foundation GA ČR P401/12/G168 “History and Interpretationof the Bible”.

Reviewed by Luca Girella and Jordi Vidal

Contributors: A. Ahrens, F. Blakolmer, L. Bonadies, V. Boschloos, D. H. Cline, E. H.Cline, S. Cohen, P. P. Creasman, V. Dubcová, J. P. Emanuel, G. Gestoso Singer, F. Höflmayer, D. Kahn, U. Matić, E. Morero, A. Morriconi, E. F. Morris, J. Mynářová,P. Onderka, N. Papadimitriou, P. Pavúk, R. Prévalet, G. Tucci, Z. Simon, V. Vrtal, J. Weingarten, H. Wilde

Cover: Glass flask of Maiherperri from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Photo by An-dreas F. Voeglin, Photographer Antikenmuseum Basel, Switzerland; the entire SocialNetwork of the Amarna letters with four clusters (© D. H. Cline – E. H. Cline).

Type-setting layout: AGAMA® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o., PrahaPrint: PBtisk a.s.

© Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015

ISBN: 978–80–7308–575–9

strana 2

WHERE DID THE KINGS OF DANUNA OF EA 151 RULE?

Zsolt Simon*

The eventual relationship of the Danuna of an Amarna letter; the DNNYM, thePhoenician term for Cilicians; the Denyen, a Sea People; Dan, an Israelite tribe;the Homeric Danaoi, and the Neo-Assyrian Cyprus-related term Yad(a)nana hasgenerated an immense volume of literature. In this paper I intend to investigateonly the basic question (where Danuna of the Amarna letter is to be located) andthe strictly interconnected problem of their identification with DNNYM and withthe Denyen. The remaining questions, i.e. the origin of the Denyen in view of theDanaoi, the origin of Dan as a Sea People, and the interpretation of Yad(a)nanaall lay outside the scope of this paper as they represent problems secondary to thecentral issue.1

The Danuna of EA 151

The Late Bronze Age land of Danuna is attested in two texts: in a letter of Abi-milki of Tyre to Akhenaten (EA 151: 52: KURDa-nu-na) and in a letter of RamessesII to Hattušili III (ÄHK 31, KBo 28.25, 7’: KURDá-nu-ú-na, Edel 1994, I: 85, II: 138–139).2 Danuna is generally located in Kizzuwatna/Cilicia, which, however, leadsto serious historical and linguistic difficulties (cf. below). Thus, a critical recon-sideration is needed, for which one needs the evaluation of the traditional theoryfirst.

Danuna in Cilicia

There is a broad scholarly consensus that Danuna is to be located in Cilicia/Kiz-zuwatna;3 it is supposedly so evident that some recent papers do not even add

391

* I am very grateful to Jana Mynářová, Zsuzsanna Végh and Ilya Yakubovich for providing mewith unavailable materials as well as to Gabriella Juhász for correcting my English.

1 While the volume of literature is immense and thus one can find even bewildering views, theapproach of Y. Arbeitman in Arbeitman – Rendsburg 1981: 148, n. 12 (“I have intentionallytaken no note of Michael Astour’s impressive monograph as his approach is too different frommine to produce a fruitful discussion.”) can hardly be called scientific or fair.

2 Thus the Amarna reference is not isolated, contra Hawkins 2000: 39, n. 19.3 E.g. Laroche 1958; Astour 1965a: 5; de Vaux 1968: 26; A. Strobel 1976: 202; Schachermeyr 1982:

196–197; Jasink 1988: 96; Desideri – Jasink 1990: 106; Lemche 1991: 30; id. 1996: 767; Edel 1994,II: 139; Na’aman 1994: 403; Rainey 1996: 9, 10; Hawkins 2000: 40; Cline – O’Connor 2003: 115;Jasink – Marino 2007: 411, n. 30; K. Strobel 2013: 527; Woudhuizen 2014: 112.

any reference or evidence for this hypothesis.4 This view is based on the assump-tion that DNNYM, the Phoenician term for the Iron Age Luwian kingdom ofHiyawa/Que, is the same as Danuna. This assertion is based on one piece of evi-dence altogether: the assumed common derivation of Danuna / DNNYM fromthe name of the city of Adana. Its traditional formulation is generally attributedto Laroche (1958, esp. 266–267; and subsequently accepted by practically all schol-ars5), although Bossert (1948–1949: 2) has already provided almost the same ex-planation. The explanation is as follows: *Adana-wann(ī)- is a regular Luwianethnic name from Adana that resulted in Danuna-/DNNYM (the latter showing a Se-mitic nisbe) through the contraction of -awa-into-u- and Phoenician aphaeresis. ThusDanuna-/DNNYM would simply mean “the inhabitants of Adana” (this view be-came self-evident to such an extent that according to some scholars it does not require any reference or evidence, e.g. Lanfranchi 2009: 128; Adams – Cohen 2013:659, n. 12). Nevertheless, the implication that Danuna is to be located in Cilicia facestwo insurmountable problems, a historical and a linguistic one:

The Amarna letter mentions the death of the king of Danuna and the succes-sion of his brother (the letter uses the term LUGAL, thus the royal rank of theruler of Danuna is assured). Nevertheless, Danuna could not have been a kingdomin Cilicia at the time of this letter, since it should be dated after the First SyrianWar of Šuppiluliuma I,6 when Cilicia had been under firm Hittite control for a longtime and had been long incorporated without vice-kings, local kings or anythingsimilar.7 The same goes obviously for the attestation in the time of Hattušili III aswell (this problem has been recognized only by Forlanini 2005: 112; cf. alsoSchachermeyr 1982: 197).8

The linguistic problem is the aphaeresis, the disappearance of the initialvowel. Laroche (1958: 266) himself referred to the Phoenician aphaeresis in long

Where Did the Kings of Danuna of EA 151 Rule?

392

4 E.g. Popko 2008: 83; Novák 2010: 404; K. Strobel 2010: 47; Singer 2013: 323.5 E.g. Donner – Röllig 1964: 39; Szemerényi 1968: 156; Edel 1975: 63; id. 1994, II: 95, 139; Bron

1979: 169; Arbeitman – Rendsburg 1981: 147; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 195–196; Lipiński 1991:64, n. 62; Tropper 1993: 3 n. 4; Mayer 1996: 482; Hawkins 2000: 40; K. Strobel 2013: 527;Yakubovich 2015: 38. To the best of my knowledge only Jasink 1988: 94–97 and Desideri – Jasink1990: 106 assume a secondary assimilation of the two terms (Adana vs. Danuna).

6 Since the letter mentions Etakkama as prince of Qidšu, who was installed as a ruler by the Hit-tites after this war. The letter is to be dated before the 14th year of Akhenaten, when Aziru, theenemy of Etakkama in this letter, left for Egypt (cf. Altman 2001: 3, n. 3; Cordani 2013: 48, 53,57; Devecchi 2013: 84, n. 9).

7 To clarify, despite his political and military responsibilities, Telipinu, son of Šuppiluliuma I wasnot king of/in Kizzuwatna, but a “(great) priest” in Kizzuwatna (cf. Bryce 2005: 160 with refs.)and he was not followed by any of his brothers.

8 Before Laroche’s explanation the identification was not shared by everyone, see e.g. Kretschmer1949: 191 (secondary coincidence); Albright 1950: 172 (“there is no solid basis for the idea thatthe Dnnym of these inscriptions are the people of Adana, which also appears as ’dn in theKaratepe texts”). Since at that time the relative chronology of Hittite and Kizzuwatnean rulerswas not clear, Laroche 1958: 269 could have operated with two Cilicias, an independent oneand one under Hittite rule.

words of at least four syllables.9 However, as Laroche himself noted, this is a lateand “vulgar” change (cf. also Segert 1976: 77). Nevertheless, while most of the at-testations are indeed later, the very first one appears already in the 8th centuryBCE: King H. īrōm of Tyre (<’ah. īrōm “my brother is exalted”) is attested as H. RMin KAI 31 and as IHi-rūmu in Neo-Assyrian transcription (during the rule ofTiglath-pileser III, for the texts see Fabritius – Fuchs 2000). However, other Phoeni-cian names keep appearing with the initial vowel in both indigenous inscriptionsand Neo-Assyrian transcription (e.g. IA-hi-mil-ki, prince of Arwad [Borger 1996:30, 217], fA-hu-tú-mil-ki [SAA 11: 198, 5], for all these Phoenician data see Friedrich– Röllig 1999: 51), which means, of course, that this change is a non-standard pro-nunciation only (as was pointed out also by Laroche). Unfortunately, H. īrōm’sname is still too late to explain the DNNYM which appear in this form already inthe inscription KAI Nr. 24 / TSSI III No. 13 / Tropper 1993: K1 of Kilamuwa ofSam’al from the second third of the 9th century BCE,10 not to mention that one doesnot expect vulgar Phoenician pronunciation in the Aramaic speaking Sam’al andin the Luwian speaking Hiyawa (where DNNYM is attested), where Phoenicianwas used for celebratory and official purposes by non-native speakers. In otherwords, Phoenician aphaeresis cannot explain DNN, not to mention the 14th cen-tury BCE form of Danuna (cf. already Astour 1965a: 12, calling attention to Da-nuna which is neither a “late” nor a “vulgar” form). Or, as Singer (2013: 323) putit succinctly: Danuna proves that the form without a- and the “doubling” of n isnot a Phoenician innovation, but already a 2nd millennium phenomenon (cf. al-ready Edel 1975: 63). However, the aphaeresis cannot be an earlier change eitheras assumed by him, for Gander (2010: 51, n. 208) rightly emphasized that there isno aphaeretic local LBA dialect. Moreover, there is also another problem, pointedout by Arbeitman – Rendsburg (1981: 148): even assuming that this sound changehappened as early as the 14th century BCE, why should Akkadian and Egyptianhave taken over this local sound change in their appellation for the Cilicians (Da-nuna and Denyen, resp.)?11 Although I will argue below that Danuna is to be sep-arated from this complex, which would solve the problem of Akkadian, it solvesneither the Egyptian problem (the separation of the Denyen from DNNYM of Cili-cia would be improbable, cf. below), nor the problem of aphaeresis in general. Ar-beitman suggested instead that this aphaeretic form reflects the HieroglyphicLuwian aphaeresis: *Tanawann(ī)-. One must underline that at that time the notionof Hieroglyphic Luwian aphaeresis was widely accepted and thus this suggestion


393

9 Followed by Bron 1979: 170; Donner – Röllig 1964: 39; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 196; Jean 1999:29. Laroche mistakenly calls this apocope, which is the disappearance of the final vowel.

10 Kilamuwa ruled ca. 840–810 BCE, the inscription refers to the campaigns of Shalmaneser IIIin 839 BCE, (836 BCE), 833 BCE, 832 BCE, 831 BCE against Kate of Hiyawa (ruled 858–831BCE), Hawkins 2000: 41, Novák 2010: 406 with refs.

11 Their second objection to Laroche’s derivation, i.e. why was not the entire Phoenician formtaken over, is a misunderstanding of Laroches’s explanation.

indeed seemed to have solved the problem. However, nowadays we know muchmore about Luwian and recent research has demonstrated that Luwian never hadaphaeresis and all the apparent exceptions are illusive.12 Note furthermore thatsince initial stops were regularly and automatically devoiced in both Hittite andLuwian, the re-emergence of the voiced dental also requires a (still lacking) ex-planation. All in all, the terms Danuna and DNNYM cannot be explained basedon the name of Adana.13

One can thus conclude that Danuna cannot be located in Cilicia on both his-torical and linguistic grounds. It must be emphasized that these two strands ofevidence are independent from each other, and if someone would prefer the the-oretical possibility, attributing the formal differences to the ad hoc and unfalsifiableidea of the distortion of toponyms during the borrowing process (as K. Strobel2011: 198; id. 2013: 528 did), the historical problem still excludes this location. Butif Danuna was not in Cilicia, then where was it? An alternative view has been for-mulated already very early in the research.

Danuna in Northern Levant

In order to assess the other suggested location, we need to have a look at theAmarna letter EA 151: 49–70 (translation of Rainey 2015: 765, except for the phrase“from Canaan”, for which see below, and the spelling “Danuna”, since Rainey’s“Dannuna” (a misprint?) is unjustified; my segmentation, following the sense):

“The king, my lord, wrote to me, ‘What you hear from Canaan, then write tome’ (‘ša ta-aš-me iš-tu KUR Ki-na-ah-na ù šu-pur a-na ia-ši’).

The king of the land of Danuna is dead and his brother reigns in his stead andhis land is pacified.


394

12 Melchert 2010, see esp. 152: “there is no probative evidence for aphaeresis of initial /a-/ atany period of HLuwian, and the notion should be abandoned once and for all”. As for the ap-parent exceptions: Áwarikus and Warikas, kings of Hiyawa are not the same ruler, for a fulldemonstration see Simon 2014; the case of *Etewoklewēs ~ Tawagalawa, whatever the expla-nation is, is the Hittite rendering of a Greek name (Simon 2011: 259, n. 17). For the allegedaphaeresis in loanwords in Melchert 2013: 305 see Simon 2013: 282, n. 10. Based on the termSura referring to Assyria and the assumed identity of Warikas with Áwarikus Oreshko 2013:20 believes that “the Luwian part of ÇİNEKÖY demonstrates the phenomenon of aphaeresis”.Unfortunately, this assumption is based on a false analysis: this by-form of the name of Assyriaoriginates in the contemporary Assyrian pronunciation (Parpola 2004: 16–17, Simon 2012: 169with n. 5, cf. Rollinger 2006a: 74–75; id. 2006b: 284–285) and already Lipiński 2004: 116–130 ar-gued that Áwarikus and Warikas cannot be the same – Oreshko does not quote any of thesepapers (for the Hiyawa ~ Ahhiyawa-problem see the Appendix).

13 The only alternative explanation for these terms I am aware of is a prefix, either of an unknownmeaning (Barnett 1975: 365) or as an article (Kretschmer 1949: 191, 200–201, followed byA. Strobel 1976: 203). Both suggestions, however, prematurely assume the identity of the namesand the obscurum per obscurius way of argumentation is not an explanation.

And fire destroyed the royal palace of the city of Ugarit; half of it is destroyedand hal<f> not. But the troops of the land of Hatti are not (there).

Etagama, the prince of Qidši, and Aziru are at war; it is with Biryazawa thatthey are at war.

I have suffered the aggression of Zimredda [of Sidon – Zs. S.], when he as-sembled ships (and) troops from the towns of Aziru against me. (...)”

Despite the assertion of Singer (2013: 323) that “there is nothing to indicate itslocation” (i.e. of Danuna), Goetze pointed out as early as 1962 (1962: 50) that “thereport obviously progresses from north to south”, i.e. Danuna, Ugarit, Qadesh,and Amurru and thus “Danuna must be placed north of Ugarit, i.e. (for geo-graphic reasons) north of the lower Orontes River”, and since it cannot be locatedin Kizzuwatna, only the province Hatay of Turkey remains. His view has hardlyhad any followers: Donner – Röllig (1964: 39) mention that this text implies thislocation but choose to follow the Cilician view; and it is “a possible inference” inview of Adams – Cohen (2013: 660; a Syrian location was assumed already by Alt1934: 242).

This may be connected with the phenomenon that this text and/or Goetze’sargumentation (usually without an explicit reference to his paper) is frequentlymisrepresented:14 this happens even to Yakubovich (2015: 38), who is practicallythe only one assuming a similar location: “since the reports of the vassal Levantineprinces collected in the Amarna archive primarily deal with regional affairs”, Danuna should be located in Eastern Mediterranean, “perhaps not far fromUgarit”. As we could see, the reason for this location is not the main topic of theAmarna correspondence, but rather the statement of Abi-milki that he will relateCanaanite affairs, and the north–south direction of his report.

Some of these scholars, however, even use their misunderstanding as an ar-gument against the location in Hatay: Hawkins (2000: 39, n. 19) maintained that“I cannot agree that a report from Canaan that a king of Danuna is dead neces-sarily establishes that Danuna was in Canaan”. By arguing this way, however,Hawkins overlooks the fact that the events themselves were labelled as Canaanite(not to mention the obvious north – south description).

Bryce (2009: 191) states that “Danuna, mentioned in the (…) Amarna corre-spondence (…), and for this reason sometimes located in Canaan”. The reason forthe location is, however, not its attestation in the correspondence, but the structureof the list and the labelling itself, as per above.


395

14 For the earliest misrepresentation see already Schachermeyr (1938: 120): “Dieses Land mußnach dem Wortlaute der Briefstelle nicht unbedingt in Syrien (Kinahhi) gelegen gewesen sein,”see also below.

The only way to avoid the inevitable conclusion that Danuna is to be locatedin Canaan, i.e. in the Levant, is to assume either that the term “Canaan”, or moreprecisely, its Egyptian sense included Anatolian regions as well (so did Astour1965b: 348, n. 2215), or that Abi-milki intentionally included non-Canaanite newsas well in his report.16 The geographic scope of the term “Canaan” generated anintense debate in the 1990s, now, however, the only thing we need to know is ifthe term “Canaan” ever included any Anatolian territory. This is obviously notthe case; on the contrary, Egyptian texts refer to Cilicia as Kizzuwatna (and per-haps H

˘w17), and never as Canaan.

As for the second possibility, since Abi-milki quotes the instructions of thepharaoh literally, it is improbable that he included pieces of news that were notasked for (Tammuz 2001: 516). Rainey (1964; id. 1996: 9) assumed that Danunawas not in Canaan but in Cilicia and proposed to translate the Akkadian phrasethat Abi-milki reported “what he heard from (that is, from his own town locatedin) Canaan” (followed by e.g. De Vaux 1968: 27). Lemche (1998, see already 1991:31) in his critical assessment, however, pointed out that while this translation isgrammatically possible in theory, it does not make sense contextually (similarlyTammuz 2001: 516, cf. also Gardiner 1947: 125*): if someone residing in the CzechRepublic is asked about the news, one is interested in the news happening in theCzech Republic and not in the news, say, from Berlin that happened to be heardby the person residing in the Czech Republic (in his new critical edition Rainey2015: 1503 presents his views as unchallenged, omitting any reference to the abovequoted criticism).18

What is crucial in these alternatives is the implication that Danuna should belocated in Anatolian Hittite territories, which, as discussed above, does not fit thehistorical evidence anyway and thus excludes either alternative.

Finally, one must mention the letter of Ramesses II, which is usually left outin these discussions. The discussion is about the possible whereabouts of Urhi-Teššub and the different lists of the countries are assumed to be parallel (excerptedfrom Edel 1994, II: 94; KUB 3.62 = ÄHK 29, 499/d = ÄHK 31, with slight modifi-cations of Simon 2011: 258, 262–263; ---- denotes omitted countries):


396

15 He believes that Canaan in EA 30: 1 and EA 109: 46 has similarly broad scope, but this is simplynot the case.

16 So did Rainey 1964; id. 1996: 9; Schachermeyr 1982: 194; Na’aman 1994: 403, cf. already Wain-wright 1959: 81, n. 5. Lemche’s third alternative (1996: 767–768) that Abi-milki had only veryvague knowledge of the term Canaanite is improbable.

17 If identical with Hiyawa as per Edel 1975: 64–65 (followed by Görg 1976: 54; De Vos 2004: 157–158; Gander 2010: 53; Simon 2011: 260, see there for the phonological issues). However, ac-cording to Oreshko 2013: 30 its context is too general to specify its location.

18 Despite his correct critical observations (as per above), Tammuz 2001: 516, n. 70 maintains thatit is not clear whether the scope of Canaan in this letter included Danuna (and others).

KBo 1.15 + 19 (+) 22 KUB 3.62 499/d

Abschnitt M Abschnitt N Abschnitt O Sprecher H

˘attušili Sprecher Sprecher Sprecher Sprecher

Ramses Ramses Ramses Ramses [Qinsa?] Kizwatna Qa-a. -[t. e]19 [Kizwatna] Danūna [H

˘albā?] H

˘albā --------- H

˘albā [H

˘albā?]

--------- Šubarī [Š]u[barī] --------- --------- Kizwatna Qinsa --------- [Qinsa] [Qinsa?] --------- --------- Amurru --------- ---------

Aufzählung von Süden Aufzählung der Ländernamen von Norden nach Süden nach Norden zu Ramses hin zu H

˘attušili hin

However, as it has already been pointed out (Simon 2011: 258), these texts are notparallels in fact; their only common feature is the enumeration of countries fromapproximately the same region regarding the possible whereabouts of Urhi-Teššub, but the lists are not identical at all (cf. the omissions). Thus, we have noreason to assume that “Danuna” was the replacement for either Kizzuwatna orQode (as assumed by Edel 1994, II: 88, n. 69, 94–95, 139 and followed by Rainey1996: 10; Hawkins 2006–2008: 194), because we could also say that it was the re-placement for Aleppo or even for Šubarī (furthermore, the contexts are too frag-mentary for such a conclusion, cf. also Forlanini 2005: 112, n. 6: “mais sur la basedes integrations du texte”). In other words, this text does not help us to locate Da-nuna beyond pointing in general to the Cilician – Northern Syrian area. Since,however, a location in Cilicia is not possible due to the above discussed historicalcircumstances, this letter also argues for a location in Northern Syria. Moreover,this observation excludes the possibility that Abi-milki included non-Canaanitenews in his letter with mentioning Danuna.

One can thus summarize that the Amarna letter and the Ramesses letter pro-vide unequivocal evidence for locating Danuna in or around Hatay and argu-ments against this adduced until now are based on the misrepresentation of thesetexts.20 But if the location in or around Hatay is correct, how to explain the obvioussimilarity of the names Danuna, a kingdom in Hatay in the 14th century BCE, andDNNYM, a kingdom in Cilicia in the Early Iron Age?


397

19 This toponym is discussed in detail by Simon (2011: 257–259, 262–263), where the reconstruc-tion of Wouters 1989: 232 (followed by Singer 2006: 44) was unintentionally omitted: he pro-poses to read qa-a[t]-n[a], which is, however, not supported by the tablet itself, cf. Simon 2011:258.

20 Note that a Syrian location cannot be supported by the KUR Dannuna of the White Obelisk(A.0.101.18, 32’, Ashurnasirpal II), which previously was connected to this toponym (e.g.Kretschmer 1949: 190; O’Callaghan 1949: 195; Donner – Röllig 1964: 39; Desideri – Jasink 1990:105, n. 100; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 196 (“pourrait”); Mayer 1996: 482), since it is located faraway in the Mount Kashiyari (Hawkins 2006–2008: 191; Jasink – Marino 2007: 411, n. 28).

Danuna vs. DNNYM

In view of the location of Danuna in or around Hatay we have two possibilitiesto explain the similarities:

1) They have absolutely nothing to do with each other, the similarity is acci-dental and secondary (as proposed by Goetze 1962: 52, based on the location ofDanuna21). It must be underlined that absolutely nothing currently compels us toidentify the two with each other, since the term Danuna being located in Hatay,thus separated from Cilicia and DNN, cannot be explained based on the name ofAdana, thus the vocalisation of DNN is currently unknown.

2) They are identical (needless to say, practically all scholars identify DNNYMwith Danuna22), but in this case there is a geographical shift to be explained.

Before discussing the geographical shift, the “combination theory” put for-ward by Forlanini (2005: 112–113; cf. also 2011: 136–137 and already 1988: 142–143) deserves attention. He observes that the term “Danuna” is restricted toAkkadian texts, while the term “Ahhiyawa” is restricted to Hittite texts.23 He sug-gests that this is a real complementary distribution referring to the same, Greekentity corresponding to the Danaoi/Achaioi. He believes that this can explain theorigin of the term as well (Forlanini 2005: 113): “le Levant sémitique aurait pudonner aux peoples de l’Egée le nom d’un groupe ou d’une dynastie qui s’étaitaffirmée dans cette region, en étant de provenance Levantine (vraie ou sup-posée).” Unfortunately, many reasons exclude this possibility. First, there is no ev-idence for the view that Danuna and Ahhiyawa refer to the same entities. If theywere the same, Ahhiyawa should be located in Northern Syria based on the letterof Ramesses II. Second, the term Danuna cannot refer to a Greek entity, since it islocated in or around 14th century BCE Hatay, where and when any Greek kingdomcan be excluded safely. Finally, if Danuna was only secondarily applied to the in-


398

21 Goetze adduced as further counter-evidence that Adana was already attested in the Hittiteperiod as early as the time of Telipinu (2BoTU 23D i 14; KBo 1.5 iv 60; cf. del Monte – Tischler1978: 54). Nevertheless, in itself this is not an argument. Cf. also Schachermeyr 1982: 196–197.

22 E.g. Bossert 1948–1949: 2; O’Callaghan 1949: 195–196; Kretschmer 1949: 190; Dussaud 1953:86–87; Laroche 1958; Astour 1965a: 5–7; Helck 1971: 228–229 (“dürften”); Albright 1975: 508;Barnett 1975: 365; Edel 1975: 63; A. Strobel 1976: 203; Jasink 1988: 96 (cf. also Jasink – Marino2007: 411–412); Desideri – Jasink 1990: 105; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 196; Grandet 1994: 242;Liverani 1998: 158, n. 44; id. 2011: 621; Tekoğlu – Lemaire 2000: 982, n. 30; Hawkins 2000: 40(less strictly 2006–2008: 191: “perhaps”); Forlanini 2005: 111; Popko 2008: 83; K. Strobel 2011:197; id. 2013: 527; Singer 2013: 323 (“there is little doubt that this name anticipates its first-mil-lennium homonyms”). Contra Bryce 2009: 191, the Phoenician inscriptions do not refer to thesepeople as “Danunians”, but as DNNYM. The vocalisation of this name is unknown and canbe inferred only from its identifications.

23 Note that the term “Hiyawa” of Akkadian letters found in Ugarit does not refer either to Ah-hiyawa or to Cilicia, contrary to the widespread view, see Gander 2012 and the Appendixbelow. Nevertheless, Forlanini 2011: 136–137 himself identifies Hiyawa with Cilicia andexplains it from Ahhiyawa, eliminating the ground of his own theory (for a discussion of hisarguments see the Appendix).

trusive Westerners, it is not clear why the Phoenicians and Egyptians would haveused a term referring to a Levantine entity (Danuna) for these intruders(DNNYM/Denyen) whose non-Levantine origin must have been clear to Phoeni-cian and Egyptian speakers alike.

As for the assumption of Danuna being identical with DNNYM, one must inthis case explain the geographical shift. A possibility is provided by the abovementioned inscription of Kilamuwa, who underlines that his kingdom stood earlier under the rule of DNNYM: w’dr ’ly mlk. dn[n]ym “Und der König derDanu[nä]er war mir gegenüber mächtig” (Tropper 1993: 37). Since this area is thenorthern neighbourhood of Hatay, one can assume that the empire of Hiyawa in-cluded Danuna as well, which led to the extension of the term “Danuna” for theentire area of Cilicia by the Phoenicians.

However, in this case we face some problems: First, why would the Phoeni-cians use the name of a small kingdom in their neighbourhood to denote westernintruders? Not to mention that the existence of Danuna is not assured until thearrival of the DNNYM. Second, since Danuna must have been located south ofSam’al, in or around Hatay, after the collapse of the Hittite Empire it probably be-longed to the kingdom of W/Palastin(i) and not to Hiyawa. It is, of course, pos-sible that during its fragmentation W/Palastin(i) lost Danuna to Hiyawa (§§ 11–14of the ARSUZ stelae indeed refer to military clashes between W/Palastin(i) andHiyawa, reporting obviously the victory of the W/Palastinite king). But in factwe have no clear idea about these events.

The main problem with the geographical shift theory is the third one: theDenyen, one of the Sea Peoples. The Denyen mentioned during the reign ofRamesses III (in Medinet Habu and in the Papyrus Harris) and in the Onomasti-con of Amenope (late 20th to 22nd Dynasty; for the attestations see now Adams –Cohen 2013: 658–659) are routinely identified with the Cilician DNNYM.24 If theCilician DNNYM are only secondarily called this way after Danuna, then one


399

24 E.g. Çambel 1948: 150; Bossert 1948–1949: 4; O’Callaghan 1949: 195; Kretschmer 1949: 190;Stella 1951–1952: 13; Dussaud 1953: 86–87; Laroche 1958: 272–273; Wainwright 1959: 81; Donner– Röllig 1964: 39 (“mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit”); Astour 1965a: 5–7; Helck 1971: 228–229(“dürften”); Albright 1975: 508; Barnett 1975: 377; Edel 1975: 63; id. 1994, II: 139; Jasink 1988:96 (“con probabilità”); Desideri – Jasink 1990: 107–108; Vanschoonwinkel 1990: 196; Grandet1994: 242; Liverani 1998: 158, n. 44; id. 2011: 545; Hawkins 2000: 40 (less strictly 2006–2008: 191:“perhaps”); Tekoglu – Lemaire 2000: 982, n. 30; Bryce 2009: 191; id. 2012: 154; Wimmer 2010:341 (“plausibel”); K. Strobel 2011: 197; id. 2013: 527; Killebrew – Lehmann 2013: 2, 3, 14 (but cf.Lehmann 1979: 488, n. 27); Yakubovich 2015: 38. Before (and also after) the discovery ofKARATEPE they were identified only with Danuna, see e.g. Schachermeyr 1921: 233; id. 1938:120 (less strictly “vielleicht”); Wilson 1969: 262, n. 3. According to Adams – Cohen 2013: 659,n. 12 (who here wrongly call the Luwian version of KARATEPE Hittite, but correctly on p. 662,n. 19), this identification is problematic, because the DNNYM are attested much later – which,of course, is not a real problem. They are also cautious (“may or may not”) regarding the Da-nuna – Denyen identification (660). Also Schachermeyr 1982: 196–197 and Woudhuizen 2014:112 separate the DNNYM from the Denyen.

must give up the identification with the Denyen, since it is not probable that a SeaPeople bears the name of a Syrian locality (see already Laroche 1958, who pointedout that nothing shows that the Danuna people would be a people arriving frombeyond the sea, who freshly established themselves at the seashore). However,taking into account that both the DNNYM and the Denyen refer to an Aegeanpopulation arriving in the Eastern Mediterranean at approximately the same time,separation is hardly plausible.

Conclusions

On the one hand, historical facts unambiguously exclude the traditional locationof Danuna in Cilicia and this conclusion is supported by linguistics, too. On theother hand, the Amarna letter EA 151 and the letter ÄHK 31 demonstrate that thekingdom of Danuna should be located in Canaan or in general, in North-WesternSyria, north of Ugarit, in or around today’s Hatay province.

While solving the historical and linguistic problems of the traditional location,this old-new solution immediately creates a new problem: that of the identificationof Danuna with DNNYM, the Phoenician term for the Early Iron Age kingdom ofHiyawa. Those who maintain the identification must explain the geographicalshift. Though I suggested on the basis of Hiyawa’s earlier extension that it mighthave included Danuna, which might have caused the shift in the eyes of the neigh-bouring Phoenicians, I consider it unlikely. The problems include the illogical na-ture of this assumption, the fact that it probably originally belonged to anotherNeo-Hittite kingdom, W/Palastin(i), as well as the implication which separatesthe Cilician DNNYM from the Denyen, a Sea People, though in both cases we faceAegean intruders at the same time. Thus, contrary to the communis opinio, I optfor the most obvious solution: the separation of Danuna from DNNYM / Denyen.

To sum up: on the one hand, there was Danuna, a local kingdom in the 14th

century BCE Hatay, whose fate is unknown, but which was probably absorbedby a powerful neighbour or by W/Palastin(i). On the other hand, there is a groupof Aegean immigrants, the DNNYM / Denyen, who arrived in Cilicia at the dawnof the Hittite Empire and participated in the raids on Egypt.

Appendix: Ahhiyawa in the KARATEPE inscription?

Recently Oreshko 2013 suggested (followed by Yakubovich 2015: 38) that the termAhhiyawa appears in the KARATEPE inscription, which would provide a strongargument for the existence of aphaeresis in Luwian (since it would prove thedoubtful assumption of Hiyawa deriving from Ahhiyawa), and thus would sup-port the derivation of DNNYM from Adana. Unfortunately, his arguments are notvalid philologically:


400

1. Oreshko (2013: 25–26 with refs.) suggests that the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign*306 <hí> should be read as <hiya>. He builds this suggestion only upon La-hi-ia,the cuneiform equivalent of the name spelled in Hieroglyphics as La-hí in the Emarseal impression ME30c (and further supported by the name ILa-hi-ia- in KULULUlead strip 3, register 1). While he is right in underlining that <hí> alone must ren-der the two final syllables, he overlooks the fact that names containing -iya- haveregular by-forms with -i- due to the widespread Luwian contraction -iya- > -i-. Inother words, nothing compels us to assume the reading <hiya>. The importanceof this question is shown by his second proposal:

2. The toponym in question appears ten times in KARATEPE, nine times writtenas <á-*429-wa/i->, translated in the Phoenician version as cmq ’dn and dnnym(§§ 2–6, 24, 31, 32, 37). In the tenth passage (§37) it appears as <á-ta-na-wa/i->, andis translated as cmq ’dn. These observations have led to the traditional assumptionthat *429 is to be read as <tana>. Oreshko (2013: 21–25) proposes now that thisHieroglyphic Luwian sign *429 is in fact the Iron Age continuation of *306 andthus is to be read as <hiya>. The sign *306 cannot be read as <hiya>, as we couldsee, but even if someone prefers reading *306 as <hiya>, the connection of *429with *306 is graphically impossible, as rightly pointed out by Woudhuizen (2014:114), since there is no commonality between their shapes.

Finally, the tenth passage, §37, clearly shows that *429 must be read as <tana>:“|BONUS+RA/I-ia-ma-la-ha-wa/i SOLIUM-MA/I-ta |á-*429-wa/i-sá(URBS) |á-ta-na-wa/i-za-ha(URBS) TERRA+LA+LA-za”, i.e. “The city of Á-*429-wa/i and theAdanawaean plain dwelt peacefully” (its Phoenician rendering is as follows: w-nh. t lb l-dnnym w-l-kl cmq ’dn “there was peace of heart to the DNNYM and to allplain of Adana”). Oreshko (2013: 22–23) argues that there is a contrast in thePhoenician version between the toponym cmq ’dn and the ethnonym dnnym, whichcan be expected in the Hieroglyphic Luwian version as well. Nevertheless, theLuwian version describes the country as the combination of the capital and theplain surrounding it. Since the capital is Adanawa and the text clearly shows a cityname (Á-*429-wa/i) and its adjectival form, á-ta-na-wa/i-za-, the sign *429 mustbe read as <tana>.25

In other words, Ahhiyawa does not appear in KARATEPE and thus Gander’srefusal to derive Hiyawa from Ahhiyawa is still valid (Gander 2010: 50–55, seealso id. 2012; cf. Simon 2011: 258–259) and including the ÇİNEKÖY-inscription


401

25 Oreshko 2013: 22–23 admits that in other passages (§§6, 32) mq ’dn refers to Á-*429-wa/i-,moreover, that dnnym and mq ’dn act as synonyms. In other words, the assumed contrast doesnot exist. He emphasizes that this interchangeability does not necessarily mean that Á-*429-wa/i and á-ta-na-wa/i-za- are phonetically the same, for they can be synonyms as well. Whilein theory this is possible, the observations above show that they must be phonetically identical.Oreshko’s further doubts (Why would one use in one and the same sentence two differentwritten forms of the same word? Why would one write the name nine times one way and thetenth time another way without any obvious reason?) are pseudo-problems.

into the corpus of Ahhiyawa-texts (Beckman – Bryce – Cline 2011) was thus a pre-mature decision.26

Addendum to the Appendix

Against the graphic similarity between *429 and *306 see now also J. D. Hawkins,“Addendum to ‘Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia’ by Ilya Yakubo-vich.” Anatolian Studies 65 (2015), 54–55, who adduces a further argument from theARSUZ stelae against the reading Ahhiyawa in KARATEPE. Yakubovich acceptsthis counterevidence, but still follows the idea of Oreshko (“Adanawa or Ahhiyawa?Reply to the addendum by J. D. Hawkins.” Anatolian Studies 65 [2015], 56–58).

Bibliography

Adams, M. J. – Cohen, M. E.2013 “The “Sea Peoples” in Primary Sources.” In The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples”

in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew, and G. E. Lehmann, 645–664. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Albright, W. F.1950 “Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem.” American Journal of Archaeology

54, 162–176.1975 “Syria, The Philistines and Phoenicia.” In Cambridge Ancient History, II/2, edited by

I. E. S. Edward et al., 507–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).

Alt, A.1934 “Die syrische Staatenwelt vor dem Einbruch der Assyrer”. Zeitschrift der Deut -

schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 88, 233–258.

Altman, A.2001 “EA 59: 27–29 and the Efforts of Mukiš, Nuhašše and Niya to Establish a Common

Front Against Šuppiluliuma I.” Ugarit-Forschungen 33, 1–25.

Arbeitman, Y. – Rendsburg, G.1981 “Adana Revised: 30 Years Later.” Archiv Orientální 49, 145–157.

Astour, M. C.1965a Hellenosemitica. An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean

Greece. Leiden: Brill.1965b “The Origin of the Terms “Canaan”, “Phoenician”, and “Purple.” Journal of Near

Eastern Studies 24, 346–350.

Barnett, R. D. 1975 “The Sea Peoples.” In Cambridge Ancient History, II/2, edited by I. E. S. Edward

et al., 359–378. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).


402

26 Unaware of the current discussions, Melchert 2013: 305 boldly and mistakenly states that “itis now generally agreed that (...) /Hiyawa/ (...) reflects aphaeresized /Ahhiyawa/”. Forlanini2012: 136–137 discussed and refused Gander’s argumentation, but without considering thekey argument: the lack of aphaeresis.

Beckman, G. – Bryce, T. – Cline, E. H.2011 The Ahhiyawa Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 28. Atlanta: Society of Bib-

lical Literature.

Borger, R.1996 Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F,

G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bossert, H. Th.1948–1949 “Sur quelques problèmes historiques des inscriptions de Karatepe.” Revue

hittite et asianique 19/49, 1–9.

Bron, F.1979 Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. Genève: Droz.

Brug, J. F.1985 A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. BAR International Series 265.

Oxford: s. n.

Bryce, T.2005 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press (2nd

revised edition).2009 The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Western Asia. The Near East from

the Early Bronze Age to the fall of the Persian Empire. London – New York: Routledge.2012 The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms. A Political and Military History. Oxford –

New York: Oxford University Press.

Cline, E. H. – O’Connor, D. H.2003 “The Mystery of the ‘Sea Peoples’.” In Mysterious Lands, edited by D. O’Connor,

and S. Quirke, 107–138. London: UCL.

Cordani, V.2013 “Suppiluliuma in Syria after the First Syrian War: The (Non-)Evidence of the

Amarna Letters.” In New Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I,edited by S. de Martino, and J. L. Miller, 43–64. Eothen 19. Firenze: LoGisma.

Çambel, H.1948 “Karatepe: An Archaeological Introduction to a Recently Discovered Hittite Site

in Southern Anatolia.” Oriens 1, 147–162.

De Vaux, R.1968 “Le Pays de Canaan.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, 23–30.

De Vos, J.2004 “Les mentions des Louvites dans les sources égyptiennes. Qawe, Qode et la Bio-

graphie de Sinouhé.” Colloquium Anatolicum 3, 147–194.

Devecchi, E.2013 “Suppiluliuma’s Syrian Campaigns in Light of the Documents of Ugarit.” In New

Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I, edited by S. de Martino,and J. L. Miller, 81–97. Eothen 19. Firenze: LoGisma.

Donner, H. – Röllig, W.1964 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, II. Kommentar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Dussaud, R.1953 Prélydiens, Hittites et Achéens. Paris: Geuthner.


403

Edel, E.1975 “Neue Identifikationen topographischer Namen in den konventionellen Namens-

zusammenstellungen des Neuen Reiches.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 3, 49–73.1994 Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer

Sprache, I–II, Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissen -schaften 77. Opladen: Westdeutscher.

Fabritius, K. – Fuchs, A.2000 “Hi-rūmu.” In The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, II/1, edited by H. D.

Baker, 474. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Forlanini, M.1988 “La regione del Tauro nei testi hittiti.” Vicino Oriente 7, 129–169.2005 “Un peuple, plusieurs noms: le problème des ethniques au Proche Orient ancien.

Cas connus, cas à découvrir.” In Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Paper Read at the48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, 1-4 July 2002, edited by W. vanSoldt, R. Kalvelagen, and D. Katz, 111–119. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Intituutvoor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 102. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het NabijeOosten.

2012 “The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: Still anOpen Question.” Orientalia N.S. 81, 133–140.

Friedrich, J. – Röllig, W.19993 Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik, Analecta Orientalia 46. Roma: Pontifico Istituto

Biblico (3rd edition).

Gander, M.2010 Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder, Texte der Hethiter 27. Heidelberg:

Winter.2012 “Ahhiyawa – Hiyawa – Que: Gibt es Evidenz für die Anwesenheit von Griechen

in Kilikien am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit?” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Ana-tolici 54, 281–309.

Gardiner, A. H.1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Görg, M.1976 “H. iwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr.” Ugarit-Forschungen 8, 53–55.

Goetze, A.1962 “Cilicians.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16, 48–58.

Grandet, P.1994 Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) II, Bibliothèque d’étude 109/2. Le Caire: Institut

français d’archéologie orientale.

Hawkins, J. D.2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions I. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin –

New York: Walter de Gruyter.2006–2008 “Que.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11,

191–95.

Helck, W.1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Ägyptol-

ogische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (2nd revised edition).


404

Jasink, A. M.1988 “Danuna e Adana: Alcune osservazioni sulla Cilicia.” Mesopotamia 23, 91–104.

Jasink, A. M. – Marino, M.2007 “The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que kingdom dynasty.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-

Anatolici 49, 407–426.

Jean, É.1999 “The “Greeks” in Cilicia at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C. Classical Sources

and Archaeological Evidence.” Olba 2, 27–39.

Killebrew, A. E. – Lehmann, G.2013 “Introduction: The World of the Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples”.” In The

Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew,and G. Lehmann, 1–17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Kretschmer, P.1949 “Die Danaver (Danuna) und die neuen kilikischen Funde.” Anzeiger. Österreichi -

sche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 86, 186–202.

Lanfranchi, G. B.2009 “A Happy Son of the King of Assyria: Warikas and the ÇİNEKÖY Bilingual (Cili-

cia).” In Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Ho-nour of Simo Parpola, edited by M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila, 127–150. StudiaOrientalia 106. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.

Laroche, E.1958 “Études sur les hieroglyphes hittites 6. Adana et les Danouniens.” Syria 35, 263–

275.

Lehmann, G. A.1979 “Die Šikalājū – ein neues Zeugnis zu den “Seevölker”-Heerfahrten im späten 13.

Jh. v. Chr. (RS 34.129).” Ugarit-Forschungen 11, 481–494.

Lemche, N. P.1991 The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites, Journal for the Study

of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: JSOT.1996 “‘Where Should We Look for Canaan?’ A Reply to Nadav Na’aman.” Ugarit-

Forschungen 28, 767–772.1998 “Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151: 49–67.” Bul-

letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310, 19–24.

Lipiński, E.1991 “The Cypriot Vassals of Esarhaddon.” In Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History

and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, edited by M.Cogan and I. Eph al, 58–64. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

2004 Itineraria Phoenicia, Studia Phoenicia 18, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127. Leu-ven – Paris – Dudley: Peeters.

Liverani, M.1998 Le lettere di el-Amarna 1. Le lettere dei “Piccoli Re”, Testi del Vicino Oriente Antico

2.3/1. Brescia: Paideia.2011 Antico Oriente. Storia società economia, Collezione storica. Roma – Bari: Laterza

(2nd edition).


405

Mayer, W.1996 “Zypern und Ägäis aus der Sicht der Staaten Vorderasiens in der 1. Hälfte des

1. Jahrtausends.” Ugarit-Forschungen 28, 463–484.

Melchert, H. C.2010 “Spelling of Initial /a-/ in Hieroglyphic Luwian.” In ipamati kistamati pari tu-

matimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion ofhis 70th Birthday, edited by I. Singer, 147–158. Emery and Claire Yass Publications inArchaeology, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University28. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

2013 “Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luvian arha ‘away’. Common Inheritance or Borrow-ing?” Journal of Language Contact 6, 300–312.

del Monte, G. F. – Tischler, J.1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, Répertoire géographique des

textes cunéiformes 6/1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Na’aman, N.1994 “The Canaanites and Their Land.” Ugarit-Forschungen 26, 397–418.

Novák, M.2010 “Kizzuwatna – Hiyawa – Quwe. Ein Abriss der Kulturgeschichte des Ebenen Ki-

likien.” In Kulturlandschaft Syrien. Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-WaalkeMeyer, edited by J. Becker, R. Hempelmann, and E. Rehm, 397–425. Alter Orientund Altes Testament 371. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

O’Callaghan, R. T.1949 “The Great Phoenician Portal Inscription from Karatepe.” Orientalia N.S. 18, 173–

205.

Oreshko, R.2013 “‘The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder Beams’: The Value of Hieroglyphic

Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on Cilician Ahhiyawa.” Kadmos52, 19–33.

Parpola, S.2004 “National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity

in Post-Empire Times.” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18, 5–49.

Popko, M.2008 Völker und Sprachen Altanatoliens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Rainey, A. F.1964 “Ugarit and the Canaanites Again.” Israel Exploration Journal 14, 101.1996 “Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence.” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 304, 1–15.2015 The El-Amarna Correspondence. A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site

of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, I–II, Handbuch der Orientalistik110. Leiden – Boston: Brill.

Rollinger, R.2006a “Assyrios, Syrios, Syros und Leukosyros.” Die Welt des Orients 36, 72–82.2006b “The Terms “Assyria” and “Syria” Again.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65,

283–287.


406

Schachermeyr, F.1921 “Zum ältesten Namen von Kypros.” Klio 17, 230–239.1938 “Danuna.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2, 120.1982 Die ägäische Frühzeit. Die Ausgrabungen und ihre Ergebnisse für unser Geschichtsbild

5. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,Sitzungsberichte. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 387. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Segert, S.1976 A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: Beck.

Simon, Zs.2011 “The Identification of Qode. Reconsidering the Evidence.” In Egypt and the Near

East – the Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egyptand the Near East in the Bronze Age. Prague, September 1-3, 2010, edited by J. Myná-řová, 249–269. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague.

2012 “Where is the Land of Sura of the Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription KARKAMIŠA4b and Why Were Cappadocians Called Syrians by Greeks?” Altorientalische For -schungen 39, 167–180.

2013 “Überlegungen zu Masaurhisas, einem König aus Tabal, und der Herrscherlistevon Tuwana.” Anatolica 39, 277–296.

2014 “Awarikus und Warikas. Zwei Könige von Hiyawa.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologieund verwandte Gebiete 104, 91–103.

Singer, I.2006 “The Urh

˘i-Teššub Affair in the Hittite-Egyptian Correspondence”. In The Life and

Times of H˘

attušili III and Tuth˘

aliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12-13 December 2003, Leiden, edited by T. P. J. van den Hout, C. van Zoest,J. de Roos, 27–38. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten teLeiden 103. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

2013 “‘Old Country’ Ethnonyms in ‘New Countries’ of the ‘Sea Peoples’ Diaspora.”In Amilla. The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebrationof His 75th Birthday, edited by R. B. Koehl, 321–333. Prehistory Monographs 43.Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic.

Stella, L. A.1951–1952 “Chi furono i Popoli del Mare?” Rivista di antropologia 39, 3–17.

Strobel, A.1976 Der spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm. Ein Forschungsüberblick mit Folgerungen zur

biblischen Exodusthematik, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissen -schaft 145. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Strobel, K.2010 “Altphrygische Religion und Königsideologie – Eine weitere Brücke zur hethi-

tischen Großreichszeit?” Colloquium Anatolicum 9, 29–85.2011 “The Crucial 12th Century BC. The “Fall of Empires” Revisited.” In Empires after

the Empire: Anatolia, Syria and Assyria after Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1200-800/700 B.C.), edited by K. Strobel, 167–254. Eothen 17. Firenze: LoGisma.

2013 “Qadesh, Sea Peoples, and Anatolian-Levantine Interactions.” In Across the Border:Late Bronze – Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposiumheld at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31 – June 1,


407

2010, edited by K. A. Yener, 501–538. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 42,Leuven – Paris – Walpole: Peeters.

Szemerényi, O.1968 “The Attic “Rückverwandlung” or Atomism and Structuralism in Action.” In

Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm Brandenstein(1898-1967), edited by M. Mayrhofer, 139–157. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwis-senschaft 14. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Geisteswissen-schaften.

Tammuz, O.2001 “Canaan – A Land Without Limits.” Ugarit-Forschungen 33, 501–543.

Tekoğlu, R. – Lemaire, A.2000 “La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy.” Comptes rendus de l’Acadé-

mie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 2000, 961–1006.

Tropper, J.1993 Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizi-

schen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus, Abhandlungen zur Alt-Syrien-Palä-stinas 6. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Vanschoonwinkel, J.1990 “Mopsos: Légendes et réalité.” Hethitica 10, 185–211.

Wainwright, G. A.1959 “Some Early Philistine History.” Vetus Testamentum 9, 73–84.

Wilson, J. A.1969 “Egyptian Historical Texts.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old

Testament, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 227–264. Princeton: Princeton University Press(3rd edition).

Wimmer, S. J.2010 “Seevölker.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12,

340–341.

Woudhuizen, F. C.2014 “Note on the Various Names of the Cilician Plain in the Late Bronze Age and

Early Iron Age Sources.” N.A.B.U. 2014/3, 112–114.

Wouters, W.1989 “Urh

˘i-Tešub and the Ramses-Letters from Boğazköy.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies

41, 226–234.

Yakubovich, I.2015 “Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia.” Anatolian Studies 65, 35–53.


408

Where Did the Kings of Danuna of EA 151 rule?

Documents

Transcript of Where Did the Kings of Danuna of EA 151 rule?