John Curtis Franklin, Kinyras: The Divine Lyre
List of Figures
Conventions and Abbreviations
1. Kinyras and Kinnaru Part I: The Cult of Kinnaru
2. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia: Divinized Instruments 3. The Knr 4. Starting at Ebla: The City and Its Music 5. Mari and the Amorite Age: The City and Its Music 6. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates 7. Kinnaru of Ugarit 8. David and the Divine Lyre Part II: Kinyras on Cyprus
9. Kinyras the Kinyrist 10. Praising Kinyras 11. Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus 12. Kinyras the Lamenter 13. The Talents of Kinyras 14. Restringing Kinyras 15. Crossing the Water 16. The Kinyradai of Paphos Part III: Kinyras and the Lands around Cyprus
17. Kinyras at Pylos 18. The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar 19. Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos: Kinyras, Kinnaru, and the Canaanite Shift 20. Kinyras at Sidon? The Strange Affair of Abdalonymos 21. Syro-Cilician Approaches Appendices
Appendix A. A Note on ‘Balang’ in the Gudea Cylinders Appendix B. Ptolemy Khennos as a Source for the Contest of Kinyras and Apollo Appendix C. Horace, Cinara, and the Syrian Musiciennes of Rome Appendix D. Kinyrízein: The View from Stoudios Appendix E. The ‘Lost Site’ of Kinyreia Appendix F. Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? Appendix G. Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ Balang-Gods, Wolfgang Heimpel Bibliography
Part III: Kinyras and the Lands around Cyprus
17. Kinyras at Pylos
Important evidence for a BA Kinyras comes from an unexpected quarter: Mycenaean Pylos. Although the texts present ‘Kinyras’ as a PN, not DN, the contexts are consistent with the attributes of the Kinyras. This material, I shall argue, indicates that by the thirteenth century Kinyras—as the Greeks would call him—had already outgrown his musical roots and begun to develop into the metamusical figure he was on historical Cyprus.
Kinyras and the Priests
The first attestation is in a tablet from the so-called Northeast Building (NEB), excavated in 1957 by M. Rawson and C. W. Blegen, and belonging to the final phase of the ‘Palace of Nestor’ at Pylos. Long interpreted as a workshop for chariots and leather goods,  recent reassessment of its tablets and the associated small-finds has established the NEB’s broader function as a “storage facility and administrative clearinghouse that managed the collection and subsequent disbursal of livestock, various goods, raw materials, and groups of workers.”  The NEB was home to as many as seven scribes who recorded its diverse transactions in semi-archival documents that were eventually transferred to the central Archives Complex (AC). 
The Qa series of tablets, recovered from the NEB, is the largest single group outside the AC itself.  The twenty-four single-line, leaf-shaped tablets associate various individuals with the distribution (or perhaps receipt  ) of from one to five units of an unknown commodity.  The latter is designated by the ideogram *189, consisting of *44 (KE) in a rectangular frame, probably giving the first syllable of the item’s name. This is most plausibly interpreted as some form of ‘honor-gift’ (ke-ra, géras), but the material reality and occasion are both unknown.  A recent argument for the hides of sacrificial animals is attractive, but inconclusive.  The entries do not follow a single fixed formula, but exhibit at least four patterns.  Because of this variability, some tablets elude definite interpretation when they contain words not otherwise known, and/or when a word can be interpreted as PN or title.  The following table is based upon the re-edition with new joins by J. Melena, towards his forthcoming corpus of the Pylos texts in The Palace of Nestor IV.  Omitting tablets too damaged to be illuminating,  I have arranged the entries first by formula, where clear, and then by amount of *189, both known and presumed by analogy; the righthand column transliterates and translates only PNs and descriptors (where possible).  ‘Kinyras’ comes at the end among the tablets of uncertain formula:
The Qa Series
PN + Title
|1295||qe-re-ma-o||po-qa-te-u||*189||2||Kuelemahos the Diviner(?)|
|1300||i-]je-re-ja||*189||2||… the Priestess:|
|1303||ke-i-ja||i[-je-re-ja ]||*189||2||Keheia the Priestess: |
|1289||ka-wa-ra||i-je-re-ja||*189||[||Ka-wa-ra the Priestess|
|1296||a-o-ri-me-ne||i-je-re-u||*189||[||Ahorimenes the Priest|
|1298||ne-qe-u||e-da-e-u||*189||1||Neikuheus the ‘Shriner’(?)|
|1299||ka-e-se-u ||po-ti-ni-ja-wi-jo ||*189||1||Kaheseus the Potnian|
|1308||]p̣ạ-ke-u ||*189||1||… the Sacrificer|
Title + TN
|1290||i-je-re-u||se-ri-no-wo-te||[*189||The Priest at Se-ri-no-wo |
PN + TN
|1294||pu-ti-ja||a-pu2-we||*189||1||Pythia(s) at A-pu2 |
As a general principle, confidence in the identification of homonymous individuals depends upon their appearance in overlapping contexts.  Of the five PNs in the Qa series that are otherwise attested at Pylos, four—Amphihalos, Neikuheus, Enkherr’awon, and Pythias—can be securely identified with homonymous individuals appearing, among a larger group of Pylian elite, in a cluster of prosopographically interdependent texts concerned with (among other things) landholding, payments or disbursements of gold, and positions of military authority (including the famous o-ka set, dealing with a ‘coast-guard’).  Neikuheus and Enkherr’awon in particular were major landholders, the latter possessing as much in the district of Pakijane as all other known tenants combined.  If Enkherr’awon was not the king (wánax) himself, as some hold, he was at least “a man of the highest rank in Pylian society.” 
Thus, despite some ambiguities, the Qa series clearly deals with “persons of consequence.”  Its aristocratic character is further revealed by the high concentration of religious personnel among its entries. Two priests (1290, 1296) and two priestesses (1289, 1300) are itemized, with a third priestess plausibly restored (1303). Another figure is qualified as “Potnian” (Qa 1299, po-ti-ni-ja-wi-jo), thus serving the goddess Potinija/Potnia (‘Queen/Lady’) in some capacity.  These figures support cultic interpretations of other entries. Some kind of divination-priest, oracle-singer, or ‘ritual purifier’ is probably meant by po-qa-te-u (1295).  Neikuheus bears the title e-da-e-u both here (1298) and elsewhere; this has been interpreted as *hedaheús, ‘man of the abode (of the deity)’.  The broken ]pa-ke-u of Qa 1308 can be taken as sphageús, ‘sacrificial slaughterer’.  Pu-ti-ja (1294) too might be read as a cult-title (Pythía),  although this is more probably the same name and person attested elsewhere as a smith and military officer.  Still, the PN ‘Pythias’ may itself have carried cultic connotations: there are other examples of Mycenaeans whose names reflect their professions (see below). Enkherr’awon is implicated in other religious contexts elsewhere, contributing half the food for a feast of Poseidon, and allocated aromatics alongside deities and religious officials.  Moreover, the scribe who wrote all but three tablets of the Qa series (Hand 15)  also composed Un 219, a list of commodities assigned to various gods and religious functionaries.  It seems that this scribe’s special purview was “allocations to the religious sphere.”  It has been suggested indeed that the personnel of the Qa series be connected somehow with a cultic-industrial interpretation of the NEB itself as a shrine of Potnia Hippeia—a natural patroness for a complex whose concerns included chariot construction and maintenance. 
Be this as it may, the Qa series itself is clearly connected with the cultic sphere. It is quite remarkable, therefore, to find the entry ki-nu-ra me-nu-a 2 in 1301. Because me-nu-a 2 also appears in 1293, and there is no certain case of an individual appearing twice in the series, it is generally assumed that me-nu-a 2 is a title, and that consequently ki-nu-ra should be read as a PN—Kinyras.  The PN interpretation is well supported by a second attestation of ki-nu-ra at Pylos, where it must indeed be a PN (see below). Moreover, another tablet containing entries in the form PN + title has me-nu-a 2 preceded by just enough space for the restoration of ki-nu-ra. 
Nevertheless, as with many other problems in Linear B texts, one must appreciate the provisional nature of this conclusion. First, it cannot be proven that the same person is not referred to in both Qa 1293 and 1301, since double-records in small sets are not unparalleled.  Next, while Palmer’s understanding of me-nu-a 2 as a TN is generally rejected,  its interpretation as a title still lacks decisive etymological support. The word, with its probable graphic variant me-nu-wa,  is often read as *Miny(h)as or *Miny(w)as with reference to the Minyans (Minýai), legendary inhabitants of Boeotian Orkhomenos; but their obscure mythology offers no clarification.  A proposed linguistic link with Minos is equally unilluminating.  More promising, given the other entries in the Qa series, is a connection with mēnýein, to ‘disclose what is secret, reveal’. 
But any interpretation of me-nu-a 2 as a title must still confront its unambiguous use as a PN at Knossos, and perhaps Pylos itself.  While vacillation between PN and title is a known phenomenon,  this makes it equally possible in principle that ki-nu-ra, though a PN elsewhere at Pylos, could nevertheless be a title in Qa 1301.  And even if it is a PN in the Qa series, one would still need to contemplate its etymology, since the PN might in itself have professional implications.
Naming Kinyras in Greek
That the PN ‘Kinyras’ was already known in LBA Greece accords first with the divergent dialect forms of later sources.  The general agreement of the earliest authorities also encourages us to ignore the other possible phonetic renderings of the Pylian evidence—namely /Kinnýras/, /Kinȳ́ras/, /Kinnȳ́ras/—permitted by the ambiguities of Linear B, which distinguished neither vowel length nor double consonants. 
‘Kinyras’ is also consistent with Mycenaean name-forming patterns.  First, it joins the group of single-stem PNs that constitute seventy-five percent of those studied by O. Landau.  Of these, names in -ās are well represented at 3.7% of the total, ahead of many other suffixes (if well behind 6.4% in -tās and 11.2% in -eus).  According to the scheme of A. Leukart, -ās originally connoted adherence to a social group; but already by the Mycenaean period it was rather more general, appearing with a variety of nominal and adjectival stems.  Leukart grouped ‘Kinyras’ with adjectival nicknames like E-ru-ta-ra (Erythrās, ‘Ruddy’), seeing its root as kinyrós (‘plaintive’) rather than kinýra (‘lyre’) on the grounds that the former is found already in Homer, while the latter is “a late-attested Semitic loan-word”; but oddly enough he was open to deriving from kinýra the later attested examples of ‘Kinyras’ in the eastern Mediterranean. 
And yet—leaving aside the possible etymological relationship between kinyrós and kinýra,  and the complication of supposing two independent etymologies for what is surely a single PN—we have seen that the supposed lateness of kinýra is illusory; it derives rather from an early culture-word, very probably established on LBA Cyprus in some pre-Greek form.  That kinýra was not commonplace in pre-Hellenistic Greek is no argument against its currency, or at least peripheral presence, in the Mycenaean world. Consider that phórminx, the normal Homeric word for lyre, is unattested in Linear B; yet lýra, long considered a seventh-century novelty,  has now surfaced (indirectly) at Mycenaean Thebes.  So different lyre-names could easily have been used in different parts of the LBA Aegean, or side-by-side within different generic contexts. When this is combined with post-palatial disruptions, lexical discrepancies between LBA and later usage are only to be expected. 
There is no reason, therefore, not to place ‘Kinyras’ among the more numerous PNs in -ās that contain nominal stems.  Ki-nu-ra would thus be ‘man of the kinýra’, equally intelligible as PN and/or title. This interpretation is well paralleled by other Mycenaean PNs. For the addition of -ās to a concrete noun, compare for instance E-ke-a = *Enkhé(h)as, < énkhos, ‘spear’.  A still closer parallel is Ma-ke-ra = *Makéllas, < mákella (‘mattock’).  There are besides other PNs (of various formations) plausibly derived from musical instruments, including a-wo-ro (Aulṓn) and ru-ro (Lýros).  PNs from professions are also common, with some born by people working in the associated field.  Others reflect cult-activity.  These patterns all neatly converge in the PN ‘Kinyras’ as ‘kinýra-man’ or ‘kinyrist’. 
There are good ANE parallels for this interpretation. Sum. balaĝ, equated with kinnārum at Ebla (ca. 2350), is found both as a PN-element and in the agent word balaĝ.di.  We saw a PN built on Kin(n)ar[- at LBA Alalakh, and Hurro-Semitic agent-forms at both Alalakh and Hattusha.  These hybrids, inherently practical, reflect a living music-culture in diffusion, and generally support the idea that the Mycenaean world could constitute the western margin of Syro-Levantine lyre-culture—even if this was only secondarily or superficially through contact with Cyprus and Cypriots.  Ki-nu-ra as a title in Qa 1301 would establish a greater depth of exposure than as a PN; but with the hieratic context, a man called ‘Kinyras’ could still have executed a function akin to his name. Given Lupack’s hypothesis of a cultic-industrial character to the NEB and some direct involvement by the people of the Qa series, it is worth recalling the ‘industrial’ contexts in which Mesopotamian lamentation-singing is attested. 
That ‘Kinyras’ conforms to Greek word-building rules need not exclude special Cypriot connotations. Besides the ethnic character of kinýra itself (Chapters 9–12), and that already for Homer ‘Kinyras’ and Cyprus were indissolubly associated,  Kýprios (ku-pi-ri-jo) and *Alásios (a-ra-si-jo) are well attested at Pylos and Knossos as PNs or as TN-adjectives describing the destination or origin of various commodities, with the contexts often relating to typical Cypriot industries.  One Kyprios at Pylos was a bronze-worker who received an allotment of the metal.  Another is associated with alum, a versatile mineral of which Cyprus was a source.  Other instances involve oil and perfumed-oil making, an important industry for both LBA Pylos and Cyprus (recall Alkman’s “moist charm of Kinyras”).  These words, which one way or another indicate significant commercial and cultural interactions with Cyprus, are Greek in formation with Cypriot and/or Cyprocentric roots.
Kinyras the Shipwright
The page-shaped Vn tablets are not a coherent ancient series, but a modern grouping of texts lacking any ideogram and written by a variety of hands; most come from Room 8 in the AC.  Vn 865 is a list of twelve PNs after the heading na-u-do-mo.  Line 7 contains ]nu-ra, the final two syllables of a trisyllabic PN. C. Gallavotti’s supplement ki-]nu-ra, Kinyras, is the only restoration possible from words/PNs otherwise attested in Linear B,  and is generally accepted. 
Was this Kinyras the same or a different man than the ki-nu-ra of Qa 1301? Their identification finds no associative prosopographical support (that is, no other PN from Vn 865 reappears elsewhere alongside one from the Qa series). Evaluation of the alternative criterion—contextual overlap between Vn 865 and the Qa tablets—depends upon understanding the heading na-u-do-mo. The underlying word is clearly *naudómos (see below). Given the list structure, it must be either nominative plural introducing the following PNs, or dative singular describing the person to whom the other men are somehow assigned. Since the latter are individually named—a sign of social prominence—one may safely conclude that this is a list of *naudómoi, not laborers assigned to one *naudómos. 
As to the meaning of *naudómos, two views are viable on orthographical and morphological grounds: ‘(temple)-builder’ (cf. na[w]ós) and ‘shipbuilder’ (< naûs).  The minority favoring ‘temple-builder’ has advanced good arguments and responses, but the majority analysis does seem clinched by two further texts. A second Pylian tablet attesting na-u-do-mo is one of a large group recording exemptions from payments of flax to the palace.  Such concessions were evidently granted to those whose professional activity was important to the state; others enjoying this flax exemption include hunters and bronze-workers, where one may think of nets/snares and undershirts for bronze corselets.  While builders might perhaps employ flax-products (textiles, cords), the large amounts involved—fifty units, the highest in the series—tally better with naval needs like sails and ropes (whether or not Pylos was in a state of emergency in the months before its destruction).  The tablet also contains the final syllable of a TN that permits restoration as ro-o]ẉạ, the probable port of Pylos.  Finally, in a damaged tablet from Knossos, na-u-do-mo appears with the word e-to-ro-qa-ta and the ideogram *181, which has the shape of a loop.  This is most convincingly interpreted as *entrokuatás and connected with several later Greek words from the same root referring to the ‘thongs’ through which oars passed (perhaps of flaxen rope at this time). 
We may conclude, therefore, that the Kinyras of Vn 865 is indeed a shipwright.  There being thus no obvious contextual overlap with the Qa series, Nakassis considered the basis for identifying ki-nu-ra in Qa 1301 and Vn 865 as merely “tenuous.”  Of course an individual might indeed be involved in two different spheres. 
A Kinyras Complex
When Kinnaru of Ugarit came to light, the Kinyras(es) of Pylos attracted renewed attention, with several scholars supporting the derivation both of the Pylian PNs and the mythological Kinyras from the root knr.  But the real question here has hardly been recognized: what is the precise relationship between the Kinyras of myth and the homonymous Pylian(s)?
C. Baurain rejected the idea of a ‘real’ god Kinnaru as “fort excessif.”  Hence, while admitting that the Myc. PN was very probably derived from knr, Baurain denied that the mythological Kinyras grew from a hieratic musical seed. That ki-nu-ra appeared in the priestly Qa series was rendered insignificant, he argued, by Kinyras the shipwright (“une mise en garde contre des implications religieuses trop précises”).  On this view, the Kinyras of myth, while his name did indeed mean ‘kinýra-man’, simply possessed an ordinary Mycenaean PN like many other heroes.  Consequently, his priestly dimension would have to be a special Cypriot innovation, specifically of Paphos and the Kinyrad dynasty. But this idea is now fatally undermined by the extra-Paphian evidence for hieratic lyre-culture on the island and its culmination in “Our Kenyristḗs Apollo.”
One might try to compromise with Baurain by admitting that a person named (or entitled) ‘kinýra-man’ would find a natural place among the Pylian priests without any necessary reference to the mythological Kinyras; the latter would then bear this same, ‘ordinary’ Mycenaean PN because it best described the divine, lyre-playing figure whom Aegean Greeks found ensconced on the island in (and before) the twelfth century. And what better place than Cyprus for a Mycenaean usage to persist? Such a survival would be all the more probable if kinýra was itself modeled on an originally Cypriot adaptation of a Canaanite form, as I have argued.  But then the specter of the Kinyras would rise again, given the early attestation of Kinnaru at Ugarit.
Moreover, while Baurain would use the shipbuilding Kinyras to discredit a connection between the mythical Kinyras and ki-nu-ra in Qa 1301, we must remember that the Cypriot king was himself associated with maritime matters. As Baurain himself conceded in a footnote, referring to the terracotta fleet, “nous ne pouvons nier que Kinyras est aussi lié à une étrange historie de bateaux.”  But this is a serious understatement, for Kinyras’ naval persona was as well developed as the priestly/mantic/musical (see Chapter 13). So Vn 865 cannot be used to eliminate the mythical Kinyras from discussion of the Pylian evidence.
We must therefore seriously consider whether the Pylian Kinyrases have as their namesake the Kinyras—a Divine Lyre who, having acquired secondary, metamusical attributes by the thirteenth century, was lending his name to ordinary mortals (and their children), especially those with appropriate professional interests. This question must be asked whether we are dealing with one or two separate names at Pylos—and for that matter whether the ki-nu-ra of Vn 865 was shipwright or temple-builder, since the latter was yet another role played by Kinyras. 
Contemplating this possibility raises further onomastic issues. While theophoric PNs are not especially common in the Mycenaean world, we do find De-wi-jo (< Zeús, gen. Diwós), A-pa-i-ti-jo (< Háphaistos), A-re-i-jo (< Árēs?), and several others.  These are typically adjectival constructions, but the quasi-agent formation proposed for Kinyras may be compared with Di-wi-je-u (= Dieús, < Zeús).  The attested Mycenaean theophorics are mostly single-stemmed—as would be Kinyras—rather than compounds roughly comparable to the familiar Semitic ‘sentence-names’. In at least three cases (all soldiers), the individual’s profession is relevant to the god whose name he bears (Zeus, Enyalios). 
So a theophoric etymology for Kinyras is paralleled from within Linear B. Yet if the underlying divine-element (knr) was indeed of Cypriot, and ultimately Syro-Levantine, extraction, we should not restrict our view to Mycenaean onomastics. After all, non-Greek PNs, born by resident foreigners or fashionable in the Aegean, are not uncommon in Linear B, and clearly attest the multicultural nature of the Mycenaean world.  These include, besides the pre-Greek Aegean PNs one expects, a fair few paralleled in Hittite sources and by Hurrian PNs from Alalakh.  The latter are especially suggestive: besides the aforementioned PN with the root kin(n)ar- from that city, a number of resident Alashiyans are attested at Alalakh in the eighteenth and fifteenth centuries.  One Alashiyan from Alalakh bears the single-stem name A-la-ši-ia, confirming that Mycenaean A-ra-si-jo is a genuine Cyprocentric PN, not just a Hellenocentric ethnic nickname.  Hurrian PNs are the most numerous after Semitic in the diverse Alashiyan onomasticon (compiled from, besides the Alalakh texts, Ugaritian, Hittite, and Egyptian sources).  Nor is it unlikely on general grounds that at least some Cypro-Minoan tablets record a Hurrian dialect. 
The Alashiyan PNs equally include Anatolian, Egyptian, and other unidentifiable (presumably indigenous) specimens. Despite divergent interpretations of specific PNs and the often loose relationship between a PN’s linguistic affiliation and the ethnic identity of its bearer, Alashiya was clearly as multicultural as Ugarit and Alalakh, and of a quite similar mixture.  The proposed LBA derivation of kinýra/Kinyras from (ultimately) a Canaanite dialect finds circumstantial support in six or seven Canaanite PNs, both single-stemmed and theophoric-sentences, in the Alashiya texts. There was also one or more Canaanite-speakers among the scribes who produced those from Amarna,  while the cuneiform sign-shapes in the new Alashiya texts from Ugarit seem to show Tyrian influence. 
We must also cast a glance at Ugarit. Canaanite PNs are found here too, north of the Canaanite dialect zone proper.  Alashiyans resident in Ugarit are also well attested.  Nor is the use of occupational designations (naturally single-stemmed) uncommon in Ugaritic PNs; especially suggestive are the PNs ‘Singer’ (šr) and ‘Priest’ (khn, kmry).  Also important are several theophoric PNs incorporating the craftsman god Kothar, one of which is professionally relevant (kšrmlk, ‘Kothar-is-king’, a silversmith).  The simple form is also attested as a PN, from an Amorite king Kwšr in the Execration Texts (ca. 1900) of MK Egypt, to ‘Khauthar’ in a third-century CE tombstone from Hama, an Aramaean area of Syria.  The special significance of these Kothar-PNs will emerge in the next chapter, when we study that god’s coalescence with Kinyras.
The foregoing catalogue, though somewhat scattershot, shows that a PN like ‘Kinyras’, in some pre-Greek prototype, is perfectly conceivable on pre-Greek Cyprus.
I find, therefore, that the Kinyras(es) of Pylos are best explained on the hypothesis that Kinyras already existed as a complex, metamusical figure on Cyprus by the thirteenth century. I have already sketched the cultural conditions under which such an expansion of a Divine Lyre’s powers could have occurred, and suggested that just such a development underlies the contemporary Kourion stands, where monarchy, music, metals, and other elite symbols are brought together in coherent, ‘significant’ compositions.  These conclusions about the Mycenaean evidence are not so alarming when it is seen within a larger Cypro-Near Eastern framework. After all, Kinnaru probably had a substantial prehistory to find himself in the pantheon of thirteenth-century Ugarit. Despite the deep antiquity these hypotheses entail, the chronological pieces of the puzzle actually fit together very well.
[ back ] 1. Blegen et al. 1966 1:299–325; doxographic review in Bendall 2003, with references in 181n1.
[ back ] 2. Hofstra 2000; Bendall 2003; Lupack 2008a: 467 (quotation), 471.
[ back ] 3. Bendall 2003:197–203. For scribal administration at Pylos, and the interrelationship of the AC and other areas, see Palaima 1988:172–189; Palaima and Wright 1985.
[ back ] 4. For the exact find-positions and contents of the NEB’s series (mostly from room 99), see Tegyey 1984:68–75; Palaima 1988:79, 155 fig. 20, 213; Bendall 2003:198–199, 201–224. Two tablets (Qa 1259, 1441) were found outside the NEB, presumably scattered during destruction of the site: Palaima 1988:79, 213; Melena 2000–2001:377.
[ back ] 5. Cf. Bendall 2003:212–213.
[ back ] 6. Qa series: Blegen and Lang 1958:183–184, 190–191, pl. 46–47; PTT 1:221–222; Melena 2000–2001:380–384. Contextual discussions: Palmer 1963:371–373; Gérard-Rousseau 1968:34, 108, 190; DMG:484–485 (with illustration of *189, also PTT 2:150); Chadwick 1975:450–451; PP 2:42, 54–55, 94–95; Tegyey 1984:73; Palaima 1988:79–80; Killen 2000–2001; Bendall 2003:212–213; Lupack 2007:57; Lupack 2008a:483–484; ISMP:139–140.
[ back ] 7. Blegen and Lang 1958:191 initially suggested ‘hospitality gifts’ (ke-se-ne-wi-ja, xeinḗïa), but most of the recipients must have resided at or around Pylos itself, to judge from the general omission of TNs (PP 2:55); and the three who do bear TNs all resided within the kingdom, two in the Hither Province. Palmer 1963:371–373 thought of “some sacrificial substance,” comparing the appearance of KE in the Ma and Na tablets (cf. 300–313); Chadwick (DMG:484–485) suggested “some kind of textile (a ceremonial robe?).”
[ back ] 8. See Melena 2000–2001:380–384, proceeding from PY Un 1482, concerned with leather products, in which the ideogram *189 is preceded by ke-ra-e-we; this he interprets as *gerahḗwes, a plural formed from géras with the agent-suffix -eús (i.e. ‘things bestowing honour’, vel sim.). But see the critique of Killen 2000–2001, who reinterprets as ‘horn-worker’, and would similarly connect KE with a derivative of kéras, ‘horn’.
[ back ] 9. For various attempts to establish categories: see Blegen and Lang 1958:191; Palmer 1963:372; DMG:485; Tegyey 1984:73; Palaima 1988:79; Melena 2000–2001:383n16; Bendall 2003:212–213.
[ back ] 10. Thus Qa 1294 and 1304 are often analyzed as PN + TN, but Melena 2000–2001:383n16 rightly notes that Title + TN remains possible (but for pu-ti-ja in 1294, see below). Note that the third example of a TN (Qa 1290) is certainly Title + TN.
[ back ] 11. Melena 2000–2001.
[ back ] 12. Qa 1302, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1441. In Qa 1291, 1305, and 1306 a PN is likely, but no further context survives; for possible identifications, Melena 2000–2001:283; ISMP:192–193, 216, 241–242, 411.
[ back ] 13. Transliteration of PNs follows ISMP, q.v. for references.
[ back ] 14. Melena 2000–2001:283 includes this man among his ambiguous cases; but ISMP:243 and n176 convincingly identifies him with the well-known e-ke-ra 2 -wo (see below).
[ back ] 15. Or ‘Priestess from ke-e’: Chadwick 1975:450. See also PP 2:56; Tegyey 1984:73; Melena 2000–2001:283; ISMP:282 and n271.
[ back ] 16. PN at Mycenae: MY Ge 602.4 (DMG:228, 485).
[ back ] 17. The reading of PTT 1:221. Melena 2000–2001:383, without comment, gives po-ti-ni-ja-we-jo, the more usual alternative attested elsewhere (PP 2:124).
[ back ] 18. Melena 2000–2001:383 considers this ambiguous between PN/Title. But it seems clear from the shape of the fragment that the original tablet extended far enough left that a lost PN must be supposed. Compare its hand-copy with, for instance, that of Qa 1300 (Blegen and Lang 1958, pl. 47).
[ back ] 19. For this TN, Palmer 1963:372; DMG:149, 581; DM s.v. sa-ri-nu-wo-te.
[ back ] 20. In the Hither Province: DM s.v. a-pu 2 -de.
[ back ] 21. Attested only here. Considered ambiguous by Melena 2000–2001:383n16; taken as a PN by DMG:485; ISMP:216 and n109 tentatively suggests a compound in -λαος (making a PN much more likely).
[ back ] 22. In the Hither Province: DM s.v.
[ back ] 23. Joined with Xa 1335 (Hand 15, NEB): Melena 2000–2001:377.
[ back ] 24. A hapax: for textual/interpretive issues, see Melena 2000–2001:377.
[ back ] 25. For the basic methodology and associated problems, PP 2:13, 177–204 et passim; ISMP:31–72.
[ back ] 26. PP 2:190–193; ISMP:117–124, 139–140; cf. Franceschetti 2008b:314n27.
[ back ] 27. At least 1,000 fig trees and 1,100 vines (Er 880): ISMP:319–320.
[ back ] 28. Bendall 2003:212. As wánax: DMG:265, 454; Chadwick 1975 (quotation 453); PP 2:150–155; Palaima 1995b:134–135. Further bibliography on the controversy, Nakassis 2012:1n2; ISMP:244n181.
[ back ] 29. The elite nature of the series was soon appreciated: Palmer 1963:372; DMG:485 (quotation); Chadwick 1975:451.
[ back ] 30. For the title, PP 2:125.
[ back ] 31. DMG:485 (quotation), comparing φοιβάζω (‘prophesy’) and suggesting *phoiguasteús, cf. Chadwick 1975:451; Melena 2000–2001:383n16, follows suit with *phoibateús (i.e. *phoiguateús), noting Hesykhios s.v. φοιβητεύειν· χρησμῳδεῖν.
[ back ] 32. DM s.v. e-da-e-u; Melena 2000–2001:383n16. Other possibilities: PP 2:42. For this man’s other attestations (certain and possible), Lupack 2008b:77–78; ISMP:139, 319–320.
[ back ] 33. Lupack 2008a:483.
[ back ] 34. Melena 2000–2001:383n16.
[ back ] 35. Palmer 1963:372; ISMP:90, 139–140, 355.
[ back ] 36. The texts are Un 718 and Un 219: DMG:282–283; Palmer 1963:259–260; PP 2:152–155; Chadwick 1975:451–452; Nakassis 2012:15; ISMP:243.
[ back ] 37. For the identifying characteristics of Hand 15 and 33, see PTT 2:14, 16; Palaima 1988:79–80, 96. Qa 1307, formerly assigned to Hand 33 who also wrote 1289, 1300, 1305 (PTT 1:222), has now been transferred to Hand 15 by Melena 2000–2001 on the basis of a new join.
[ back ] 38. Un 219 (from the AC): Palmer 1963:259; its personnel: Olivier 1960:122–125. Connection with Hand 15/Qa series: Tegyey 1984:73; Palaima 1988:79n106.
[ back ] 39. Lupack 2008b:128n359. The second scribe (Hand 33), known only from this series, wrote Qa 1289 and 1300, the two that certainly mention priestesses; conceivably this scribe had a special connection to female cult personnel: Tegyey 1984:79; Palaima 1988:80; Franceschetti 2008a:314n24.
[ back ] 40. See Lupack 2008a and Lupack 2008b:120–129, building on suggestions of Tegyey 1984:75–79. The argument hinges on interpretation of An 1281, recording (in part) assignments of manpower for Potnia Hippeia; and the traditional identification of room 93 as a shrine.
[ back ] 41. Blegen and Lang 1958:191; Gallavotti 1961:166–167; Morpurgo (Davies) 1963:148; DMG:485, 554; Chadwick 1975:451; Gallavotti 1976:56.
[ back ] 42. Aq 218.14 (DMG:177): see Gallavotti 1961:167; PP 2:94–95, 193, noting that the restoration is supported by the appearance of ne-qe-u in Aq 64.14, which with Aq 218 constitutes a ‘diptych’ (DMG:422–424; ISMP:118) belonging in the text-cluster noted above (see n26). But this interpretation is complicated by other entries in the form PN + patronymic-genitive: Ruipérez 1956:158–159.
[ back ] 43. PP 2:94–95.
[ back ] 44. Palmer 1963:144, 372, on the parallel of pu-ti-ja a-pu 2 -we in Qa 1294.
[ back ] 45. See Ruijgh 1967:56, for phonological discussion.
[ back ] 46. Gallavotti 1961:166–167; Ruijgh 1962:68; DMG:187, 485; Gallavotti 1976:56. Fluctuation of e/i is not uncommon in Mycenaean: see p206n106.
[ back ] 47. For these and other interpretations see the extensive bibliography in DM s.v. me-nu-a 2 and me-nu-wa.
[ back ] 48. LSJ s.v. See Cataudella 1971:195–196, interpreting broadly as ‘judge’ (discussing An 724), with a secondary sacerdotal dimension implied in the Qa series.
[ back ] 49. As PN at Knossos: KN Sc 238, V 60, Xd 7702; Ruijgh 1967:56 and n46; Olivier et al. 1973:122; DM s.v. me-nu-wa 2). Parallelism does suggest that in Aq 218.14 (DMG:177–178) me-nu-a 2 is a title (Ruijgh 1967:56 and n46, although here too Palmer 1963:144 saw a TN). Me-nu-wa in PY An 724.2 (DMG:187, perhaps a list of exemptions from rowing service) is ambiguous, the analogous position in lines 5 and 7 being PN and title, respectively: Lejeune 1958:260n14; MgP:82, 172; DMG:485; Killen 2008:170–171.
[ back ] 50. PP 2:209 and further below.
[ back ] 51. Nor is it entirely certain that anything preceded ]ṃẹ-nu-a 2 on Qa 1293: for shape of the tablet’s lefthand edge, compare (in Blegen and Lang 1958) Qa 1290, 1295, 1304, 1298; for spacing of single-word + quantity of *189, Qa 1292, 1297.
[ back ] 52. The Ionic nominative Κινύρης is found in Homer (Iliad 11.20); Κινύρας should be shared by other dialects, and is so attested (cf. Eustathios on Iliad 11.20: ὁ Κινύρας κοινῶς ἢ Δωρικῶς ἢ καθ’ Ὅμηρον Ἰωνικῶς ὁ Κινύρης). The Attic or Atticizing genitive Κινύρου (Plutarch Moralia 310f, etc.) is also frequent, but Alkman has the Doric Κινύρα (3.71 PMGF); this is also implied for the seventh-century Spartan Tyrtaios in Plato’s paraphrase (Leg. 660e) of fr. 12.6 IEG (= Stobaios Anthology 4.10.1), and should be restored in a fourth-century Paphian inscription (p411). The conventional Homeric/Ionic version of the Tyrtaios verses has the Ionic genitive Kινύρεω, implying an earlier Κινύραο in the Aeolic phase and so on back to the LBA (it is found as an archaism in Bion Lament for Adonis 91 and Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.451).
[ back ] 53. While Kinnýras is indeed attested, this reflects the reintroduction of the original double-n by a Syrian or Levantine scribe for whom such forms as ki nn ōr were still a living concern: see p214–215.
[ back ] 54. The basic study is MgP; see also DMG:96–97; Bartonĕk 2003:399–418.
[ back ] 55. MgP:239–243.
[ back ] 56. MgP:240–241.
[ back ] 57. Leukart 1994:147–157, 204–235. Note that Linear B does not represent terminal -s, so that in principle some names of this pattern may actually have ended in -ā rather than -ās (cf. MgP:242; DMG1:84, 93–94). But the assumption of first-declension nominative masculines in -ās is justified by Myc. genitives in -āo, which probably arose secondarily to disambiguate the new nominatives from earlier genitives in -ās: DMG:400; Risch 1974.
[ back ] 58. Leukart 1994:215 and n218. For the Cilician Kinyras, see p496–512.
[ back ] 59. See p188 and n7.
[ back ] 60. See p272–276.
[ back ] 61. Arkhilokhos 54.11, 93a.5 IEG; Alkman 140 PMGF (κερκολύρα); Sappho 44.33, 103.9, 208; Alkaios 307c; Stesikhoros 278.2 PMGF; [Homer] Margites fr. 1.3 IEG; Homeric Hymn to Hermes 422.
[ back ] 62. The new tablet is TH Av 106.7, where ru-ra-ta-e (‘two lyrists’) has been interpreted as the dual of a deverbative noun *λυραστάς (< *λυράζω, against the later λυρίζω/λυριστής—itself but slightly attested: Pliny Letters 9.17.3; Artemidoros Interpretation of Dreams 4.72): see Aravantinos 1996; Younger 1998:18n42; Aravantinos et al. 2001:29–30, 176–178; Aravantinos et al. 2002:82–83. Others opt for a denominative *λυράτας: Melena 2001:30–31; Meier-Brügger 2006:115.
[ back ] 63. For this general point, cf. Franklin 2011a; Franklin 2011b. It may even be that lýra, rightly regarded as a “technical loanword from the Mediterranean area” (Beekes 2009 s.v.), was itself cognate with kinýra—a regional transformation via some pre-Greek Aegean language, for instance Minoan. This was suggested by M. Schwartz (communication, April 2012). The question needs further investigation, but preliminarily several suggestive phenomena, seen by Beekes as betraying the influence of pre-Greek upon later ‘Greek’ words, may be noted: interchange of νν/ν and λλ/λ (xviii §5.8); absence of velar in initial position (xxix §5.10); alternation of λ/ν (e.g. νίτρον/λίτρον, xviii §5.7a); possible lack of phonemic distinction in vowel length (xx, xxxii §6.2); note also xxix §5.13, where possible “secondary developments either in Greek or perhaps already in the original language” include κμ- > μ- (κμέλεθρον/μέλαθρον). One hypothetical sequence: Can. *kinnō/ūr(a) > Eteocypriot and/or Aegean pre-Greek kin(n)ýra (with loss of second-syllable length) > Aegean pre-Greek *knýra > *nýra > Myc./Gk. λύρα.
[ back ] 64. Leukart 1994:210–213.
[ back ] 65. KN V 831.1; MgP:46, 174, 209; Leukart 1994:210, with further examples 210–213. The PN O-re-a2 (PY Ep 705) = Ὀρέ(h)ας, < ὄρος, ‘mountain, hill’ (MgP:174, 209) is considered analogous to Kinyras by DGAC:355; but for Leukart 1994:205 the idea of place predominates in that word, constituting a transitional semantic stage between -ās as connoting membership in a social group, and the more general constructions involving nominal and adjectival roots.
[ back ] 66. KN V 831: MgP:235, 242; Leukart 1994:210.
[ back ] 67. A-wo-ro: KN B 800.3, cf. Aulṓn in Pausanias 3.12.9. Ru-ro: PY Sn 64.4, cf. the obscure Lyros son of Aphrodite and the lyre-playing Ankhises ([Apollodoros] Library 3.12.2). Another possibility is tu-pa2-ni-ja-so (KN Db 1279, a shepherd) = *Τυ(μ)πανιασ(σ)ος, < τύμπανον, ‘frame-drum’ (well attested Semitic cognates include Ug. tp: cf. DUL s.v. which notes Heb. twp, Aram. twp, Arab. duff); but the name could be an ethnic (< Τυ[μ]πανέαι, in Triphylia, Peloponnese). For these PNs, see MgP:18, 236; further references in DM s.v.
[ back ] 68. Examples from MgP:204–207 and 235–236 include several aptly named shepherds: Ko-ru-no (PY Cn 131.4, 719.9) = *Κόρυνος, cf. κορύνη, ‘shepherd’s staff’; Ke-to-ro (KN C 954.1) = *Κέντρος, cf. κέντρον, ‘goad’; also Ke-to (KN Da 1134) = *Κέντωρ. Other PNs from professions are A-ko-ro-ta (ΚΝ Mc 4459, MY Go 610+) = Ἀγρότης, ‘Hunter’ (or ‘Landowner’); Ta-mi-je-u (PY Jn 310.3, a smith) = *Ταμιεύς, cf. ταμίας, ‘dispenser’; A-ke-ro (PY Jo 438) = Ἄγγελος, ‘Messenger’ (cf. Plutarch Pyrrhos 2). Further examples: PP 2:95 and n4, 208–210; Bartonĕk 2003:402–403.
[ back ] 69. MgP:212–213: Tu-si-je-u (PY An 19.7, warrior) = *Θυσιεύς, ‘Οfferer’, < θύω, θύσις; A-wa-ta (PY An 340) = *Ἀρϝά-τας, ‘Priest’/‘Pray-er’, < ἀράομαι; Ma-ti-jo (KN X 1024.1) = Μάντιος (cf. Homer Odyssey 15.242).
[ back ] 70. Cf. Franklin 2006a:47; Franceschetti 2008a:313–314, 316.
[ back ] 71. Hartmann 1960:124; cf. p65–70.
[ back ] 72. See p98.
[ back ] 73. An instrument on a MM IIB prism-seal, variously interpreted as harp or lyre (Younger 1998:76 cat. 56, pl. 23.4; Crowley 2013:221, E184a), has a flat base and curling arms, which might be taken to show Levantine morphological influence; but the earlier Cycladic harps seem more relevant (AGM:70–71). One of the Minoan hieroglyphs (MM II–IIIA) rather more closely resembles a lyre of Levantine type (Olivier et al. 1996, sign no. 58 [#053.aB, 053.e]; Aign 1963:37 and 351; Younger 1998:79–80, cat. 67, pl. 25.2a–b); but cf. SIAG:219n3.
[ back ] 74. See p24, 30.
[ back ] 75. Gallavotti 1976:56.
[ back ] 76. See MgP:27, 219, 76, 227; Bubenik 1974; Gallavotti 1976 (comparing Kinyras on 56); Baurain 1980b:303n135; Shelmerdine 1985:49, 137–138; Knapp 1985:238; Himmelhoch 1990–1991; Palaima 1991:280–281, 290–295; Cline 1994:130; Nikoloudis 2008:48. That Cyprus should have been known by two names at once is not problematic: see Knapp in SHC 2:11–13.
[ back ] 77. Jn 320.3.
[ back ] 78. Un 443.1.
[ back ] 79. See p330–332. Pylos’ perfume industry: Shelmerdine 1984; Shelmerdine 1985.
[ back ] 80. PTT 1:257, 2:64; Palaima 1988:177–179, 217; ISMP:143.
[ back ] 81. PTT 1:256.
[ back ] 82. Judging from the indices of Lejeune 1964:31 and Olivier et al. 1973:296.
[ back ] 83. Gallavotti 1961:166; Morpurgo (Davies) 1963:148; PP 1:68, 2:95; PTT 1:256 (the under-dots suggest that the editors reexamined the text in light of Gallavotti’s suggestion, but there is no comment in the apparatus); DMG:554; Gallavotti 1976:56; ISMP:139–140, 291 (restoration treated as certain).
[ back ] 84. Palaima 1991:287–288 with contribution of R. Stieglitz.
[ back ] 85. Shipbuilders: Palmer 1963:435; DMG:298; PP 2:100; Palaima 1991:287; further references in DM s.v., 1–2. Temple-builders: Petruševski 1955:400; Stella 1958:50 and n119; Stella 1965:97; Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:14 and n14; DM s.v., 3. Montecchi 2011:172 objects on orthographical grounds, expecting rather *na-wo-do-mo; but Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:13–14 demonstrated the viability of an athematic form in nau-/naü-. Gallavotti 1976:56 allowed both possibilities.
[ back ] 86. Na 568: DMG:298–299; PP 2:100; Palaima 1991:287–288 (quotation). The tablets of the N- series (Na, Ng, Nn: DMG:295–301) are concerned with the ideogram SA, whose identification as some form of flax is guaranteed by Nn 228, which contains ri-no (λίνον) in its heading: Webster 1954:15; Robkin 1979:469.
[ back ] 87. Na 248, 252: Webster 1954:15; Palaima 1991:287–288.
[ back ] 88. Webster 1954:15; Palaima 1991:287–288. No emergency: Palaima 1995a.
[ back ] 89. Palaima 1991:287–288; DM s.v. ro-o-wa.
[ back ] 90. KN U 736.2.
[ back ] 91. Palmer 1955:39; Heubeck 1958:121–122; Melena 1975:53–59; Palaima 1991:295–296; Montecchi 2011:172. The parallels are Hesykhios s.v. ἐντροπῶσαι· ἐνδῆσαι and ἐντροπίδες· ὑποδήματα; τροπός (already Homer), τροπωτήρ and τροπόω (LSJ s.v.).
[ back ] 92. There remains the observation of Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:14 and n14 that the name of one *naudómos, sa-mu-ta-jo, is also found as a bronzesmith in Jn 389. The equation of these men is considered “tenuous” for lack of overlapping context by Nakassis (ISMP:372, accepting *naudómoi as shipbuilders). But bronze-working could supply the necessary intersection, since ka-ko na-wi-jo (χαλκὸς *νάϝιος) in Jn 829 is better interpreted as ‘temple-bronze’ than ‘ship-bronze’ (Leukart 1979; Hiller 1979; Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:14 and n14); whether this relates to sacred metallurgy (Lupack 2008b:34–43 et passim) is another question.
[ back ] 93. ISMP:139–140, 291.
[ back ] 94. And Nakassis himself seems to identify the two Kinyrases after all at ISMP:140.
[ back ] 95. Astour 1965:139n5 (approved in Hemmerdinger’s review, REG 81 :216); Kapera 1971:139; Baurain 1980b:305–306.
[ back ] 96. Baurain 1980b:305; cf. Gese et al. 1970:169; contrast Kapera 1971:138–139.
[ back ] 97. Baurain 1980b:305–306, “Au vu de PY Vn 865, cette possibilité devient caduque … Il faut donc admettre que … Κινύρας était un anthroponyme connu à Pylos et que son attribution ne paraissait pas liée à des considérations religieuses.”
[ back ] 98. For parallels, see MgP:262–267; DMG:103–105.
[ back ] 99. See p55–57, 195–196, 272–276.
[ back ] 100. Baurain 1980b:306n150.
[ back ] 101. See p363.
[ back ] 102. PY An 519.10, KN L 588.1, PY An 656.6. See further MgP:211–212.
[ back ] 103. PY An 656.9.
[ back ] 104. De-wi-jo (PY An 519.10); Di-wi-je-u (PY An 656.9, a hequétas or military ‘follower’); E-no-wa-ro (Py An 654.14) = *Enýalos, cf. E-nu-wa-ri-jo (KN V 52.2), Ἐνυάλιος (later an epithet of Ares: Homer Iliad 17.211, etc.). See MgP:211–212.
[ back ] 105. Nikoloudis 2008.
[ back ] 106. See MgP:268–273.
[ back ] 107. Alashiyans at Alalakh: SHC 2 no. 10–13; PPC:318–319. For the PN, see p98. A remarkable toponymic legend, surviving into the Hellenistic period, recalled how a king ‘Kasos’ (Mount Kasios) married a Cypriot princess called Kittia (Kition) or Amyke (the Amuq), who brought a Cypriot entourage with her to Syria: Pausanias of Damascus FHG 4:469 fr. 4. See Movers 1841–1856:205–206; HC:32.
[ back ] 108. AT 385.2; Astour 1964:242.
[ back ] 109. Alashiyan PNs: Astour 1964 (cf. Astour 1965:139n5, 51n1); Carruba 1968:25–29; Knapp 1979:257–265; Knapp 1983:40; SHC 2:7–8; PPC:318–323. The probably Indo-Iranian E-šu-wa-ra of RS 20.19 may be included among the Hurrian PNs for cultural reasons, such names being famously born by the Mitannian kings.
[ back ] 110. Masson 1974:47–55; Faucounau 1994; for an agnostic critique of these and other proposed decipherments, Knapp and Marchant 1982; PPC:322; Steele 2013:9–97. The same proposal has been made for the later Eteocypriot tablets from Amathous and elsewhere: see p349n66.
[ back ] 111. Cf. Knapp 1983:40.
[ back ] 112. Cochavi-Rainey 2003:2–3, 118–119; PPC:322.
[ back ] 113. Malbran-Labat 1999:121, 123.
[ back ] 114. See p55.
[ back ] 115. Resident Alashiyans at Ugarit: SHC 2:36–40; PPC:319; McGeough and Smith 2011:38–40 (the census text RS 11.857 = KTU/CAT 4.102, listing thirty households).
[ back ] 116. Astour 1964:245; Gröndahl 1967:28–29.
[ back ] 117. Kšrmlk (RS 19.16, 32 [PRU 5 no. 11]) is the Akkadianized form of kṯrmlk, also attested. The other names are ku-šar-a-bi (‘Kothar-is-my-father’), abdi-ku-ša-ri and ‘bdk ṯ r (‘Servant of Kothar’), and bin-ku-ša-ri (‘Son of Kothar’). See with references Gröndahl 1967:79, 84, 152; Kinlaw 1967:299; KwH:62–63 and 131n70–71.
[ back ] 118. See p167n100, 443n2.
[ back ] 119. See p383–392.