Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

  Franklin, John Curtis. 2016. Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies Series 70. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

6. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates

This chapter presents a selective survey of mainly LBA texts and iconography from cultural areas peripheral to, and closely engaged with, the Syro-Levantine linguistic and cultural sphere in which kinnāru was at home. From a vast body of more general evidence, I have assembled the material bearing most closely on the Kinnaru-Kinyras question. This investigation helps flesh out a larger background for both Kinnaru of Ugarit and that city’s lyre-culture (Chapter 7), and the Syro-Levantine lyric heritage of the Biblical world (Chapter 8). Beyond this, it provides compelling parallels for the diffusion of the knr and associated ideas to Cyprus already in the second millennium (n.b.). It also clarifies the cultural motivations that can account for such a development, including various ritual uses to which lyres were put, especially in royal contexts. Finally, it illuminates the processes by which such cult importations transpired; I pay special attention to ‘Ishtar’—vitally relevant for Kinyras given the goddess’s persistent association with stringed-instruments, and his intimate relationship with ‘Aphrodite.’

The ‘Inanna-Instrument’ and Hittite Royal Ritual

franklin fig7

Figure 7. Musical rite in four registers. Inandık vase, ca. 1650–1550 (Old Hittite). Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi, Ankara. Drawn from photos in Özgüç 1988.

franklin fig8

Figure 8. Ishtar (?) playing harp before Ea. Modern impression of Syro-Hittite seal from Konya-Karahöyük, ca. 1750. Drawn from Alp 1972 pl. 11, no. 22.

This point bears especially on the position of harps (not lyres) in second-millennium Anatolia, Syria, and the Levant, where they are represented much less frequently than lyres—a sign of some exceptional and/or exotic status. This, when combined with clear morphological sympathies, shows that these instruments were more or less consciously Mesopotamianizing; and that in turn raises questions about the retention and development of associated theological concepts as they passed beyond the two rivers. Representing Syria is a fifteenth-century cylinder-seal from Alalakh, showing a female harper performing with a female drummer and dancer before an enthroned goddess; stylistic parallels corroborate an eastern origin or antecedents for the seal. [8] The numerous angle-harps of NK Egyptian art may be explained as musical imports from Levantine imperial holdings and/or the Syrian diplomatic periphery; at least some of those from the palace of Amarna (Figures 9, 10) probably derive from dynastic marriages with Mitanni (see below). [9] A final example, one of several Anatolian representations, returns us to the question of Hittite scribal usage. This is a Syro-Hittite-style seal of Hittite OK date, from the palace of Konya-Karahöyük, which probably shows Ishtar playing a harp before Ea and his vizier (Figure 8). [10] If so, the instrument would clearly deserve the title ‘Inanna-instrument’ as much as zinar, kinnāru, or zannāru. In other words, the designation’s essential ideas will have been predicated less upon narrow organological distinctions—partly or largely modern—than such factors as performance context and ritual poetics. In practice this means that, when seeking sympathies between Mesopotamian and western musical theologies and ideologies, we need not be strictly bound by morphological constraints. These points will be important for understanding a key piece of LBA Cypriot evidence. [11]

The early Hattian-Hittite use of large and small lyres is best illustrated by the Inandık vase of the seventeenth or sixteenth century (Figure 7)—a piece which also gives a vivid impression of the potential complexity and grandeur of Hittite music-rituals generally. Various stages of action are presented across four registers involving priests, priestesses, offering-bearers, libation-preparers, acrobats, and musicians—with lyres predominant, but also cymbals and lutes. [14] The whole composition, and the ritual actions shown therein, climax in a scene of explicit sexual intercourse. Here, if anywhere, one might hope to vindicate the kind of ‘hands-on’ hierogamy once readily imagined by many scholars not so long ago. The objections and cautions raised by more recent critics have certainly done much to refine our understanding of the disparate phenomena traditionally grouped under ‘Sacred Marriage’, some of which we encountered in connection with Shulgi of Ur. [15] The carnality of the Inandık vase, however, is hard to dismiss completely. Some would see the ritual depicted as a local emulation of contemporary Mesopotamian practice, a royal rite in honor of Inanna/Ishtar or an epichoric equivalent. [16] Others look to an indigenous procreation festival and royal initiation rites. [17] Be this as it may, the scene should be born in mind when considering the connection between Kinyras and Aphrodite in Greco-Roman mythology, and the church-fathers’ allegations of orgiastic sexual rites at Paphos. [18]

The Syro-Hurrian Sphere

Another major contribution made by the Hattusha archives comes from ritual texts deriving from the Hurrian cultural sphere. These, complemented by sources from elsewhere, especially North Syria, present further parallels for the veneration of cult-objects, including lyres, and illuminate other phenomena relevant to the Kinnaru-Kinyras question.

Finally, another Hurro-Hittite text arguably provides the most vivid example, outside of Sumerian sources, for the mythological treatment in song of a cult-object. This is the Song of Silver, a damaged episode of the so-called Kumarbi Cycle. [88] It parallels the Song of Hedammu and the Song of Ullikummi in that Silver is a son of Kumarbi who challenges the storm-god Teshup; evidently triumphing at first, ultimately of course he must fall to the prevailing world order. The story also exhibits striking parallels with the Greek myth of Phaethon—Silver is a fatherless child who, taunted by an age-mate, seeks out his father and ultimately drags the sun and moon down from heaven. [89] That Silver is to be understood precisely as the homonymous metal is supported by the ‘elemental’ nature of the forces that Kumarbi elsewhere enlists (Hedammu is a sea-monster; Ullikummi is the diorite-man, begotten through intercourse with a rock). V. Haas is thus probably right that the song personifies and mythologizes silver; of various animated, magical metals and stones found in Hurro-Hittite ritual, silver was the cathartic material par excellence, used to ward off demons, curses, and sickness. [90] Silver’s power over sun and moon may also correspond to aspects of ritual magic. [91] And we saw, in the Assyro-Babylonian lilissu ritual, that the positioning and manipulation of god-figurines endowed the proceedings with a cosmogonic dimension, and that such procedures could effectively generate or replay myths. [92]

‘Asiatic’ Lyres in Bronze Age Egypt

Here I shall briefly sketch the history of musical contact between Egypt and ‘Asia’ during the second millennium, especially the diffusion and purposeful transplantation of Syro-Levantine lyre-culture beyond its home-range, and the factors that account for it. The phenomena were naturally shaped by specific political and cultural forces, notably long-term NK control of Canaan and the unusual modulations of the Amarna Age (fourteenth century). Still the Egyptian material complements the Syro-Hurrian and Hurro-Hittite sources just discussed, for together they circumscribe a larger musical periphery around a Syro-Levantine center. If this circle were completed on a map, it would comfortably include Cyprus. This procedure may seem forced, but it is not unjustified. For we must assume Cyprus’ close political and cultural engagement with Egypt, Canaan, Syria, and Anatolia throughout the LBA, even when not explicitly documented—as it often is by texts from Amarna, Ugarit, and Hattusha. The Egyptian patterns can therefore contribute useful approaches for navigating the dire straits of LBA Cypriot music.

As to musical exchange with the Levant, this goes back at least to the MK, when the Beni-Hassan tomb-painting first depicts a lyre-player—in an ‘Asiatic’ troupe that confirms the instrument’s Levantine origin (Figure 3). While the overtly foreign context of the Beni-Hassan painting might discourage one from inferring any real Levantine musical ‘presence’ in MK Egypt, this is counterbalanced by a variety of textual sources referring to ‘Asiatic’ singers and dancers, often in the contexts of cult and festival. Especially notable are the temple archives from Illahun (Sesostris II, ca. 1897–1878, Twelfth Dynasty), with one papyrus listing as many as fifty cult-performers of ‘Asiatic’ origin (the term could include not only the Levant, but Syria and Mesopotamia). [98] The Beni-Hassan painting has prompted the suggestion [99] that simple rectangular-lyres entered Egyptian life at this time and were gradually elaborated into the instruments with curving, asymmetrical arms of the NK. On this theory, the lovely lyre of the Megiddo plaque (Figure 11 = 4.1p), for instance, would represent an Egyptianizing fashion in the Levant during the period of NK control (with the ‘Eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls following suit [100] ). But the comparable, early lyres of the Inandık vase (Figure 7) make the Syro-Levantine sphere epicentral to the elaborate morphology, broadly speaking, and thus its more probable home—although one may certainly allow for synergy with neighboring regions. [101]

franklin fig9

Figure 9. Cosmopolitan musical ensemble with ‘Asiatic’ lyre. Wall-painting from Tomb 367, Theban Necropolis, reign of Amenhotep II (ca. 1438–1412). Drawn from MgB 2/1:30–31 fig. 8.

More reliable are the varying details of clothing, hairstyle, and instrumentation, which indicate purposeful diversity in the ethnic and gender makeup of the many ensembles. The general validity of this principle is established by the harem scenes. [118] Figure 10, for instance, shows a schematic suite with guarded doors; its furnishings are dominated by musical instruments, not only reflecting a major aspect of female palace life (as at OB Mari), but equally serving as conspicuous iconographic markers of ethnic diversity. [119] Within six rooms one sees an Egyptian curved-harp, five Syro-Levantine lyres, two Mesopotamian(izing) angle-harps, six lutes, and a ‘giant’ lyre—apparently introduced in this period, and perhaps best paralleled by the instruments of the Inandık vase (Figure 7). [120] Most have minor variations to enhance the impression of diversity. There is also significant differentiation in their distribution. The women of the ‘upper’ chamber have long curling hair; two wear three-tiered Levantine robes, and one plays a Mesopotamian(izing) angle-harp; the giant lyre is found in their adjoining rooms. Although the lower register also includes Syro-Levantine instruments, as had made their way into earlier NK tomb-paintings, these rooms’ Egyptian character is confirmed by the women’s hairstyle and an Egyptian curved-harp. The composition clearly represents segregation of the several harem communities. The ‘upper apartments’ would perfectly suit, for instance, the female entourage of a Mitannian princess.


Figure 10. Two harem apartments with musical instruments. Relief from the Tomb of Aÿ, reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1364–1347. Drawn from Davies 1908 pl. XXIX.


[ back ] 1. See p77–79.

[ back ] 2. For the following points, see Laroche 1955:72–73; Sjöberg 1965:64–65; Gurney 1977:34; de Martino 1987 and RlA 8:483–488 (*Musik A III); Özgüç 1988:99; Güterbock 1995:57; AMEL:87; Klinger 1996:229–234; DCPIL:58–59; Ivanov 1999:587–589; HKm:97–106, with further references in n193.

[ back ] 3. See the recent catalogue of HKm with extensive bibliography for each piece.

[ back ] 4. See especially Ivanov 1999:588–589, proposing a proto-Luwian adaptation behind the three forms, e.g. WS ki- > proto-Luw. kui- > zi- (whence Hatt./Hitt. zinar) > za- (Akk./Sum. zannāru, this last stage not being fully explicated by the author). The third-millennium date which these developments require could also account for several apparent cognates in Caucasian languages noted by Ivanov (see p61). A Luwian hypothesis does seem promising in view of that language’s early ‘superstrate’ relationship to Hittite (Yakubovich 2010:227–238). But it would remain to explain how a (proto-)Luwian form could have become established in Mesopotamian usage by the OAkk. period. Ivanov is quick to concede that not all forms in z– need go back to a single development (palatalization of k- before front vowel is a common phenomenon). Note that Gurney’s rejection of a Luwian origin for Hatt./Hitt. zinar (in DCPIL:59) is not in itself insurmountable, as Hattic prefixes could have been added secondarily (Klinger 1996:230n408).

[ back ] 5. Cf. Klinger 1996:233–235, with different emphasis.

[ back ] 6. Pecchioli Daddi 1982:339–343; Haas 1994:539–615; CANE:1991 (G. McMahon); de Martino 2002:624; HKm:9–14 et passim.

[ back ] 7. Pecchioli Daddi 1982:329–336 passim; HKm:100–106 passim.

[ back ] 8. Alalakh cylinder-seal (Antakya 7989): see Collon 1982:74–75 no. 47, dating it to the first half of the fifteenth century, and suggesting parallels for the harp and throne at Nuzi and in Elam; cf. also Collon 1987 no. 664; Caubet 1996:30 fig. 8; RlA 8:489 fig. 2 (Collon, *Musik I B). The two harps in the Nuzi seal which Collon cites from Porada 1947:58, 116 no. 711 do provide a quite exact parallel; comparable forms are found in OB terracotta plaques: MgB 2/2:80–85 fig. 62–70.

[ back ] 9. Hickmann 1954b:292; Green 1992:219; Manniche 2000:234; Manniche 2006.

[ back ] 10. Alp 1972:120–121 and pl. 11.22; Esin 2002:514–515, 518 fig. 1, suggesting the OA trading colony at MBA Kanesh as the conduit for such imagery. For the other two images, see HKm:57, 60 with pl. 4 no. 14 (ceramic fragment with relief, sixteenth–fifteenth century), 68 with pl. 10 fig. 31 (terracotta figurine) and 32 (ceramic fragment with relief, thirteenth-twelfth century), 107–108. There are also two episodes in the Hurro-Hittite Kumarbi Cycle where Ishtar-Shaushka plays music to seduce (and thus overthrow) monstrous offspring raised by Kumarbi to challenge the storm-god Teshup; one of the instruments, in the Song of Ullikummi, is rendered as BALAĜ.DI, but its interpretation as lyre or harp is not secure, most preferring ‘drum’: CTH 345 (§35–37 in Hoffner and Beckman 1998:60–61). The parallel scene is in Song of Hedammu: CTH 348; fr. 11 in Siegelová 1971, with Hoffner and Beckman 1998:54 and 77n14. See further HKm:112–115; Brison 2014:189–194.

[ back ] 11. See p383–392.

[ back ] 12. Wegner 1981:155–156; Güterbock 1995:57; DCPIL:58–59; Ivanov 1999:587–588; HKm:97–106.

[ back ] 13. See generally Klinger 1996, especially 229–234, 740–754. Ethnomusicologists might see in this an example of “museum effect” (Nettl 1985:28), though ‘temple effect’ would be better here.

[ back ] 14. Cf. Özgüç 1988:99. In the ritual text KUB 25.1 rev. v.11–16, the large lyre, while playing together with drum, cymbals, lute, and clapping, appears to be the lead instrument in the hands of a priest-singer: cf. HKm:102.

[ back ] 15. See p37–40.

[ back ] 16. Özgüç 1988:92–104 (suggesting the OA trading colony at Kanesh as the locus of transmission, 99); Wimber 2009:7.

[ back ] 17. Alp 2000:19–20; Brison 2014:195 with references.

[ back ] 18. See p222 and n15.

[ back ] 19. The following material is collected in HKm:101–102. For treatment of loci numinosi in Hittite temples more generally, see Popko 1978:14–28 (83–84 for musical instruments, suggesting that this was a development of the NK); Haas 1994:262–282 (with subsections on hearth, altar, roof, pilasters, etc.) and 682–684 for cult-music; further references in HKm:102n226.

[ back ] 20. See generally Güterbock 1960; Haas 1994:772–826; HKm:12.

[ back ] 21. KBo 4.13 + KUB 10.82 rev. v.4–10; see Haas 1994:779; HKm:101n219.

[ back ] 22. Haas 1994:780–781, 789–790, 794–795 (at the ḫešti, for which see generally 245; Singer 1983–1984 1:112–115; Bachvarova forthcoming, passim), 796, 800 (great assembly), 801–802, 807, 817–818.

[ back ] 23. KBo 17.74 with offerings to throne, hearth, etc., apparently with lyre accompaniment (the text is damaged): Neu 1970:18–35. KBo 19.128, probably also relating to the AN.TAḪ.ŠUM festival: Otten 1971:8–9. Cf. Popko 1978:23, 83–84.

[ back ] 24. KBo 4.13 rev. iv.7 (sheep for the ‘Lyre of the Divinity of the Father of the Sun God’): Badalì 1991:80 no. 60; for translation see HKm:101. KUB 20.43, 3’: Popko 1978:83; HKm:101.

[ back ] 25. KBo 33.167 rev. iv.16’–20’. Another lyre is anointed in KBo 23.42 + 27.119 rev. iv. 24’–25’. This is followed by a Hurrian passage. Cf. HKm:101.

[ back ] 26. KUB 20.19 + 51.87 rev. iv.12’–14’: HKm:98. Lyre and drum specified together in what seems to be an entry-ritual: KBo 21.34 ii.9–10: HKm:100.

[ back ] 27. KBo 20.85 rev. iv.1–5: HKm:98, cf. 102–103.

[ back ] 28. KUB 56.46+ ii.3’–7’: HKm:99, cf. 102.

[ back ] 29. HKm:99.

[ back ] 30. HKm:103–104.

[ back ] 31. KUB 30.25+ KBo 34.68 + KBo 39.4.25: Popko 1978:83; HKm:104.

[ back ] 32. KBo 11.60 rev. 7’–8’, 12’–13’, 14’–15’: HKm:102, cf. 161–162.

[ back ] 33. HKm:103–104 with references.

[ back ] 34. HKm:153–155.

[ back ] 35. KUB 30.15 + 39.19.17–20 and KUB 30.23 + 39.13 ii.5: see Otten 1958:66, 72; HKm:155. Note that singing to the harp is sometimes specified for other funerary rituals, at least at certain junctures: see with references HKm:107.

[ back ] 36. HKm:105, 155.

[ back ] 37. Quotation from Bachvarova forthcoming. For the festival generally, see Singer 1983–1984, with synopsis of events 1:58–64; Haas 1994:748–771; CANE:2666–2667 (de Martino, seeing a “visual parallel” among the musical orthostats of Alaca Hüyük, for which see HKm:66–67 and pl. 9–10 [nos. 29–30]).

[ back ] 38. See Singer 1983–1984 1:74, 103 and n48, with cult-object procession 89–97; Haas 1994:749, 757–758, 760, 762, 764–766; HKm:11, 100, 105, 154.

[ back ] 39. See generally Wilhelm 1989.

[ back ] 40. See p82.

[ back ] 41. Draffkorn (Kilmer) 1959; Dietrich and Loretz 1966:188; Wilhelm 1989:13.

[ back ] 42. Wilhelm 1989:71; Desideri and Jasink 1990:51–109 passim; KH:111–113 et passim. For the Kizzuwatnan rituals, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974; Miller 2004; Strauss 2006.

[ back ] 43. See p76.

[ back ] 44. Mayer 1996:208; cf. Wilhelm 1989:70–71. At Mari: Thureau-Dangin 1939. For Hurro-Hittite incantations, see below. At Ugarit, p119–120.

[ back ] 45. Güterbock 1948:132–133; Wilhelm 1989:59–60; EFH:105. The texts are conveniently collected and translated by Hoffner and Beckman 1998. That these were songs is shown by expressions like “I sing” (išḫamiḫḫi): see Güterbock 1951:141; Hoffner 1988:143n1, 147; Beckman and Hoffner 1985:23.

[ back ] 46. Hagel 2005:293n22.

[ back ] 47. The recovered hymns, so far as we know, were all composed in the qablītu tuning. The same organizing principle is seen in the MA song catalogue VAT 10101 (Ebeling 1919 no. 158; Ebeling 1922; Kilmer 1965:267; Kilmer 1971:138).

[ back ] 48. RS 24.643 = KTU/CAT 1.148, 13–17 (see p120n51). Cf. Pardee 1996a:67, noting the hymnic classification of these verses by Laroche 1968:517–518. It is not certain, however, that this section of the text reflects an organic continuation of the earlier offering rite: TR:789 and n47.

[ back ] 49. Pardee 1996a:67, 75–76; contrast Mayer 1996:205–206, 209–210. Ugarit and Mitanni: HUS:619–21, 632 and n89 (Singer).

[ back ] 50. CTH 344; Hoffner and Beckman 1998 no. 14, with further references on p95; ANET:120–121 (Kingship in Heaven). Comparison with Hesiod: Güterbock 1948; Walcot 1966:1–26; West 1966:18–31; EFH:279–283, with further literature at 103n120, 279n5; Bryce 2002:222–229; López-Ruiz 2010:84–94.

[ back ] 51. CTH 321; Hoffner and Beckman 1998 no. 1 (ANET:125–126); [Apollodoros] Library 1.6.3, etc.

[ back ] 52. Dietrich and Loretz 1969a:48, no. 11 (Antakya 67), line 7: Kinar[i?]; the amount of distribution cannot be read. Cf. Sivan 1984:237.

[ back ] 53. Balaĝ is well attested as a name-forming element from ED I through the N-S period: Hartmann 1960:165, 169, 182.

[ back ] 54. Alalakh: AT 172.7: Dietrich and Loretz 1966:192 (defining as “indische Zither”) and 203n94; Laroche 1976–1977:148; Foxvog and Kilmer 1979–1988:440; von Soden 1988; DCPIL:58 with 61n29. For the suffix, Wegner 2007:57–58, whose parallels make the translation ‘kinnāru-maker’—sometimes given as an alternative—seem less probable. Of course one and the same person might both make and play the instrument.

[ back ] 55. KBo 1.52 obv. i.15–16. Hrozny 1917:52n1; Tischler et al. 1977:577–578; von Soden 1988; AMEL:87; Ivanov 1999:585; HKm:98 and n198.

[ back ] 56. See p115–118, 210–211, 432–435.

[ back ] 57. Haas 1984:6.

[ back ] 58. KUB 47.40 obv. 10 (Haas 1984:271–274 no. 50, exact find-spot unknown); cf. Ivanov 1999:586n8. I thank G. Wilhelm for his comments on this text (communication, January 2, 2014), and for reference to the adjoining piece, KBo 629 = KUB 45.45 (Trémouille 2005 no. 31), of which he writes: “ha-a-ši [in line 2] … in Bo-Orthographie als Imperativ ‘höre!’ übersetzt werden kann. (Im Mit[anni]-Brief wird haš– nie plene geschrieben; in Bo [Hattusha texts] kann das Verb ḫaš– ‘hören’ mit gleichlautendem ḫaš– ‘salben’ verwechselt werden, das oft plene geschrieben wird.)”

[ back ] 59. The sister series, Itkaḫi (also purification rituals), is characterized by “hymn-like recitations”: Wilhelm 1989:72–73.

[ back ] 60. KBo 33.109 right col. line 6; de Martino 1992:82–83 no. 37.

[ back ] 61. G. Wilhelm (communication, January 2, 2014), to whom I owe the reference.

[ back ] 62. Tacitus Histories 2.3. See p401.

[ back ] 63. PHG:171–172.

[ back ] 64. See p77–79, 89–90.

[ back ] 65. Literally “the woman of that which is repeatedly spoken”: see Beckman 1998:5–6 and n54, n56; Bachvarova 2013:27. Connection with magic: Wegner 1981:55–63.

[ back ] 66. Wegner 1981:155–156; Beckman 1998:6n73.

[ back ] 67. Beckman 1998:6 and n70.

[ back ] 68. KUB 15.35 + KBo 2.9, obv. i.16–18, rev. iv.29–30 (CS 1 no. 65, §3, §16). For the identification of the galgalturi, HKm:124–128.

[ back ] 69. CTH 481: Kronasser 1963 (section numbers used here); Miller 2004:272–312; trans. CS 1 no. 70 (B. J. Collins), q.v. for further references, adding Beal 2002; Miller 2008; Pongratz-Leisten 2011:91–93.

[ back ] 70. Beal 2002:201–202; Miller 2004:363–396, 438; Miller 2008:69–71.

[ back ] 71. KUB 32.133 i.1–7: Kronasser 1963:58–60; Miller 2004:312–19, arguing at 357–362 against associating this event with that of the ritual text itself; cf. Miller 2008:68, 70 (quotation).

[ back ] 72. KUB 21.17 ii.5–8; Beal 2002:198; Miller 2004:360n514, 363–393; Miller 2008:69–70.

[ back ] 73. Cf. Miller 2004:260.

[ back ] 74. For the historical possibilities of the several attested ‘expansions,’ see Miller 2004:350–439, leaving the occasion of the ritual text itself “an open question” (437), and seeing the text as the priest’s outline for a specific upcoming ritual; but cf. 530 on the Kizzuwatna rituals as “guides for future performances.”

[ back ] 75. For the practice in comparative ANE perspective, see Hoffner 1967; Bachvarova forthcoming.

[ back ] 76. For possible identifications of these instruments, Güterbock 1995; HKm:108–120, 124–128.

[ back ] 77. This would seem to suggest that the veneration of lyres and other cult-objects was more widely practiced in Anatolia and North Syria during the second millennium. But cf. Popko 1978:84, noting that it is only in texts of the Hittite NK that instruments are clearly ranked among cult-objects.

[ back ] 78. See HKm:100–101 and above, p94–95.

[ back ] 79. KBo 33.167, rev. iv.16’–20’; HKm:101.

[ back ] 80. The ḫuḫupal is central to a ritual text of Luwian extraction which obscurely describes a procedure of filling the instrument with wine and beer (at different stages), filtering it into another ḫuḫupal, with the resulting liquid consumed by the god or cult officiants depending on the outcome: KUB 25.37+ = CTH 771; see Güterbock 1995:63–71; HKm:111. Compare Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.15.3 (Ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον· ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, “I have eaten from the drum, I have drunk from the cymbal”); Firmicus Maternus On the Error of Profane Religions 18.1.

[ back ] 81. See p184 and Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2d and 23f.

[ back ] 82. Cf. the new Astarte hymn from Ugarit (RIH 98/02), which calls for praise of the goddess “by the sound of the nbl”: see p52n26.

[ back ] 83. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:103–115, focusing on those involved with bird offerings/purification rituals.

[ back ] 84. RS 24.274, 14, 16. Laroche 1968:504–507; SHC 2 no. 65; cf. AP:55. See further p373–374.

[ back ] 85. See Laroche 1968:506–507; cf. Laroche 1948:116 (line 13) with note on 118, 122 (line 29). A kaluti is a more or less canonical grouping of gods, following a definite sequence and serving as a kind of template for offering rituals: Wilhelm 1989:65.

[ back ] 86. KBo 14.142 i.20–33: Haas 1994:555; HKm:101.

[ back ] 87. See p5, 120n53, 121, 124, 283, 512n119.

[ back ] 88. CTH 364, multiple fragments: see Hoffner 1988; Hoffner and Beckman 1998 no. 16.

[ back ] 89. See the detailed comparison of James and van der Sluijs 2012.

[ back ] 90. Haas 1982:167–168, 177; cf. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:38–41; Strauss 2006:179–180.

[ back ] 91. Control of the sun or moon characterizes magical ability in some Greco-Roman sources: Aristophanes Clouds 749–750 with Dover 1968:192; Hippokrates On the Sacred Disease 1.69, 1.77 (I owe this reference to A. Hollmann). The darkening or disappearance of sun and moon also characterizes malevolent theophany in Mesopotamian Emesal prayers/laments, which were often performed at liminal moments (eclipse, sunrise): PHG:30, 175–180.

[ back ] 92. See p25–26.

[ back ] 93. See further p280–291, 328–329, 380–383, 392–400 .

[ back ] 94. See further p37–40, 375–383, 473–479.

[ back ] 95. Plato Laws 656e–657f.

[ back ] 96. HMI:89–95; AEMI:12–17, 36–62 (for the several varieties of curved-harp that developed over time); MMAE:24–37.

[ back ] 97. von Lieven 2008:156.

[ back ] 98. Schneider 2003:276–278; cf. MMAE:123, 125; von Lieven 2008:156, 158.

[ back ] 99. Brown 1981:387–388.

[ back ] 100. See p258–272.

[ back ] 101. Cf. the female double-piper who plays before a local (Egyptian? Canaanite?) imperial governor on a fourteenth-century Egyptianizing ivory plaque from Sharuhen, near Gaza (MAIP:95–96, fig. III.15). The eleventh-century (?) Tale of Wen-Amun represents the king of Byblos as maintaining an Egyptian songstress, Tentnau, who entertains the title character (CS 1 no. 41; cf. Hickmann 1954b:286; MMAE:126).

[ back ] 102. Hickmann 1961:33; MgB 2/1:16; MGG 5:1042 (Kubik); Helck 1971:496 remains agnostic.

[ back ] 103. Helck 1955:1305; cf. Lawergren 1993:55; von Lieven 2008:158 (translation used here).

[ back ] 104. Manniche 1989:26; Green 1992:219; Manniche 2000:234.

[ back ] 105. Manniche 2000:234.

[ back ] 106. MgB 2/1:30–31 (no. 8, the only angle-harp prior to the Amarna period), 144–145 (no. 118); AEMI:5–6, 31, 80–86, 89–91; MMAE fig. 2, 21, 26, 30–31, 52–54; Teeter 1993:83 (fig. 4-6–8 [sic]). For these ensembles, and for lyres, lutes, and double-pipes as Levantine imports: Hickmann 1961:32–35; Helck 1971:496–498; Manniche 1989:26–27; MMAE:40–56, 125; Teeter 1993:84.

[ back ] 107. MgB 2/1:30–31 fig. 8; cf. Teeter 1993:80.

[ back ] 108. For the surviving lyres, see with further references AMEL:128–130.

[ back ] 109. Helck 1971:496–498; von Lieven 2008:156, 159.

[ back ] 110. Helck 1971:497; MMAE:91–92; von Lieven 2008:156.

[ back ] 111. See p56. Another word current in the MK, dʒdʒt, is sometimes interpreted as ‘lyre’; but this is quite uncertain (MMAE:125).

[ back ] 112. See with references von Lieven 2008:158.

[ back ] 113. Von Lieven 2008:159–160.

[ back ] 114. MgB 2/1:68–71 (nos. 39–41), 78–79 (no. 61); MMAE fig. 27; Teeter 1993 fig. 4-6–8 (sic).

[ back ] 115. MgB 2/1:28–29 (no. 7), 42–43 (no. 20), 82–83 (no. 51), 132–133 (nos. 101–102); MMAE fig. 40. Cf. Manniche 1989:26.

[ back ] 116. See especially Manniche 1989; MMAE:84–96; Green 1992; Manniche 2000.

[ back ] 117. Cf. MMAE:88–89.

[ back ] 118. See the analysis of MMAE:85.

[ back ] 119. Davies 1908, pl. XXIX, cf. XXVIII (tomb of Aÿ); MMAE:86, fig. 50.

[ back ] 120. The bull-lyres of Sumer were long vanished. Some posit an unattested Levantine analog (DCPIL: 60n5: cf. p51 above), though NK Hittite cultural influence on North Syria, even before Suppiluliuma I (ca. 1344–1322), may be a sufficient explanation for the Egyptian evidence. There is some variety in how these instruments are shown; the harem’s apparently round-based lyre might point to the Aegean or even Cyprus/Alashiya. See Manniche 1971:162–163; AEMI:88–89; Manniche 1989:27; Duchesne-Guillemin 1989 compares the oversized Minoan lyre on the Chania pyxis (Chania XM 2308, Late Minoan III: SIAG:2, 16 and fig. 2b), but it is hard to trust these proportions; MMAE:91–92; Green 1992:218 (Anatolian); AMEL:141–142.

[ back ] 121. MMAE:90.

[ back ] 122. Manniche 1989:26; MMAE:85.

[ back ] 123. Although no foreign female groups are certainly identified outside of the harem, these too are likely. In one relief, showing a row of headless musicians with the three-tiered robe worn by foreign men and women alike, other contextual details support a female reading: MMAE fig. 53.

[ back ] 124. MMAE:100–101.

[ back ] 125. Manniche 1978; Manniche 1989:30–31; Green 1992:218. Male palace musicians are shown only on blocks from Karnak.

[ back ] 126. MMAE:86.

[ back ] 127. Quotation: Short Hymn to the Aten, trans. Lichtheim 1973 2:91 (here following Scharff 1922:68). Cf. MMAE:92; Manniche 2000:235. The Great Hymn is CS 1 no. 28. Versions of the Short Hymn: Davies 1908:25–35.

[ back ] 128. AEMI:91; Manniche 1971:156 fig. 2, 161 fig. 9; Manniche 1989:27.

[ back ] 129. Distinguished only by the lack of double-pipes, which had erotic associations in Egyptian iconography: Manniche 1971:155–156 fig. 1–2; Manniche 1989:26; MMAE:89.