Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

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


franklin fig@intro

1. Kinyras and Kinnaru

Kinyras of Cyprus

Already for Homer, Kinyras loomed on the eastern horizon, a Great King who treated on equal terms with Agamemnon, sending him a marvelous daedalic breastplate as a friendship-gift:

Next in turn he donned the corselet round his chest
Which once Kinyras gave him as a friendship-gift.
For he had heard a great report on Cyprus—the Achaeans
Were to sail in ships to Troy—wherefore
He gave the corselet to him, cultivating favor with the king. [1]

One version of the lost epic Kypria told of a broken promise by Kinyras to contribute ships against Troy, and probably how he hosted Paris and Helen on a honeymoon escapade as they evaded pursuit. [2] Alkman describes Cypriot perfume as “the moist charm of Kinyras.” [3] Pindar calls him “cherished priest of Aphrodite” whom “golden-haired Apollo gladly loved”; and refers to the “blessed fortune … which once upon a time freighted Kinyras with riches in Cyprus on the sea.” [4] Sources from the Hellenistic period onwards, when Cypriot lore entered Greek letters more directly, tell us that Kinyras was first-discoverer of copper and metallurgical operations on the island, and master of other typical industries. Local fourth-century inscriptions show that the Paphian kings traced their descent from Kinyras, and it was said that he built, and was buried in, Aphrodite’s great and ancient sanctuary there. [5] His wealth was a byword, rivaling Sardanapalos and Kroisos, and thrice surpassing Midas. [6] And, like these other eastern kings, he underwent a humbling reversal of fortune. One legend held that Kinyras was driven from power by “the Greeks with Agamemnon”: this must reflect the Aegean migrations of the twelfth and eleventh centuries, which transformed Cyprus and made it the eastern edge of the Grecophone world. [7] A second catastrophe secured imperishable fame in the western canon, thanks to Ovid: Kinyras was unwittingly seduced by his daughter Myrrha (or Smyrna); she was metamorphosed into the myrrh-tree, anointing her baby Adonis with sappy tears. [8]

As the foregoing sources show—and as C. Baurain emphasized in a fundamental study—Kinyras was already established for Homer and other Archaic poets as the central culture-hero of Cyprus, mythologically linked to the industries and political configuration of the pre-Greek LBA. But two further ideas, seemingly tangential to this dominant paradigm, stand out.

The Return of Kinnaru

The Crux

But the precise nature of the relationship has remained obscure. What is a Divine Lyre? And how could it beget a substantially metamusical Cypriot culture-hero?

In theory, therefore, an historical connection between Kinyras and the Divine Kinnaru is perfectly possible. The real problem is to clarify and specify the historical and cultural conditions which can link these two so seemingly different figures.

Plan of this Study and Preliminary Conclusions

From the foregoing discussion, three broad areas of investigation may be identified, corresponding to the three main Parts of this study.

Part One, The Cult of Kinnaru, begins by examining the divinization of instruments as a general pattern, especially through the rich Mesopotamian sources (Chapter 2). This will provide a comparative framework for understanding the specific case of Ugarit’s Divine Kinnaru, although Kinnaru himself must be seen as epitomizing a much broader and older Syro-Levantine lyric culture. This may be partially reconstructed, after identifying the kinnāru itself and defining the chronological and geographical limits of the material to be studied (Chapter 3), by examining the earliest sources for the instrument and select cognates, as well as the larger cultural contexts of each attestation. These case studies should be seen as random but representative samples, and are presented in chronological order: EBA Ebla (Chapter 4), OB Mari (Chapter 5), LBA cultures peripheral to the Syro-Levantine heartland of the instrument (Chapter 6), Ugarit itself (Chapter 7), and the Biblical world, with special attention to David (Chapter 8). Part One, as a whole, provides the historical and cultural background, and a collection of parallels, for interpreting Kinyras himself.

In Part Two, Kinyras on Cyprus, I first assess the quality and antiquity of traditions about Kinyras’ musicality—obviously essential for conclusively proving some historical connection with the Divine Kinnaru. I show that the Byzantine authors who are our most explicit witnesses were in fact well justified in their belief. A distinctly Cypriot lyric tradition can also be identified, and closely associated with kinýra, thanks to J.-B. Cayla’s recent recognition of an ‘Our Kenyristḗs Apollo’ at Roman Paphos (Chapter 9). This musical Kinyras can then be traced back to the fifth century BCE on the island through a close reading of a well-known passage in Pindar’s Pythian 2 (Chapter 10). To go deeper we must turn to music-iconography and map out the island’s ‘lyric landscapes’, which, it will be seen, are compatible with an early (LBA) arrival to Cyprus of the knr [38] —a precondition for the presence of Kinyras himself (Chapter 11). This provides a solid foundation for examining a further, and somewhat elusive, musical aspect of Kinyras—his association with lamentation singing and the Cypriot ‘Linos-Song’ to which Herodotos refers (Chapter 12). I then review and expand the material which allies Kinyras to the pre-Greek period—both his connections with early Cypriot industries (Chapter 13), and his pivotal role in Aegean migration legends as a cipher for the island’s various pre-Greek communities (Chapter 14). These two patterns—the early musical Kinyras and his persistent link with the pre-Greek period—can only be harmonized, I argue, by assuming that a Divine Lyre had been present on Cyprus already in the LBA. I therefore continue by exploring the cultural conditions of the LBA island and its relations with the mainland; what role a Divine Lyre could have played; and how its originally musical powers could have led to secondary, non-musical associations (Chapter 15). I then study the Kinyrad dynasty of historical Paphos, the clearest locus for continuity of the Divine Lyre’s cult across the LBA–IA transition (Chapter 16).

If Kinyras and Kinnaru are indeed historically cognate, it is only to be expected that some vestiges are also to be found in mainland traditions. I gather and analyze these extra-Cypriot traces in Part Three, Kinyras and the Lands around Cyprus. I begin by examining the two or more cases of Kinyras as a personal name at Mycenaean Pylos, and argue that these presuppose Kinyras as an established divine figure who had already acquired secondary, non-musical attributes by the thirteenth century (Chapter 17). This leads us to confront Kinyras’ relationship with Kothar (Chapter 18). Their fusion presents a particularly challenging aspect at Byblos, but also an opportunity for better understanding the time and circumstances of a Divine Knr’s arrival to LBA Cyprus (Chapter 19). I then consider a further possible mainland ‘Kinyras’ at Sidon (Chapter 20). I conclude by returning to the environs of Kinnaru himself, collecting the traditions that assert a Cilician and/or Syrian origin. These may be seen partly against the Syro-Hurrian cultural heritage of LBA Kizzuwatna—comprising the later Cilicia—and partly eighth-century Phoenician cultural influences in the same region. There is also important music-iconography, especially the well-known Lyre-Player Group of Seals; collectively these present, I argue by way of conclusion, our most comprehensive representation of the Divine Lyre (Chapter 21).

Seven Appendices document and discuss related issues whose treatment would impede the flow of argument in the main text.

Last and far from least comes a small monograph in its own right—an analytical catalogue of Mesopotamian balang-gods (divinized harps or lyres), generously contributed by Professor Wolfgang Heimpel. This work illuminates the breadth and depth of the phenomenon of divinized instruments—I refer to it repeatedly—and will be an important resource for further research.

Pre-Greek, Greek, and Phoenician Cyprus

It is quite universally agreed that the land of Alashiya, mentioned in ANE texts going back to the nineteenth century, is to be equated with, or located on, Cyprus. There are two decisive points. First, Alashiya is frequently associated with copper in our texts, while Cyprus was the region’s premier source of the metal. [42] Second, Cyprus is the only area of sufficient size in which to locate a further Great Kingdom (as it is styled in the Amarna letters) between Egypt, Mitanni, the Hittites, and Ahhiyawa—this last now confidently identifiable as a ‘Mycenaean’ state in the Aegean, akin to Homer’s Akhai(w)oí, ‘Achaeans’. [43] Conversely, placing Alashiya elsewhere would leave the economically vital island otherwise undocumented. [44] Recent petrographic analysis of Alashiyan diplomatic correspondence with Amarna and Ugarit [45] shows that these tablets’ clay-fabric matches samples from the southeastern Troodos—that is, near the actual copper deposits. [46] Alassa and Kalavasos thus become attractive new candidates (versus Enkomi on the east coast, near historical Salamis) for the kingdom’s main political center, at least in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries. [47] A re-evaluation of these sites’ importance had already been called for by recent excavation and theoretical models of the social landscape; both were well-situated not only for copper extraction but a “multiplicity of functions” within the island’s settlement hierarchy. [48] Nearby Paphos, an important sanctuary already in the LBA, would fit this picture well as the state’s main religious center. [49]

That Alashiya comprised much, if not all, of the island is shown by the terms of address used of and by its king in correspondence with Egypt and Ugarit. His freedom to call pharaoh “My Brother” indicates, in the period’s diplomatic parlance, his own status as a Great King—that is, politically independent, and controlling a number of lesser polities. [50] Because of this, no amount of regionalism in the archaeological record [51] should be viewed as incompatible with supralocal political control, whatever form that took. [52] The situation in Ahhiyawa may have been comparable, if the traditional portrait of Agamemnon’s loose confederation of regional kings is at all accurate. That is, the Great Kings of both Ahhiyawa and Alashiya may have presided over political structures rather less grand and rigidly controlled than the imperial giants Egypt and Hatti. Accordingly they could have been viewed as lesser players. For there does seem to be a slight air of wheedling inferiority on the part of the Alashiyan king towards his Egyptian ‘brother.’ [53] As to Ahhiyawa, there is the famous case of its ruler erased from a list of Great Kings in a draft of the Hittite treaty with Shaushgamuwa of Amurru (reign of Tudhaliya IV, ca. 1227–1209). [54] Still, Kushmeshusha, the one Alashiyan king now known by name, could address the Ugaritian ruler as “my son,” a relationship accepted by the king of Ugarit himself elsewhere. [55] While a politely condescending tone might be adopted by an older but otherwise equal interlocutor, here it was probably justified by Ugarit’s status as a Hittite subject-city. Hittite and Ugaritian texts also show that the Alashiyan king could receive deportees, another mark of Great Kingship. [56]

The power and sovereignty of Alashiya waned in the later thirteenth century, with the Hittite kings Tudhaliya IV (ca. 1237–1209) and his son Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1207–1178) claiming dominion over the island following naval victory. [64] Its collapse is to be somehow connected with the chaotic age of the ‘Sea Peoples,’ the conventional term adapted from inscriptions of the pharaohs Merneptah (ca. 1236–1223) and Ramses III (ca. 1184–1152) for various groups, mainly from the Aegean and western Anatolia, who migrated to the eastern Mediterranean around this time. [65] These movements variously resulted from and/or occasioned the so-called Great Collapse of palatial society in Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite world; the destruction of various Syro-Levantine sites including Ugarit; and, according to Ramses, Alashiya itself:

We may avoid the long-running—but vital—debates about the exact identity and provenance of the several groups mentioned, and the historical accuracy of Ramses’ claim to have prevailed in an epic land-and-sea showdown during the eighth year of his reign—perhaps 1177 (Figure 1). His ‘settlement’ of the ‘vanquished’ in his own lands will have included the Peleset and other groups who occupied what now became Philistia—southern ‘Palestine’, formerly under long-term NK control. [
67] This probably also explains the Cypriot cities which appear elsewhere among his triumphs. [68]

It is now understood, however, that Aegean settlement on Cyprus was much more complex and long-drawn than Ramses’ inscriptions might suggest, unfolding across the twelfth and eleventh centuries. Various explanatory models have been advanced and continue to be refined. [69] But the outcome of any reconstruction must allow the island’s Arcado-Cypriot dialect of Greek—first attested by the famous Opheltas obelós (spit) from the Paphos region in the eleventh century, [70] around the same (dramatic) time that the Egyptian official Wen-Amun found that his own tongue was now practically unknown on Cyprus [71] —to emerge as the majority language by the Archaic period. [72] Thus in the Esarhaddon prism inscription (N-A, 673/672) at least half of the Cypriot kings have Greek names, and the same is probably true of others. [73] Even Amathous, where ‘Eteocypriot’ inscriptions—presumably in one of the island’s pre-Greek languages—persisted until the fourth century, had kings with Greek names. [74] Despite this linguistic situation, however, the ‘colonial’ process can no longer be viewed as unilateral ‘Hellenization.’ The Aegean influx is practically invisible in the archaeological record, to judge from which there was a fairly general blending by the tenth century, at least as regards material culture (including the revealing burial customs). [75] All the same, we shall see that a distinction between ‘Greek’ and ‘pre-Greek’ was sometimes cultivated as late as the fourth century. [76]

franklin fig1

Figure 1. Detail from ‘Sea Peoples’ reliefs, Medinet Habu, reign of Ramses III (ca. 1184–1152). Drawn from Nelson et al. 1930, pl. 36–37.

This, in very broad strokes, is the historical situation as I understand it. I have elaborated the Alashiyan period most fully, as I consider this the formative age for Kinyras. My treatment of the Aegean and IA Phoenician ‘strata’ is obviously cursory; but it should suffice as a preliminary framework, into which specific developments can be fit as the argument unfolds.


[ back ] 1. Homer Iliad 11.19–23: δεύτερον αὖ θώρηκα περὶ στήθεσσιν ἔδυνε / τόν ποτέ οἱ Κινύρης δῶκε ξεινήϊον εἶναι. / πεύθετο γὰρ Κύπρονδε μέγα κλέος οὕνεκ’ Ἀχαιοὶ / ἐς Τροίην νήεσσιν ἀναπλεύσεσθαι ἔμελλον· / τοὔνεκά οἱ τὸν δῶκε χαριζόμενος βασιλῆϊ. For this passage, see further p322–323. Other sources relating to this breastplate are Alkidamas Odysseus 20–21; Strabo 1.2.32; Themistios Orations 4.54a, 16.201c; Eustathios on Iliad 11.20, 18.613; Theodoros Hyrtakenos Anecdota Graeca, Boissonade 1829–1833 1:263.

[ back ] 2. [Apollodoros] Epitome 3.9, cf. 3.4–5 for Paris and Helen on Cyprus (cf. Proklos Chrestomathy 80 = EGF:31.25–27, PEG:39.18–20). This episode was first attributed to the Kypria by Wagner 1891:181–182; this was followed by West 2003:72–73, but later rejected as being incompatible with other evidence for ‘the poem’ and “reflect[ing] no credit on Cyprus” (West 2013:103). But there existed at least two written versions of the Kypria, and of course the underlying tradition was multiform (see Franklin 2014:232–240). Moreover, Kinyras as the ‘Liar King’ can be understood in light of intercity rivalry on Cyprus itself: see p345.

[ back ] 3. Alkman 3.71 PMGF. See p330.

[ back ] 4. Pindar Pythian 2.15–17; Nemean 8.17–18. See further Chapter 10.

[ back ] 5. For the Kinyradai, see Chapter 16.

[ back ] 6. Tyrtaios 12.6 IEG. See further p322–323.

[ back ] 7. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120a20–22). See Chapter 14.

[ back ] 8. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.298–502. See Chapter 12.

[ back ] 9. The most concentrated treatments of Kinyras known to me are: van Meurs 1675: 2:105–112; Heyne 1803:323–326; Engel 1841 1:203–210, 2:94–136 (et passim); Movers 1841–1856 1:239–243; ExcCyp:175–185; Hoffman 1896:256–258; Frazer 1914 1:43–52; Drexler, Roscher Lex. s.v.; Kroll, RE 11 (1922):484–486; Blinkenberg 1924:31–37; HC:68–69; Dussaud 1950; Heubner 1963–1982 2:30–36; Brown 1965; Kapera 1971; Dugand 1973:198–202; Baurain 1980b; Baurain 1981a; Ribichini 1981:45–57 et passim; Ribichini 1982; Cayla 2001; Kypris:14–17, 22–24. The imaginative comments of Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893 (passim) must be treated with great reserve. Panagides 1946, despite its title, has only a brief (and deficient) consideration of Kinyras (139–144). One may also note here two detailed fiction portraits of Kinyras’ palace and retainers, and the Achaean embassy: the opera La Rêve de Cinyras by Vincent d’Indy and Xavier de Courville (1927); and the short novel ΚΙΝΥΡΑΣ by Panos Iοannides, in Kronaka II (1970–1972).

[ back ] 10. See Appendix G for Lusignan’s possible sources and a defense of his authority. I retain Lusignan’s ‘Cinaras’ (deriving from Theodontius in Boccaccio’s Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.50–53) to help differentiate his version of Kinyras from the other traditions to be studied.

[ back ] 11. ‘Syria’ and ‘Assyria’, historically related terms, were rather interchangeable in Gk. usage, and could also embrace Phoenicia (e.g. Strabo 16.1.2). The large geographical range of both derives from the N-A state at its height, and the eventual tendency of its inhabitants to regard themselves as ‘Assyrian’ regardless of ethnic origin (Parpola 2004). ‘Syria’ derives from a Luwian truncation current by the eighth century in the Neo-Hittite/Aramaean sphere of North Syria and southeastern Anatolia. The basic studies of Nöldeke 1881 and Schwartz 1931 have been updated, with reference to ‘Syria’ in the eighth-century Çineköy inscription (Cilicia), by Rollinger 2006 (with earlier controversy).

[ back ] 12. This material is fully discussed in Chapters 9 through 12.

[ back ] 13. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20. For this passage, and the history of ‘Gk.’ kinýra, see further Chapter 9.

[ back ] 14. According to modern convention, ‘lyre’ (< Gk. λύρα) is applied to all ancient instruments having two ‘arms’ or ‘horns’ mounted in a resonator, supporting a crossbar or ‘yoke’ from which strings descend to some form of ‘string-holder’ at the resonator’s base (the terms in Gk. are πήχεις/κέρατα, ζυγόν, and χορδοτόνον respectively). On a ‘harp,’ by contrast, the strings descend from a single arm affixed to a resonator. The modern terminology goes back to von Hornbostel and Sachs 1914:579–580; see also HMI:463–465. Note, however, that Old English hearpe itself denoted what would now be called a ‘lyre’ (for Anglo-Saxon lyres, see especially the studies of G. Lawson).

[ back ] 15. Frazer 1914 1:52–55 (quotation, 52). Others favoring the derivation are Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893 1:216 (opting for a Carian origin [!]: cf. p202); Boscawen 1893–1894:355; also Leaf 1900–1902 1:468; Drexler, Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras; Evans 1921–1936 2:837–838; Lorimer 1950:465n3; von Kamptz 1956:129–130, 327; Zarmas 1975:10; further references in Baurain 1980a:7n4.

[ back ] 16. Brown 1965:207–208; followed by Baurain 1980a:8 (who nevertheless took the opposite stance in Baurain 1980b:304); Morris 1992:79–80n26 (apparently); Leukart 1994:215 and n218. The etymology was independently rejected by Emprunts:69n2; Chantraine 1968 s.v. κινύρα (Boisacq 1938 was undecided). For Kinyras and Kothar, see further Chapter 18.

[ back ] 17. See e.g. Iacovou 2006b:32–35.

[ back ] 18. RS 1.017 (KTU/CAT 1.47), 32: Virolleaud 1929, pl. LXX; Herdner 1963:109–110 (no. 29); TR:291–319, with earlier bibliography; RCU, text 1, col. A. For general discussion of the ‘pantheon(s)’ see del Olmo Lete 1999:43–86, HUS:305–332, and further below, Chapter 7.

[ back ] 19. Akkadian: RS 20.024: Nougayrol 1968:42–64 (no. 18). Ugaritic: RS 24.264 + 24.280: Herdner 1978:1–3; KTU/CAT 1.118. Note that preliminary reports had already circulated for a decade: Nougayrol 1957:82–85; Weidner 1957–1958:170; YGC:140–145.

[ back ] 20. For the phenomenon generally, see inter al. Pongratz-Leisten 2011:99–103.

[ back ] 21. For the relevance of this equation, see further p448–449, 451.

[ back ] 22. These texts are placed side-by-side, along with RS 24.643, 1–9 (KTU/CAT 1.148), in TR:292–293 (whence the present vocalizations); RCU:14; similarly del Olmo Lete 1999:72–73; RTU:360–362.

[ back ] 23. For the double -nn-, see p54.

[ back ] 24. For this identification, and the substantial identity of the Divine Kings and the Rapa’ūma, see Healey 1978; Dietrich and Loretz 1981:235–238; DDD col. 1076–1080 (Puech); TR:311–315; RCU:199. For the Rapa’ūma, see further p135–136.

[ back ] 25. See further Chapters 3 and 9.

[ back ] 26. See e.g. Kilmer 1971 passim.

[ back ] 27. Jirku 1963; Albright 1964:171n47 (quotation); Astour 1965:139n5; Astour 1966:281; Nougayrol 1968:59; YGC:143–144, 147–148; Gese et al. 1970:169; Parker 1970:244n9; Kapera 1972:196; Bunnens 1979:355; Dugand 1973:200; Caquot and Sznycer 1980:16; Baurain 1980b:305–306 (with J.-P. Olivier in n150); Ribichini 1981:48–51; TR:310–311 with other references in n122. The discovery eclipsed a once promising etymology for Kinyras via el-ku-ni-ir-ša (‘El, Creator of the Earth’), known from a LBA text from Hattusha, with a Phoenician parallel from Karatepe: Otten 1953; cf. Dussaud 1954; Pope 1955:53–54; Picard 1955; Kirst 1956; Redford 1990:827n29. Arguments against: Gese et al. 1970:113–115 and n115; Kapera 1971:133, 136–138; Ribichini 1982:486; Baurain 1980b:305; Baurain 1980a:10.

[ back ] 28. See p188–189, 280.

[ back ] 29. Of the studies cited in p2n9, the most well-rounded is Ribichini 1982; Brown 1965 and Baurain 1980b are important and remain very useful, but neither addresses the fundamental issue of the relationship between Kinyras and the Divine Knr; Baurain 1980a:8 and n11, though aware of the recent discovery of Kinnaru, nevertheless considered the connection “périlleux” given the apparent (n.b.) temporal disjunction between Kinyras and κινύρα in Greek sources.

[ back ] 30. I engage with his results as each point arises.

[ back ] 31. Baurain 1980b:305 (quotation); cf. Gese et al. 1970:169; contrast Kapera 1971:138–139.

[ back ] 32. In the Homeric Hymn to Hermes the lyre has the “god-filled voice” (θεσπεσίης ἐνοπῆς, 421) traditionally ascribed to singers (cf. θέσπιν ἀοιδήν, 442), and is itself called a “singer” (ἀοιδόν, 25, cf. 38) and “muse” (τίς μοῦσα; 447) who “teaches” (διδάσκει, 484). See further Franklin 2006a:61–62. Note the probable description of Kinyras as thespésios (vel sim.) in a fourth-century Cypriot inscription: p411.

[ back ] 33. M. H. Pope in Cooper 1981:385.

[ back ] 34. Koitabashi 1998:373–374; cf. Koitabashi 1992.

[ back ] 35. Classicists may find the term ungainly, but it is established in Ugaritic studies (see TPm).

[ back ] 36. See p114, 377.

[ back ] 37. See 26–33, 103; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 2a.

[ back ] 38. I leave the root unvocalized here, and sometimes elsewhere, to avoid implying a specific source dialect: see further p53–57.

[ back ] 39. Ribichini 1982:54.

[ back ] 40. I use ‘EIA’ as a shorthand for the twelfth, eleventh, and sometimes tenth centuries; for this convention, see Iacovou 2006b:28n6.

[ back ] 41. For an up-to-date overview of sources and issues, and an entrée to the vast library of scholarship, see PPC; Iacovou 2006b; Knapp 2013.

[ back ] 42. See further p324–326.

[ back ] 43. For the Ahhiyawa texts, and an up-to-date overview of the issues and secondary literature, see Beckman et al. 2011.

[ back ] 44. Holmes 1971; Muhly 1972; CAH3 II.2:213–215; SHC 2:1–13; PPC:298–347. A relevant Biblical passage is often undervalued: Genesis 10:4–5 makes ‘Elisha’ (i.e. Alashiya) son of Javan, from whose sons “the coastland peoples spread.” Javan is the eponym for ‘Ionians’, a blanket ANE term for Greek-speakers (Brinkman 1989). The genealogy, anachronistic in absolute historical terms, appropriately reflects Aegean ascendancy on the IA island, the long-lasting epicenter of Greek in the region (see p204).

[ back ] 45. The Alashiya texts from Amarna are EA 33–40 (SHC 2, nos. 14–22). From Ugarit: RS 20.18, 20.168, 20.238, RSL 1 (SHC 2, nos. 25–28). For the ‘new’ texts, see Malbran-Labat 1999; Yon 1999; Singer 2006:255.

[ back ] 46. Goren et al. 2003 (confirming the earlier analysis of Artzy et al. 1976); cf. SHC 2:6; Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 1. Longtime ‘Alashiya skeptics’ (Merrillees 1987) object that a complete inventory of clay samples is lacking for the eastern Mediterranean (Merrillees and Gilbert 2011); hence some still shy from using the Alashiya texts as evidence in discussing the LBA island (Smith 2009:259–260n27). For an amusing but powerful and concise rejoinder, see Cline 2005.

[ back ] 47. Goren et al. 2003:248–249; Cline 2005:44.

[ back ] 48. Knapp 1997:61–62 (quotation): “These two sites most likely controlled directly the mining, production, and transport of copper, were involved in agricultural production (olive oil), and functioned commercially as administrative and trans-shipment points.” Excavations at Alassa: Hadjisavvas 1996. Kalavasos: South 1984; Todd and South 1992.

[ back ] 49. See further p363, 400.

[ back ] 50. Poetics of brotherhood among Great Kings: Liverani 1990:197–202. Vis-à-vis LBA Cyprus/Alashiya, HC:36–50; AP:38–39, 74; PPC:298–347 passim.

[ back ] 51. Merrillees 1992; Keswani 1993; Keswani 1996; Iacovou 2006b:31.

[ back ] 52. See the sensible comments of Goren et al. 2003, especially 251–252.

[ back ] 53. HC:42.

[ back ] 54. KUB 23.1 iv.1–7 (CTH 105). See e.g. KH:343–344.

[ back ] 55. Kushmeshusha (linguistic affiliation obscure: PPC:322) is named in RS 94.2475 (Malbran-Labat 1999:122–123); the other texts are RS 20.238 and 20.168 (restored): Nougayrol 1968:80–83, 87–89 (SHC 2 no. 25, 28).

[ back ] 56. RS 17.352, 4–11; KUB 1.1+ iii.28–30 and 14.14 obv. 16–22; KBo 12.39 rev. 3’–7’ (SHC 2, nos. 23, 34–35, 37); cf. Holmes 1971:427 and references in n18; AP:54, with references in n56. Of course as an island Cyprus was a natural place of exile, as often in the Byzantine period (SHC 7, passim).

[ back ] 57. See generally PPC; for Alashiya and Ugarit, HUS:675–678 (concise survey).

[ back ] 58. EA 35.30–36, 39.10–20 (SHC 2, nos. 16, 20); RS 34.152, cf. RS 18.113A = KTU/CAT 2.42 (SHC 2, nos. 29, 47).

[ back ] 59. For BA gift-exchange, note Strabo’s astute description at 1.2.32, and see generally Zaccagnini 1973; Zaccagnini 1983a; Zaccagnini 1987. For Egypt and Alashiya, below p323.

[ back ] 60. Malbran-Labat 1999. For these texts, see above n45.

[ back ] 61. I use the conventional ‘Canaanite’ to denote the Levantine dialects and culture from Byblos southwards (cf. Gelb 1961:42), switching to ‘Phoenician’ in first millennium contexts (cf. p55). For problematic aspects of this usage, and cautions against over-segregation of ‘Canaanite’ and ‘Ugaritian’ in cultural discussion, see Smith 2001:14–18.

[ back ] 62. Malbran-Labat 1999:122–123; Cochavi-Rainey 2003:2–3, 118–120; PPC:319–320, 322. For regional variation in diplomatic Akkadian of the Amarna age, see Moran 1992:xviii–xxii. For the Ugaritian scribe, RS 94.2177+.

[ back ] 63. For the affiliation of Linear A and Cypro-Minoan, and the latter’s continuity with varieties of first-millennium Cypro-Syllabic, see ICS:34–42; Steele 2013:18–19, 47–51, 93–94, et passim; essays in Steele 2012.

[ back ] 64. The text is KBo 12.38 = CTH 121; SHC 2 no. 38: Güterbock 1967; AP:53–55, 58; Knapp 1980; H. A. Hoffner in CS 1 no. 175 with references; KH:321–323, whose (low) dating I follow. Another Hittite allegation appears in the Indictment of Madduwatta (KUB 14.1 rev. 84–90 = CTH 147; SHC 2 no. 33), now generally dated to the late fifteenth century: Goetze 1928; Beckman and Hoffner 1999:153–160 no. 27; KH:129–136, 380–382; Beckman et al. 2011:69–100. Thutmose III (ca. 1479–1425) may have claimed dominion over Alashiya, although this depends on the disputed interpretation of ‘Asiya’ as Alashiya (Breasted 1906–1907 2 §402; SHC 2, no. 67–70); moreover, the domestic image projected by the pharaohs was often at variance with political realities.

[ back ] 65. For a range of up-to-date assessments of these developments, see papers in Oren 2000, Harrison 2008, Killebrew and Lehmann 2012; a good new overview is Cline 2014.

[ back ] 66. Medinet Habu Inscription, Ramesses III: trans. Kitchen 2008:34; also Edgerton and Wilson 1936:53; ANET:262–263; SHC no. 85.

[ back ] 67. Dothan and Dothan 1992:26–27 et passim.

[ back ] 68. List of Ramses III: Edgerton and Wilson 1936:105–110 (partly dependent upon an earlier monument of Ramses II, though the Cypriot cities are not found there). Those probably attested are Kourion, Salamis, Kition, and Soloi; more doubtful are Marion and Idalion. See HC:49; Snodgrass 1994:169–170.

[ back ] 69. For a good introduction to the intricate sources and problems, see the papers in Ward and Joukowsky 1992 and Karageorghis 1994. For intervening work, see with much further material PPC:131–297 and Knapp 2013:447–470.

[ back ] 70. Opheltas obelós (ca. 1050–950): Palaipaphos Skales, Tomb 49 no. 16: Karageorghis 1980b; Steele 2013:90–97.

[ back ] 71. CS 1 no. 41 (here p. 93, col. A).

[ back ] 72. The statement of Iacovou 1999:2—“One need only turn to the archaeological evidence to clarify the process”—may infuriate some, but is ultimately accurate.

[ back ] 73. ARAB 2:266 §690. Probable equations are Ekistura = Akestor (Idalion), Pilagura = Pylagoras/Philagoras (Khytroi), Ituandar = Eteander (Paphos), Damasu = Damasos (Kourion), Unasagusu = Onasagoras (Ledroi). See further HC:105–107; Mitford 1961a:137; Lipiński 1991; Masson 1992; Iacovou 2006a:318–319; Iacovou 2006b:48.

[ back ] 74. For Amathous and Eteocypriot, see p349.

[ back ] 75. PPC:286–290; Iacovou 2006b:33–42.

[ back ] 76. See especially p349–351.

[ back ] 77. Phoenician expansion generally: Bunnens 1979; Lipiński 2004. Cyprus specifically: Gjerstad 1979; Reyes 1994:18–21, 23–26. At Amathous: Karageorghis 1976b:95–97; Reyes 1994:139; Karageorghis 1998, 131–132; Petit 2001; Steele 2013:166–167.

[ back ] 78. See Smith 2008:261, 264–274 (reprised in Smith 2009), who recognizes that political control of Kition may not have been continuous down to the fifth century. The first direct epigraphic evidence for a Phoenician royal-name at Kition is fifth-century: Iacovou 2006b:50.

[ back ] 79. Iacovou 2006b:50–51; Smith 2008:274–275.

[ back ] 80. See p339, 510.