Hellenic Studies 70 KinyraS Recent Titles in the Hellenic Studies Series The Theban Epics Plato’s Four Muses The Phaedrus and the Poetics of Philosophy Plato’s Wayward Path Literary Form and the Republic Dialoguing in Late Antiquity Between Thucydides and Polybius The Golden Age of Greek Historiography Poetry as Initiation The Center for Hellenic Studies Symposium on the Derveni Papyrus Divine Yet Human Epics Reflections of Poetic Rulers from Ancient Greece and India The Web of Athenaeus Eusebius of Caesarea Tradition and Innovations Homeric Durability Telling Time in the Iliad Paideia and Cult Christian Initiation in Theodore of Mopsuestia Imperial Geographies in Byzantine and Ottoman Space Loving Humanity, Learning, and Being Honored The Foundations of Leadership in Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus The Theory and Practice of Life Isocrates and the Philosophers From Listeners to Viewers Space in the Iliad Aspects of History and Epic in Ancient Iran From Gaumāta to Wahnām Homer’s Versicolored Fabric The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making http://chs.harvard.edu/chs/publications KinyraS tHe Divine Lyre John C. Franklin With a study of Balang Gods by Wolfgang Heimpel and illustrations by Glynnis Fawkes Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University Washington, D.C. Distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 2015 Kinyras: The Divine Lyre by John C. Franklin Copyright © 2015 Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University All Rights Reserved. Published by Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C. Distributed by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England Production: Kristin Murphy Romano Cover design: Joni Godlove Cover illustration: Glynnis Fawkes Printed by Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI and Lillington, NC Editorial Team Senior Advisers: W. Robert Connor, Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Albert Henrichs, James O’Donnell, Bernd Seidensticker Editorial Board: Gregory Nagy (Editor-in-Chief ), Casey Dué (Executive Editor), Mary Ebbott (Executive Editor), Scott Johnson, Olga Levaniouk, Leonard Muellner Production Manager for Publications: Jill Curry Robbins Web Producer: Noel Spencer Multimedia Producer: Mark Tomasko On the cover: Kinyras at Alassa, by Glynnis Fawkes Franklin, John, 1964Kinyras : the divine lyre / by John Curtis Franklin. pages cm. -- (Hellenic studies ; 70) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-674-08830-6 (alk. paper) 1. Kinyras (Greek mythology) 2. Lyre--History. 3. Music, Greek and Roman--History and criticism. I. Title. ML169.F73 2015 787.7’81909--dc23 2015032440 Κυπρογενῆ Κυθέρειαν ἀείσομαι ἥ τε βροτοῖσι μείλιχα δῶρα δίδωσιν, ἐφ’ ἱμερτῷ δὲ προσώπῳ αἰεὶ μειδιάει καὶ ἐφ’ ἱμερτὸν θέει ἄνθος —with eternal gratitude for Glynnis, Sylvan, and Helen Table of Contents List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xix Conventions and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv INTRODUCTION 1. Kinyras and Kinnaru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Kinyras of Cyprus 1 The Return of Kinnaru 4 The Crux 5 Plan of This Study and Preliminary Conclusions 7 Pre-Greek, Greek, and Phoenician Cyprus 10 PART ONE: THE CULT OF KINNARU 2. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia . . 19 Divinized Instruments 19 Gudea and the Balang-Gods of Ningirsu 26 Shulgi and the Royal Ideal of Music 33 Lovely Lyrics for Inanna 37 Music and Seven-Magic 40 Conclusion 41 3. The Knr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Jubal: Looking Back from Israel 43 Identifying the Knr 46 The Lexical Evidence 53 The Problems of Stringing and Tuning 57 Limits of the Investigation 60 vii Table of Contents 4. Starting at Ebla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 The City and Its Music 63 innārum and Balang 65 Lamentation and Royal Ancestor Cult 67 Divine Lyre at Ebla? 71 5. Mari and the Amorite Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 The City and Its Music 73 The innāru at Mari 76 The Amorite Connection 80 Divine Instruments and the Amorite World 83 Conclusion 87 6. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 The ‘Inanna-Instrument’ and Hittite Royal Ritual 89 The Syro-Hurrian Sphere 96 ‘Asiatic’ Lyres in Bronze Age Egypt 104 7. Kinnaru of Ugarit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The King and His Musicians 113 More about Kinnaru 119 Praising Baal 125 Bow and Lyre in the Tale of Aqhat 131 R p’iu, Kinnaru, and the Eternal Power of Music 134 Silence of Kinnaru 141 Isaiah and the Lyres of the Rephaim 146 Conclusion 147 8. David and the Divine Lyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 David, Solomon, and the Ideals of Great Kingship 150 Musical Management in the First Temple 155 The inn r and the Divine Lyre 158 King, inn r, and the “Spirit of God” 165 Performing the Divine Lyre 167 Sweet Psalmist of Israel: David’s Lyric Legacy 174 viii Table of Contents PART TWO: KINYRAS ON CYPRUS 9. Kinyras the Kinyrist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 The Etymology of Kinyras 187 The Con ict with Apollo 189 Outplaying Orpheus and Thamyris 192 The ‘Greek’ Kinýra 194 “Our en rist s Apollo”: Playing the Kinýra on Cyprus 203 Lost in Translation: Kinýra at the Syro-Levantine Interface 213 Conclusion 216 10. Praising Kinyras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Pindar and the Example of Kinyras 219 The Love of Apollo 226 Singing ‘about’ Kinyras 231 Caught in the Act: Two Model Shrines 236 11. Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 The Current Picture 241 A Lost ‘Daughter of Kinyras’ in the Cyprus Museum 245 Music, Memory, and the Aegean Diaspora 250 Cypriot Lyres between East and West 253 Ethnicity and Musical Identity in the Cypro-Phoenician Bowls 258 The Case for Second-Millennium Adaptation of Kinýra 272 Conclusion 276 12. Kinyras the Lamenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Kinyras and His Cult Family 280 Between Song and Silence 291 The Cypriot Linos-Song 304 Phoinix in r n 316 Epilogue: The Antinoos Lament from Kourion 318 13. The Talents of Kinyras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Great Kingship 321 Metallurge and Potter 324 Kinyras the Mariner 326 Oilman and Parfumeur 330 The Virtuous Monarch 333 Conclusion 335 ix Table of Contents 14. Restringing Kinyras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Aegean Foundation Legends and Epic Homecomings 337 Kinyras, Dmetor, and the Changing States of Cyprus 342 Liar King: The Terracotta Fleet and the Curse of Agamemnon 343 The Unthroning of Kinyras 346 Kinyras and Pre-Greek Social Topography 349 Salamis: Euagoras, Teukros, and the Daughter of Kinyras 351 Paphos: Agapenor, Laodike, and the Arcadian Connection 359 Conclusion 368 15. Crossing the Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Alashiya and the Mainland Cults 371 Importing the Divine Lyre 380 Music and the Harmonious Realm 383 From Divine Lyre to Culture-Hero 392 16. The Kinyradai of Paphos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Tacitus and the Memories of the Paphian Priesthood 401 Nikokles and the Kinyrad Legacy 407 The Kinyradai in Hellenistic and Roman Times 417 Sons of the Kinýra 421 PART THREE: KINYRAS AND THE LANDS AROUND CYPRUS 17. Kinyras at Pylos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Kinyras and the Priests 427 Naming Kinyras in Greek 432 Kinyras the Shipwright 436 A Kinyras Complex 438 18. The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Kothar and Kinnaru 443 Philo of Byblos: Khousor and His Retiring Twin 445 Étienne de Lusignan: Cinaras and His Retiring Twin 452 The Craftsman-Musician Twins Mytheme 453 Confounded Lyres? 456 x Table of Contents 19. Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos . . . . . . . . 459 Kinyras, Kinnaru, and the Canaanite Shift 459 Lucian: Kinyras at Aphaka 461 Kinyras and Theias 466 Ps -Melito: Kauthar at Aphaka 468 Goddess, King, and Copper 473 The Cypro-Byblian Interface 479 Ritual Lamentation and the ‘Damu’ of Byblos 482 Conclusion 486 20. Kinyras at Sidon? The Strange Affair of Abdalonymos . . . . 489 21. Syro-Cilician Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 Aoios and Paphos: Two Cilician Crossings 498 Solar Gods, Sandokos, and the Syrian Descent 504 The Egyptian Detour 512 THEIOS AOIDOS: The Lyre-Player Seals 517 APPENDICES A: A Note on ‘Balang’ in the Gudea Cylinders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 B: Ptolemy Khennos as a Source for the Contest of Kinyras and Apollo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 C: Horace, Cinara, and the Syrian Musiciennes of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 D: Kinyrízein: The View from Stoudios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 E: The ‘Lost Site’ of Kinyreia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 F: Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 G: Étienne de Lusignan and the ‘God Cinaras’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 BALANG-GODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 A Study by Wolfgang Heimpel Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Index Locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 xi List of Figures All gures drawn by Glynnis Fawkes unless otherwise noted. 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. Figure 2 Harp treaty’, unprovenanced Mesopotamian cylinder seal, ca. fourteenth century. London, BM 89359. Drawn from MgB 2/2 g. 108. Figure 3 Asiatic’ troupe with lyrist, tomb-painting, Beni-Hassan, Twelfth Dynasty, ca. 1900. Drawn from Shedid 1994 g. 20. Figure 4 Distribution map of Bron e Age lyres (after DCPIL). Individual images drawn by Bo Lawergren and numbered according to DCPIL gs. 1, 3 5, 8 (used with permission). Other drawings by Glynnis Fawkes are preceded by Figure, referring to their position in this book. Figure 5 Distribution map of Iron Age lyres (after DCPIL). Individual images drawn by Bo Lawergren and numbered according to DCPIL gs. 1, 3 5, 8 (used with permission). Figure 6 Seated/enthroned lyrist with animals. Unprovenanced North Syrian cylinder seal, ca. 2900 2350. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 2462. Drawn from SAM no. 70. Figure 7 Musical rite in four registers. Inand k vase, ca. 1650 1550 (Old Hittite). Anadolu Medeniyetleri M esi, Ankara. Drawn from photos in g 1988. xiii List of Figures Figure 8 Ishtar ( ) playing harp before Ea. Modern impression of Syro-Hittite seal from Konya-Karah y k, ca. 1750. Drawn from Alp 1972 pl. 11, no. 22. 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 g. 8. Figure 10 Two harem apartments with musical instruments. Relief from the Tomb of A , reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1364 1347. Drawn from Davies 1908 pl. I . Figure 11 Kinyrist’ celebrating victorious king. Ivory pla ue from Megiddo, ca. 1250 1200. Jerusalem, IAA 38.780. Drawn from Mert enfeld 1954 pl. I . Figure 12 Lyre-playing lion king with animal sub ects. Ninth-century orthostat relief from Gu ana (Tell Halaf). Drawn from Moortgat 1955 pl. 100 101. Figure 13 Lyrist with animals and tree ( Orpheus ug’). Philistine strainerspout ug, Megiddo, ca. 1100. Jerusalem, IAA 13.1921. Drawn from Dothan 1982 g. 21.1 (pl. 61). Figure 14 Coin of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 136 CE). Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 5651. Drawn from SAM no. 133 134. Figure 15 King David with animals. Sixth-century oor-mosaic, Ga a (restored). Jerusalem, IAA 1980.3410. Drawn from SAM no. 72. Figure 16 Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean according to the Tabula Peutingeriana. Used by permission of the sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, ienna. Figure 17 Lyrist-archer, White Painted krater from Khrysokhou (near Marion), ca. 850 750 (CG III). Collection of the Archbishopric of Cyprus, Nicosia. Drawn from Karageorghis 1980b. Figure 18 Model shrine with dancers and lyrist. Unprovenanced (seventh century ), Louvre AO 22.221. Drawn from Ridder 1908 pl. 20.106 and CAAC I pl. L II:9. xiv List of Figures Figure 19 Model shrine with lyrist and spectators. Unprovenanced (eleventh seventh century), Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. B 220.1935. Drawn from Boardman 1971 pl. II.1 . Figure 20 Map of Cyprus showing distribution of iconography discussed in text. Figure 21 Kinyrístria and dancer. Fourteenth-century Egyptian(i ing) faience bowl from Cyprus (unprovenanced). Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Inv. G63. Drawn from autopsy and Karageorghis 1976a g. 137. Figure 22 Female lutenist. Egyptian(i ing) faience bowl from near Idalion. New ork, MMA 74.51.5074. Drawn from Karageorghis et al. 2000:63 no. 99. Figure 23 Lyre-player seal, Ashdod, ca. 1000. Jerusalem, IAA 91-476. Drawn from Dothan 1971, pl. LI .7. Figure 24 Juxtaposition of western’ and eastern’ lyres. Orthostat relief, Karatepe, ca. 725. Drawn from Akurgal 1962 g. 142. Figure 25 Warrior-lyrist. Proto-bichrome kalathos from Kouklia, eleventh century (LCIIIB). Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7. Drawn from CCSF 1:5, 2:1 3. Figure 26 Hubbard amphora, Famagusta district, ca. 800. Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, 1938/ I-2/3. Drawn from CCSF 1.8 9, 2.7 9. Figure 27 Cypriot votive gurines with variety of lyre shapes (scale not uniform). 27a (Cypro-Archaic, unprovenanced) London, BM 1876/99/90, drawn from CAAC I :I(v)4. 27b (Cypro-Archaic, Lapethos) London, BM 1900.9-3.17, drawn from CAAC a:I(xi)i.67. 27c (CyproArchaic, unprovenanced) Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. B192a, drawn from CAAC a:I(xi)i.71. 27d (Cypro-Archaic, Kourion) University Museum, Philadelphia no. 54-28-109, drawn from CAAC I :I(v)3. 27e (Hellenistic, Cythrea), MMA accession no. unknown, drawn from Cesnola 1894, pl. I no. 282. Figure 28 Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl from Idalion, ca. 825. New ork, MMA 74.51.5700. Drawn from PBSB Cy3. Figure 29 Eastern’ lyres in the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 900 600. Drawn from corresponding photos in PBSB. xv List of Figures Figure 30 Western’ lyres on the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 750 600. Drawn from photos in PBSB. Figure 31 Ivory pyxis with lyre ensemble, Nimrud, North Syrian school, ninth eighth century. Baghdad ND1642. Drawn from Mallowan 1966 g. 168. Figure 32 Sixth-century Egyptiani ing limestone statue from Golgoi ( ). New ork, MMA 74.51.2509. Drawn from Aspects g. 138. Figure 33 Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl, before ca. 725. Olympia, Greece. Athens NM 7941. Drawn from PBSB G3. Figure 34 Statue of female lyre-player with late oral-post lyre, Golgoi, Hellenistic. New ork, MMA 74.51.2480. Drawn from Cesnola 1885 pl. cii no. 676. Figure 35 Myrrha eeing, putting viewer in position of Kinyras. Roman fresco from Tor Marancio, ca. 150 250 CE, after Hellenistic original. atican, Sala delle No e Aldobrandine. Drawn from LIMC s.v. Myrrha no. 1. Figure 36 Pr thesis of Achilles, with silenced lyre. Sixth-century Corinthian hydria, Louvre E 643. Drawn from LIMC s.v. Achilleus no. 897. Figure 37 Lekythos showing dedication of lyre at grave. Berlin Anti uarium’ no. 3262. Drawn from uasten 1930 pl. 34. Figure 38 Enthroned/seated harpist, Sacred Tree, and o ering-bearers. Cypriot bron e stand from Kourion ( ), thirteenth century. London, BM 1920/12 20/1. Drawn from Papasavvas 2001 g. 42 47. Figure 39 Enthroned/seated harpist and harpist devotee. Cypriot bron e stand from Kourion ( ), thirteenth century. London, BM 1946/10 17/1. Drawn from Papasavvas 2001 g. 61 67. Figure 40 The Ingot God’, Enkomi, ca. 1250 (LC III). Inv. F.E. 63/16.15. Drawn from Flourent os 1996:47. Figure 41 Procession/dance scene. Modern impression of LBA Cypriot cylinder-seal from Enkomi, ca. 1225 1175 (LC IIIA). Nicosia, Cyprus Museum 1957 inv. no. 36. Drawn from Courtois and Webb 1987 pl. 7 no. 23. xvi List of Figures Figure 42 Procession/dance scene with possible stringed instrument. Modern impression of LBA Cypriot cylinder-seal from Enkomi Tomb 2. Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet Inv. E. 2:67. Drawn from Karageorghis 2003:280 281 no. 320. Figure 43 Limestone head of Kinyrad king, seventh century. Palaepaphos KA 730. Drawn from Maier 1989:378 g. 40.1. Figure 44 Paphian coin with Apollo’ and omphalós, reign of Nikokles, ca. 319. Galleria degli U i, Florence. Drawn from BMC Cyprus pl. II.11. Figure 45 Lyrist and bird-metamorphosis. Modern impression of cylinder seal, Mardin ( ), ca. 1800. London, BM 134306. Drawn from Li Castro and Scardina 2011, g. 11. Figure 46 The Lyre-Player Group of Seals (subset with Lyrist). Drawn variously from images in Boardman and Buchner 1966; Boardman 1990; Ri o 2007; SAM. For individual references, see 523n182. Figure 47 Sumerian Bull-headed lyre with emergent’ bull. Stele-fragment, Lagash, before 2100. Paris, Louvre AO 52. Drawn from MgB 2/2 g. 45. Figure 48 David and his musicians. Chludov Psalter, ninth century, Moscow, State Historical Museum, MS D.129, fol. 5v. Drawn from Currie forthcoming pl. 2. xvii PREFACE Kinyras has deep roots on Cyprus. He came to the island, I argue, in the Late Bronze Age, when he had already begun to outgrow his musical roots as a Divine Lyre. Already by Homer’s time Kinyras had taken on kingship, metal-working, and other typical industries to become the central Cypriot culture-hero. While all Classicists know the metamorphosis of his daughter Myrrha in Ovid, and some may recall brief allusions by Homer, Alkman, Tyrtaios, and Pindar, Kinyras has remained quite obscure otherwise. For the sources, though rich, are widely scattered; Kinyras, like Cyprus, was on a distant horizon of Greek culture. From an Aegean perspective, that is. That the situation was di erent on Cyprus itself is shown by a few precious inscriptions, traces of insular traditions collected by Classical and Hellenistic historians and ethnographers, and (indirectly) a rich body of music iconography. I have even been able to show, I believe, that Kinyras persisted as a gure of folklore down into the sixteenth century.1 Any Cypriot today will tell you at least that Kinyras was an ancient king of Paphos and familiar of Aphrodite. To be sure, this owes more than a little to the renewed prominence he enjoyed in the early twentieth century, when Cypriot intellectuals promoted the island’s ancient cultural heroes as worthy counterparts to great gures of the Greek past, and ideas of Eteocypriot’ identity were encouraged by the British.2 In this environment Loïzos Philippou (1895-1950), a polymathic lawyer and journalist from Paphos—with which region Kinyras is most prominently connected in ancient sources—founded in the 1930s a Kinyras Club which “contributed to the development of sports in Paphos and to its cultural movement and activity.”3 Today Nea Paphos boasts a Kinyras football 1 2 3 See Appendix G. See 349n65. I am grateful to Elina Christophorou (whom I uote: communication, September 2015) for providing me with information about Philippou, including his articles on Kinyras and the Kinyradai in the inaugural 1935 volume of his journal ( Κ , p6–9) and his 1938 Lecture on Cypriot Poetry, which emphasized Kinyras’ musical dimension (p15–16 , Κ , -Κ , 1938, p15 16). Christophorou is gathering further material relating to this phase of Kinyras’ reception. xix Preface club, lifeguards association, hotel and restaurant, butcher shop, and a venerable Masonic lodge that on its founding in 1923 looked to Aphrodite’s ancient mysteries. In Nicosia there is a Kinyras street, with its Debenhams Kinyras department-store. In the Limassol district a Kinyras Cultural Organization promotes Cypriot music, wine, and perfume. Most appropriate of all, perhaps, is the underwater telecommunications cable named for the mythical king. So modern Cypriot pride has certainly promoted Kinyras. But he did not need to be invented or discovered. Kinyras was always there. I hope that this book, despite its Cyprocentric focus and special attention to musical matters, will be of more general interest as a detailed case-study of cultural interactions in the eastern Mediterranean. One of the fastest developing frontiers of classical scholarship is the interface between the Greek world and its eastern neighbors. While the standard go-to studies by Walter Burkert and Martin West drew many more and less convincing parallels, they o ered fairly tenuous explanations of the mechanisms of transfer’.4 More recent scholarship has called for greater speci city as to chronology, geography, and cultural contexts. Musical evidence is especially promising here, both because much early verbal art was musical; and because the material is relatively abundant, including detailed iconography, literary traditions relating to earlier times, and many documentary sources from the Near East itself. The basic premise of Ethnomusicology is that musical cultures cannot be studied in isolation from broader anthropological concerns. While I have not engaged very directly with that discipline’s literature, my investigation has found many intersections with more general scholarly interests now current in Classics: ethnicity and identity; migration and coloni ation; cultural interface; early Greek poetics, epic memory, and mythmaking (especially as these transpired on Cyprus); performance criticism; royal ideology and the ritual poetics underpinning traditional authority. And naturally the analysis and collation of classical and ANE material has raised a host of speci c philological, linguistic, and iconographical issues—problems not especially characteristic of Ethnomusicology but typical in the emerging eld of Music Archaeology and ancient studies more broadly. In hopes of making this work as relevant as possible to those not disposed to work through the complete argument, I have provided a detailed index of topics, and a complete index of sources. I should confess at once my limited knowledge of the many ANE languages whose texts I have nevertheless had to confront. The study of Kinyras and Kinnaru is necessarily comparative: while divini ed instruments are creatures 4 xx Burkert 1992; EFH. Preface of the ANE, much of the evidence for Kinyras himself comes from Greek and Roman sources, the connections between which are often far from obvious. Therefore even the most uali ed Assyriologist or Ugaritologist would have faced similar challenges—had one pursued the questions that interested me. Fortunately bilingual publication of sources is a fairly general practice in ANE studies, so that training in classical philology often lets one weigh the merits of various interpretive arguments. The shifting historical and cultural systems from which ANE texts emerge are also daunting. But so many useful collections aimed at non-specialists are now available that Classicists can no longer a ord to ignore the ANE where relevant. Such disciplinary trespassing added many years to the investigation, and presented countless pitfalls into which I have doubtless stumbled more than once. I can at least claim to appreciate the depth and complexity of the material with which my colleagues in several elds work, and admire the virtuosity with which they do so. I hope they will forgive the wilder surmises of this (increasingly) stout Cortez, overlooking sins of super ciality in favor of what bene ts comparative analysis may have brought. This méga kakón has been many years in the making, and I have many debts to record with gratitude. I was introduced to Kinyras in 1997 by J. G. Frazer, and a short but useful notice in West’s East Face of Helicon.5 At the time I was a doctoral candidate in Classics at University College London, attempting to connect the early Greek and Mesopotamian tuning traditions.6 Taking to heart Richard Janko’s caution that “Cyprus is not Greece,” I used a post-doctoral year as Broneer Fellow at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (2002 2003) to begin exploring early Cypriot musical imagery and the Aegean settlement of the island. That same year a CAORC Multi-Country Fellowship took me to Cyprus itself, where I rst en oyed the hospitality and resources of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, under the welcoming directorship of Robert Merrillees. There I stumbled on Kinnaru of Ugarit and began to contemplate the central problem of this study. I also met the great Vassos Karageorghis, then director of the Leventis Foundation, who alerted me to J.-B. Cayla’s recent recognition of a en rist s Apollo at Roman Paphos.7 Best of all, I found Glynnis Fawkes, who has provided much inspiration over the years—and the wonderful artwork for this book. A month at the Sackler Library in Oxford during the summer of 2004 led to some preliminary ideas about Lyre Gods’, including a few pages on Kinnaru, Kinyras, the Kinyradai, and possible 5 6 7 See p3–4 and 421–424 below. See General Index s.v. tuning. See p205. xxi Preface connections with lamentation-singing.8 Then during a 2005–2006 fellowship at the Center for Hellenic Studies, where I was meant to revise and expand my dissertation, I budgeted a month to complete my collection of the Kinyras and Kinnaru material, thinking that divinized instruments were an important piece of the puzzle and deserved a chapter’s discussion. But the sources proved so numerous, and the problems so fascinating and complex, that I have been chasing the Cypriot Lyre God ever since. From 2006 I became much occupied with studiis et rebus honestis at the University of ermont, and with starting a family in the American Arcadia. A standard-issue Junior Research Leave (Fall 2008) eshed out my summer months, letting me collect evidence for an early Cypriot epic tradition and its relationship to the lost Kypria.9 Though books are never nished, ust abandoned, I am very grateful to my enlightened colleagues for letting me hold on to this one when my tenure case came up in 2010; and to my external reviewers for the same long view. A Research Leave from U M in 2011 2012 allowed me to take up a fortunate series of fellowships that brought the study to its nal stages. As Eli abeth and J. Richardson Dilworth Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, I pro ted especially from discussions with Joan Westenhol on Mesopotamian lexical texts, as well as Angelos Chaniotis, Glen Bowersock, Heinrich von Staden, Stephen Tracy, Annemarie Carr, Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Emmanuel Bermon, and Gil Renberg. It was at this same time that Anne Kilmer put me in touch with Wolfgang Heimpel, who had undertaken a rst survey of Mesopotamian balang-gods in 1998; my re uest to reprint his list led eventually to the magni cent study with which this book concludes. I am honored that he threw his lot in with mine. In January, en route to the Annual Professorship at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, a four-day stop on Cyprus and the kind devices of Ruth Keshishian (Mou on Books, Nicosia) brought a small urry of media interest a spot on national radio, a front-page newspaper story, a lecture at Garo Keheyan’s Pharos Arts Foundation where I had the honor of nally meeting Jac ueline Karageorghis—and an interview by Stavros Papageorghiou for his monumental documentary The Great Goddess of Cyprus (Nicosia, 2015). In springtime Jerusalem I deepened my treatment of ANE material in the magni cent dungeons of the cole bibli ue et archéologi ue fran aise; and profited from conversations with Sy Gitin, Ann Killebrew, Louise Hitchcock, Jolanta Mlynarczyk, Andrea Rotstein, Miryam Brand, Nick Blackwell, Bill Zimmerle, Emmanuel Moutafov, Eliot Braun, Brendan Dempsey, and Brittany Rudacille. 8 9 Franklin 2006a, 2006b. Franklin 2014. xxii Preface We returned via Cyprus where a month-long CAORC-CAARI Fellowship was highly productive and perfectly timed, bringing me into friendly and productive contact with Jennifer Webb, Bernard Knapp, Joan Connelly, Pam Gaber, Stella Lubsen, Andrew McCarthy, Michael Toumazou, Marvin Kushnet, and especially Robert Walker. In several visits to the Cyprus Museum Glynnis and I discovered the lost daughter of Kinyras’, discussed in Chapter 11, who makes a crucial contribution to Cypriot lyric history. The Department of Antiquities also granted me permission to examine the Kouklia inscription in which en rist s Apollo appears.10 This excursion to Paphos was part of a longer, eye-opening adventure up the west coast with Stavros Papageorghiou and Stalo Hadjipieri; these same good friends organi ed a further excursion to Salamis, the Karpass peninsula, and glimpses of the Syrian horizon. Stavros has remained an invaluable consultant on Cypriot folklore and local geography.11 Despite Andrew Ford’s friendly exhortation in 2012 to prove myself a closer’, a further three years including a normal year’s sabbatical at U M were needed to bring this book to completion. Hilary O’Shea of the Oxford University Press kindly released me from a contract when the book grew to unmanageable proportions; it was rescued by Greg Nagy, Lenny Muellner, Casey Dué, and Mary Ebbott, who gave it a welcome home in this series. The onerous copyediting, typesetting, and indexing were a positively en oyable experience thanks to the diligence and expertise of Jill Curry Robbins, Kristin Murphy Romano, Valerie Quercia, Joni Godlove, and Joanna Oh, all of whom improved the book in various ways. My ideas have been substantially shaped by criticism and feedback from many conference papers and other presentations; I am grateful to all who invited me to speak, most notably at ale, N U, The Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton), Leiden, Jerusalem (Albright), Tel Aviv, Washington University, and the International Study Group for Music Archaeology in Germany. I had helpful advice over the years on various ANE languages and philological issues from Mary Bachvarova, Miryam Brand, anna Biga, Jeremy Black, oram Cohen, Uri Gabbay, Wolfgang Heimpel, Anne Kilmer, Sam Mirelman, Lisa Nielson, Martin Schwartz, Dahlia Shehata, Stefan Weninger, †Joan Westenholz, Gernot Wilhlem, and Bill Zimmerle. Other valuable suggestions and contributions (some acknowledged in the notes) came from Janet Ambers, Albio Cassio, Armand D’Angour, Ricardo Eichmann, Andrew Ford, Stefan Hagel, Andrew Hicks, Alex Hollman, Thomas Kiely, Timothy Law, Emiliano Li Castro, Barbara Kowal ig, Olga Levaniouk, Pauline LeVen, Sheila Murnaghan, Tim Power, Stelios Psaroudakes, 10 11 See p205n105. See p501–502. xxiii Preface Cemal Pulak, Ian Rutherford, Alexandra von Lieven, Calvert Watkins, Marek Wecowski, and †Martin West. None of these friends and colleagues are responsible for any unintentional or willful misuse I have made of their expertise and generosity.12 For long-term professional support I am deeply indebted to Richard Janko; Anne Kilmer; †Martin West (who quietly saved me from Jude-like obscurity); Greg Nagy, Gloria Ferrari, and other trustees of the Center for Hellenic Studies; Peter Wilson; Eric Csapo, Margalit Finkelberg, Jim Porter, Richard Crocker, and Stefan Hagel (the Lucius Vorenus to my Titus Pullo—or so I like to think); Mark Gri th; Timothy Moore; Ellen Hickmann and Ricardo Eichmann of the ISGMA; Andrew Barker and my colleagues in MOISA (the Society for International Society for Study of Ancient Greek and Roman Music and its Cultural Heritage); and my old pal Armand D’Angour. Finally I must thank my wonderful colleagues at the University of ermont for providing us with a great home—Phil Ambrose, Barbara Saylor Rodgers, Robert Rodgers, Bill Mierse, Jac ues Bailly, Mark Usher, Brian Walsh, Angeline Chiu, and Jessica Evans. This book is lovingly dedicated to Glynnis, Sylvan, and Helen, who never uite gave up on it, and shared in many sacri ces and oys along the way. 12 The interesting papers of Manolis Mikrakis came to my notice too late for inclusion, but should be pursued by anyone interested in Cypriot musical history. So too the dissertation on Kinyras by Tsabl (2009), though I am grati ed to see that she took on some of my main interpretive points. xxiv CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS To keep the main text as accessible as possible, I have presented all Greek in transliteration (retaining accentuation as several key points depend on this); more specialized philological issues are dealt with in the footnotes, where I have not always translated Greek and Latin. Following Assyriological convention, Akkadian words are given in italics, Sumerian in expanded spacing, logograms in capital letters, and determinatives in superscript. I have usually not Romanized ancient Greek names; arbitrary exceptions include most place-names. References to ANE and Greco-Roman sources follow the abbreviations below or are spelled out in full, to be as intelligible as possible for an intended triple audience in Classics, Near Eastern Studies, and (Ethno)Musicology. Speci c editions of Greco-Roman authors are given only when the text is questionable, or its numeration seemed to need clari cation; commentators are sometimes cited by last name only. I have not achieved absolute consistency in the use of Roman vs. Arabic numerals, commas and full-stops, etc., though any given source should be treated consistently throughout (except for minor discrepancies with Professor Heimpel’s usage in “Balang-Gods”). The treatment of inscription-collections may cause confusion: ICS 94 refers to text 94 in the collection, but ICS:399 to page 399. All dates are BCE unless otherwise noted. These are mostly conventional, with academic disagreements not a ecting the argument unless otherwise noted. For the sake of consistency I have followed Kuhrt 1995 for the ANE (but KH for the Hittites); and the OCD for the Greco-Roman world. xxv Conventions and Abbreviations Abbreviations AEMI Manniche, L. 1975. Ancient Egyptian Musical Instruments. Münchner ägyptologische Studien Heft 34. Munich. AGM West, M. L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. AHw von Soden, W. 1985. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Wiesbaden. AJC Meshorer, Y. 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills. AMEL Norborg, Å. 1995. Ancient Middle Eastern Lyres. Musikmuseets Skrifter 25. Stockholm. ANET Pritchard, D. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton. AOM Wellesz, E., 1957. Ancient and Oriental Music. London. AP Hellbing, L. 1979. Alasia Problems. Göteborg. ARAB Luckenbill, D. D. 1926–1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago. ARET Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi. Rome, 1985–. ARM Archives royales de Mari. Paris, 1950–. ARTU de Moor, J. C. 1987. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Leiden. Aspects Karageorghis, V. 2006. Aspects of Everyday Life in Ancient Cyprus: Iconographic Representations. Nicosia. AT Wiseman, D. J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London. BÉ Bulletin Épigraphique, published in Revue des Études Grecques. BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies. New Haven, 1917–. BM Museum siglum of the British Museum, London. BMC A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum. 29 vols. London, 1873–1927. BPOA Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo. Madrid, 2006–. BT Epstein, I., ed. 1978. The Babylonian Talmud. 18 vols. London. xxvi Conventions and Abbreviations Bustron Mas Latrie, R. de 1886. Florio Bustron: Historia overo commentarii de Cipro. Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France. Mélanges historiques 5. Paris. Reprinted, with an introduction by G. Grivaud, in 1998 (Th. Papadopoullos, Leukosia; Kypriologik Biblioth k 8). CA Powell, J. U. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina. Oxford. CAAC Karageorghis, V. 1991–1999. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus. 6 vols. Nicosia. CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956–. CAH The Cambridge Ancient History, editions as noted. CANE Sasson, J. M., ed. 1995. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York. CAT Dietrich, M. et al. 1995. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). 2nd enl. ed. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palastinas und Mesopotamiens 8. Münster. CCSF Karageorghis, V. and J. des Gagniers. 1974. La Céramique chypriote de st le ur . Supplément, 1979. 2 vols. Rome. CDA Black, J. et al. 1999. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG: Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 5. Harrassowitz. CEWAL Woodard, R. G., ed. 2004. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge. horo ra a Étienne de Lusignan, horo ra a et re e historia uni ersale (1573); references both by original pagination and section number (§) in SHC 10. CIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863–. CIS Corpus inscriptionum Semiticarum. 5 vols. Paris, 1881–1962. CLAM Cohen, M. E. 1988. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. 2 vols. Potomac. CPG von Leutsch, E. L. and F. W. Schneidewin, eds. 1965–1991. Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum. 2 vols. Hildesheim. xxvii Conventions and Abbreviations CS Hallo, W. W. and K. L. Younger, eds. 1997–2002. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden. CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. London, 1896–. CTA Herdner, A. 1963. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10/Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique 79. Paris. CTH Laroche, E. 1971. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris. CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology. Bethesda, 2007–. DCPIL Lawergren, B. 1998. “Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and Israelite Lyres, and their Global Lyrical Contexts.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 309:41–68. DDD van der Toorn, K. et al., eds. 1999. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden. DDUPP Lipinski, E. 1995. Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. Leuven. Description Étienne de Lusignan: Description de tout l’isle de Cypre (1580); references by page number in Papadopoullos 2004, vol. 2. DGAC Egetmeyer, M. 2010. Le Dialecte grec ancien de Chypre. Tome I: Grammaire; Tome II: Répertoire des inscriptions en syllabaire chypro-grec. Berlin. DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Oxford, 1955–. DM Aura Jorro, F. 1985. Diccionario micénico. 2 vols. Madrid. DMG Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge. DP Allotte de la Fuÿe, M. F. 1908–1920. Documents présargoniques. 5 vols. Paris. DUL del Olmo Lete, G. and J. Sanmartín. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Leiden. EA El-Amarna tablet. See Knudtzon 1907–1915; Rainey 1978; Moran 1992. xxviii Conventions and Abbreviations EFH West, M. L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon. Oxford. EGF Davies, M. 1988. Epicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Göttingen. Emprunts Masson, E. 1967. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Études et Commentaries 67. Paris. E McAuli e, J. D., ed. 2001 2006. nc clo aedia of the ur ān 6 vols. Leiden. ETCSL J. Black et al., eds. Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk). ExcCyp Hogarth, D. G. et al. 1888. “Excavations in Cyprus, 188788. Paphos, Leontari, Amargetti.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 9:147–271. FGE Page, D. L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge. FGH Jacoby, F. 1923–1958. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 3 vols. Berlin. FHG Müller, C. 1841–1870. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. 5 vols. Paris. FM 3 Durand, J.-M. and M. Guichard. 1997. “Les Rituels de Mari.” In Recueil d’études à la memoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet (eds. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand). 19–78. Mémoires de NABU 4/ Florilegium Marianum 3. Paris. FM 4 Ziegler, N. 1999. e arem de imr m a Po ulation f minine des palais d’après les archives royales de Mari. Mémoires de NABU 5/Florilegium Marianum 4. Paris. FM 9 Ziegler, N. 2007. Les Musiciens et la musique d’après les archives royals de Mari. Mémoires de NABU 10/Florilegium Marianum 9. Paris. GGM Müller, C. F. W. 1855–1861. Geographi Graeci minores. 2 vols. Paris. GIBM Newton, C. T. et al., eds. 1874–1916. The Collection of Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 5 vols. London. GMO Grove Music Online, containing updates and emendations to NG. GMW Barker, A. 1984–1989. Greek Musical Writings. 2 vols. Cambridge. xxix Conventions and Abbreviations GR Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts. HBMH Wellesz, E. 1961. A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography. 2nd ed. Oxford. HC Hill, G. F. 1949. A History of Cyprus, Volume I. To the Conquest by Richard Lion Heart. Cambridge. HIOP Mitford, T. B. 1961. “The Hellenistic Inscriptions of Old Paphos.” Annual of the British School at Athens 56:1–41. HKm Schuol, M. 2004. Hethitische Kultmusik. Eine Untersuchung der Instrumental- und Vokalmusik anhand hethitischer Ritualtexte und von archäologischen Zeugnissen. Orient-Archäologie 14. Rahden. HLC Barton, G. A. 1905–1914. Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets or Documents from the Temple Archives of Telloh. 3 vols. Philadelphia. HMI Sachs, C. 1940. The History of Musical Instruments. New York. HUS Watson, W. G. E. and N. Wyatt, eds. 1999. Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden. I.Kourion Mitford, T. B. 1971. The Inscriptions of Kourion. Philadelphia. I.Paphos Cayla, J.-B. 2003. Les Inscriptions de Paphos: Corpus des inscriptions alphabétiques de Palaipaphos, de Néa Paphos et de la chôra paphienne. PhD dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne. I.Rantidi Mitford, T. B. and O. Masson. 1983. The Syllabic Inscriptions of Rantidi-Paphos. Konstanz. I.Thess.I Decourt, J.-C. 1995. Inscriptions de Thessalie I. Les Cités de la vallée de l’Énipeus. Athens. ICGSL Moscati, S. et al. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden. ICS Masson, O. 1983. es Inscri tions ch riotes s lla i ues Recueil critique et commenté. 2nd ed. Paris. IEG West, M. L. 1989–1992. Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford. IG Inscriptiones Graecae. 12 vols. 1873–1939. IGRom. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. 3 vols. 1906–1927. xxx Conventions and Abbreviations ISMP Nakassis, D. 2013. Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos. Leiden. ITT Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservée au musée impérial Ottoman. Paris, 1910–. IΚ Inschriften griechischer St dte aus Kleinasien. 1972–. KAI Röllig, W. and H. Donner. 1966–1969. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Berlin. KAV Schroeder, O. 1920. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. Wissenschaftliche er entlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 35. Leipzig. KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Leipzig, 1916–. KH Bryce, T. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. 2nd ed. Oxford. KN Linear B tablet from Knossos. KTU Dietrich, M. et al. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus arit einschliesslich der eilal ha etischen e te ausserhal Ugarits. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24. Kevelaer. KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. Berlin, 1921–. KwH Smith, M. S. 1985. Kothar-wa-Hasis. The Ugaritic Kraftsman God. PhD dissertation, Yale University. Kypris Karageorghis, J. 2005. Kypris: The Aphrodite of Cyprus. Ancient Sources and Archaeological Evidence. Nicosia. LBW Lebas, P. and W. H. Waddington. 1870. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, Vol. III. Paris. LIMC Ackermann, H. C. and J.-R. Gisler, eds. 1981–2009. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. 8 vols. Zürich. LJ Ginzberg, L. 1909–1937. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia. LS Lewis, C. T. and C. Short. 1945. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford. LSJ Liddell, H. G. et al. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford. LXX Septuagint. MAIP Braun, J. 2002. Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources. Grand Rapids. xxxi Conventions and Abbreviations MgB Besseler, H. and M. Schneider, eds. 1961–1989. Musikgeschichte in Bildern. 4 vols. Leipzig. MGG Finscher, L., ed. 1949–1979. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. 2nd ed. 17 vols. Kassel. MgP Landau, O. 1958. Mykenisch-griechische Personennamen. Göteborg. MMA Museum siglum of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. MMAE Manniche, L. 1991. Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt. London. MS Tablet from the Marten Schoyen Collection. MSG Jan, K. von 1895. Musici scriptores Graeci: Aristoteles, Euclides, Nicomachus, Bacchius, Gaudentius, Alypius. Leipzig. MSL Landsberger, B., ed. 1937–2004. Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. 17 vols. Rome. MT Masoretic Text. MVN Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico. Rome, 1974–. MY Linear B tablet from Mycenae. NG Sadie, S., ed. 2001. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 2nd ed. 29 vols. London. Ni Tablet from Nippur in the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Nik 1 Nikol’skij, M. V. 1908. Dokumenty khozjajstvennoj otcetnosti drevnejsej epokci Khaldei iz sobranija N. P. Likhaceva. Drevnosti Vostocnyja 3/2. St. Petersburg. NP Cancik, H. and H. Schneider, eds. 2002–2006. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World: Antiquity. 15 vols. Leiden. NPHP Mlynarczyk, J. 1990. Nea Paphos in the Hellenistic Period. Nea Paphos 3. Warsaw. NRSV New Revised Standard Version. OCD Hornblower, S. and A. Spawforth, eds. 1999. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford. OLD Glare, P. G. W. 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford. xxxii Conventions and Abbreviations OSG Lightfoot, J. L. 2003. Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess. Oxford. Pap.Oxy. Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt, eds. 1898–. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Paphos Maier, F. G. and V. Karageorghis. 1984. Paphos: History and Archaeology. Nicosia. PBSB Markoe, G. 1985. Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley. PCG Kassel, R. and C. Austin. 1983. Poetae comici Graeci. 8 vols. Berlin. PDT 1 Çig, M. et al. 1954. Die Puzris-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archaologischen Museen Teil 1 (1–725). Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Reihe B 92. Helsinki. PEG Bernabé, A. 1996–2007. Poetarum epicorum Graecorum: Testimonia et fragmenta. 2 vols. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig. PG Migne, J.-P., ed. 1857–1887. Patrologiae cursus, series Graeca. 161 vols. Paris. PGL Lampe, G. W. H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford. PHG Gabbay, U. 2014. Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal Studien 1. Wiesbaden. PIW Mowinckel, S. 1962. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 vols. Oxford. PLG Bergk, T. 1878–1882. Poetae lyrici Graeci. 4th ed. 4 vols. Leipzig. PMG Page, D. L. 1962. Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford. PMGF Davies, M. 1991. Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Vol. 1 Alcman Stesichorus Ibycus. Oxford. PP Lindgren, M. 1973. The People of Pylos: Prosopographical and Methodological Studies in the Pylos Archives. Boreas 3. Uppsala. PPC Knapp, A. B. 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity. Oxford. Princeton 1 Sigrist, M. 1990. Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary: Epoque d’Ur III. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 10. Philadelphia. xxxiii Conventions and Abbreviations PRU 5 Virolleaud, C. 1965. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit. V: Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et du petit palais. Mission de Ras Shamra 11. Paris. PTT Bennett, E. L. and J.-P. Olivier. 1973–1976. The Pylos Tablets Transcribed. 2 vols. Rome. PY Linear B tablet from Pylos. RCU Pardee, D. 2002. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Writings from the Ancient World 10. Atlanta. RE Pauly, A. et al., eds. 1894–1972. Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 34 vols. Stuttgart. REG Revue des études grecques RIH Tablet from Ras Ibn Hani. RIME Frayne, D. and D. O. Edzard, eds. 1984–. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Toronto. RlA Ebeling, E. et al., eds. 1928—. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin. RS Tablet from Ras Shamra/Ugarit. RTU Wyatt, N. 2002. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd ed. London. SAM Westenholz, J. G. et al., eds. 2007. Sounds of Ancient Music. Jerusalem. SAT Sigrist, M. 1993–. Sumerian Archival Texts. Bethesda. SBH Reisner, G. 1896. Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Berlin. SCE Gjerstad, E. et al. 1934–. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Stockholm. SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. Amsterdam, 1923–. SF Deimel, A. 1923. Die Inschriften von Fara II: Schultexte aus Fara. Wissenschaftliche er entlichung der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 43. Leipzig. SH Parsons, P. J. and H. Lloyd-Jones. 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum. Texte und Kommentare 11. Berlin. xxxiv Conventions and Abbreviations SHC Wallace, P. W. and A. G. Orphanides, eds. 1990. Sources for the istor of rus Albany. Much the same material is collected in Chat i annou 1971 2001, to which SHC contains cross-references. SIAG Maas, M. and J. Snyder. 1989. Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece. New Haven. SL Lipinski, E. 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd ed. Leuven. SOM Farmer, H. G. 1986. Studies in Oriental Music. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main. SURS Clemens, D. M. 2001. ources for aritic Ritual and acri ce I. Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 284/1. Münster. TCL Textes cunéiformes. Musées du Louvre. Paris, 1910–. TGF Snell, B. et al. 1971–1985. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. 4 vols. Göttingen. TH Linear B tablet from Thebes. TM Tablet from Tell Mardikh/Ebla. TPm Pardee, D. 1988. Les Textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). Paris. TR Pardee, D. 2000. Les Textes rituels. Paris. TSA de Genouillac, H. 1909. Tablettes sumériennes archaïques. Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire de la société sumérienne. Paris. TUT Reisner, G. 1901. Tempelurkunden aus Telloh. Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen 16. Berlin. UET Ur Excavation Texts. London, 1928–. UTI Gomi, T. and F. Yildiz. 1988–2001. Die Umma-texte aus den Archäologischen Muséen zu Berlin. 6 vols. Bethesda. VS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen/ Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin, 1907–. W Tablet from Warka/Uruk. YBC Tablet in Yale Babylonian Collection. xxxv Conventions and Abbreviations YGC Albright, W. F. 1968. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. Garden City. Cultural, Chronological, Linguistic, and Textual: Akk. Akkadian ANE Ancient Near East(ern) Ar. Arabic Aram. Aramaic BA Bronze Age Can. Canaanite EBA Early Bronze Age Ebl. Eblaitic EIA Early Iron Age ED Early Dynastic Gk. Greek Hatt. Hattic Heb. Hebrew Hitt. Hittite Hurr. Hurrian IA Iron Age Lat. Latin LBA Late Bronze Age LC Late Cypriot Lin. B Linear B Luw. Luwian MA Middle Assyrian MB Middle Babylonian MBA Middle Bronze Age MH Middle Hittite xxxvi Conventions and Abbreviations MK Middle Kingdom (Egypt) Myc. Mycenaean N-A Neo-Assyrian NE Near East(ern) NK New Kingdom (Egypt) NK New Kingdom (Egypt/Hittite) N-S Neo-Sumerian OA Old Assyrian OAkk. Old Akkadian OB Old Babylonian OK Old Kingdom (Egypt) Pers. Persian Phoen. Phoenician P-S Proto-Semitic Pun. Punic Sum. Sumerian Ug. Ugaritic WS West Semitic Other: * reconstructed, hypothetical, or unattested form | line division (inscriptions, papyri) / verse division — /‿ long/short syllable (verse) // phonetic value radical/root [ ] 1) editorial comment. 2) damaged area of tablet, inscription, or papyrus. 3) false attribution to ancient author (in footnotes, = ps.- in main text) ca. circa xxxvii Conventions and Abbreviations col. column(s) DN divine/god name g. . gure(s) floruit/ ourished fr. or F fragment(s) κτλ etc. (in Greek texts) MS(S) manuscript(s) n note(s) no. number(s) obv. obverse (of tablet) p(p). page(s) PN personal name ps.- pseudo- rev. reverse (of tablet) scholion/scholia (to) s.n. no name T testimonium/a TN toponym/place-name v.l. variant reading xxxviii INTRODuCTION 1 Kinyras and Kinnaru Kinyras of Cyprus A lread for Homer, Kinyras loomed on the eastern hori on, a Great King who treated on e ual 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 1 2 3 Homer Iliad 11.19 23: δε τερον α θ ρ κα περὶ στ θεσσιν δυνε / τ ν ποτ οἱ Κιν ρ ς δῶκε ειν ον ε ναι. / πε θετο γ ρ Κ προνδε μ γα κλ ος ο νεκ’ χαιοὶ / ἐς ρο ν ν εσσιν ἀναπλε σεσθαι μελλον / το νεκ οἱ τὸν δῶκε χαρι μενος βασιλῆ . 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. 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 rst attributed to the Kypria by Wagner 1891:181 182; this was followed by West 2003:72 73, but later re ected as being incompatible with other evidence for the poem’ and re ect 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. Alkman 3.71 PMGF. See p330. 1 Chapter One Cyprus on the sea. 4 Sources from the Hellenistic period onwards, when Cypriot lore entered Greek letters more directly, tell us that Kinyras was rst-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 Sardana palos 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 re ect 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 These are but highlights of a long and intricate mythological life. Spare traces are widely scattered in poets, historians, philosophers, mythographers, geographers, lexicographers, and church fathers.9 The relevant sources never completely assembled run from Linear B down through the By antine period. Some of these are Syro-Levantine traditions that made their way into GrecoRoman authors, and several Syriac texts are also related. Uni ue information is even found in tienne de Lusignan, a sixteenth-century Franco-Cypriot historian who has been overlooked in all previous studies of Kinyras, whom he calls the god Cinara(s) ; some of what Lusignan says is due to his own rationali ing 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 Pindar Pythian 2.15 17; Nemean 8.17 18. See further Chapter 10. For the Kinyradai, see Chapter 16. Tyrtaios 12.6 IEG. See further p322 323. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120a20 22). See Chapter 14. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.298 502. See Chapter 12. 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; Ho man 1896:256 258; Fra er 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 de cient) consideration of Kinyras (139 144). One may also note here two detailed ction portraits of Kinyras’ palace and retainers, and the Achaean embassy: the opera La Rêve de Cinyras by incent d’Indy and avier de Courville (1927); and the short novel ΝΥΡΑΣ by Panos Iοannides, in Kronaka II (1970 1972). Kinyras and Kinnaru composition, but he does seem to draw several times on the island’s conservative oral traditions and/or some lost ancient authority.10 As the foregoing sources show and as C. Baurain emphasi ed 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 con guration of the pre-Greek LBA. But two further ideas, seemingly tangential to this dominant paradigm, stand out. First, several traditions held that Cyprus was not Kinyras’ original home, which is variously located in Cilicia, Phoenicia, or Syria/Assyria.11 Second, a few sources make Kinyras a musician, or associate him with professional musicians.12 Commenting on the Iliad passage cited above, Eustathios, twelfth-century archbishop of Thessalonica, asserted that Kinyras was named from the kinýra.13 This is the Greek’ word that in the Septuagint commonly renders Hebrew inn r, the lyre famous as the instrument of King David.14 This etymology once seemed plausible to many. In the Golden Bough, Fra er astutely compared Kinyras to David: If we may udge by his name, the Semitic king who bore the name of Cinyras was, like King David, a harper We shall probably not err in assuming that at Paphos as at Jerusalem the music of the lyre or harp was not a mere pastime designed to while away an idle hour, but formed part of the service of religion, the moving in uence of its 10 11 12 13 14 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 di erentiate his version of Kinyras from the other traditions to be studied. 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 N ldeke 1881 and Schwart 1931 have been updated, with reference to Syria’ in the eighth-century inek y inscription (Cilicia), by Rollinger 2006 (with earlier controversy). This material is fully discussed in Chapters 9 through 12. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20. For this passage, and the history of Gk.’ kinýra, see further Chapter 9. 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 a xed 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). 3 Chapter One melodies being perhaps set down, like the e ect of wine, to the direct inspiration of a deity.15 But in 1965 J. P. Brown in an otherwise valuable comparative study of Kinyras and Kothar, the Syro-Levantine craftsman god who plays a vital part in this history in uentially asserted that Eustathios’ derivation was anachronistic, an obvious con ecture for a Christian scholar steeped in scripture; he saw no reason to believe that kinýra had been adapted from Semitic a millennium earlier to serve as etymology for Kinyras. 16 But this udgment begs the uestion of Kinyras’ own Greekness. Despite Cyprus’s close and uninterrupted association with the Aegean from the fourteenth century onwards,17 the island was always a world apart and all the more so in the pre-Greek period, to which myth assigns Kinyras. The Return of Kinnaru The uestion was transformed by a discovery from the Syrian coastal city of Ugarit, destroyed shortly after 1200 during the so-called Great Collapse that marked the end of the LBA and saw the Aegean migrations to the eastern Mediterranean (see further below). The 1929 excavations produced a tablet the signi cance of which was not recogni ed for several decades, when further nds enabled the restoration of what J. Nougayrol dubbed le panthéon d’Ugarit. 18 Two new and well-preserved exemplars came to light from the temple district in 1956 and 1961, one in Akkadian with the mixture of syllabic and logographic signs typical of Mesopotamian scribal traditions, the other in Ugaritic and the city’s own vowel-free cuneiform alphabet. These were published together in 1968, three years after Brown had discredited the traditional association of Kinyras and kinýra.19 15 16 17 18 19 4 Fra er 1914 1:52 55 ( uotation, 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 Kampt 1956:129 130, 327; armas 1975:10; further references in Baurain 1980a:7n4. 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 re ected by Emprunts:69n2; Chantraine 1968 s.v. κινύρα (Boisac 1938 was undecided). For Kinyras and Kothar, see further Chapter 18. See e.g. Iacovou 2006b:32 35. RS 1.017 (KTU/CAT 1.47), 32: irolleaud 1929, pl. L ; 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. 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; GC:140 145. Kinyras and Kinnaru The more informative Akkadian text provided crucial detail. The determinative d(i ir) (Sum. god’) appeared throughout, showing that this was a register of thirty-three deities. Many were familiar, like El (’Ilu), Dagan, and Baal (Ba lu), whose various incarnations begin the list. Some Ugaritic powers were glossed by Mesopotamian e uivalents a typical example of the divine translations’ that were current in the LBA.20 Kothar ( aru) for instance was e uated with the versatile Ea (patron of music and inventor of the rst lamentationpriest, among many other traditional credits).21 Others were rendered phonetically, revealing their pronunciation more fully than the parallel Ugaritic texts. And at the end came the following:22 RS 1.017, 31 33 t knr mlkm RS 20.024, 30 32 d.dug BUR. I.N G.NA d.gi ki-na-rù d ma-lik-ME Divine Censer (u atu) Divine Lyre ( innāru)23 Divine Kings (mala ma)24 In the case of the innāru an early WS or areal form, cognate with both Heb. inn r and Gk.’ kinýra25 d(i ir)is followed by a second determinative, gi ( wood’), which in Mesopotamian lexical texts classi es ob ects made entirely or substantially of wood, including stringed-instruments.26 So there is no doubt that we are dealing with a physical Lyre that was somehow regarded as Divine. The Crux This Divine Kinnaru was promptly hailed as the ancestor of Kinyras by many Semiticists, with W. F. Albright proclaiming that the ancient derivation of Kinyras from kinýra may now be regarded as certain. 27 Actually Eustathios’ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 For the phenomenon generally, see inter al. Pongrat -Leisten 2011:99 103. For the relevance of this e uation, see further p448 449, 451. 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 vocali ations); RCU:14; similarly del Olmo Lete 1999:72 73; RTU:360 362. For the double -nn-, see p54. For this identi cation, and the substantial identity of the Divine Kings and the Rapa’ ma, see Healey 1978; Dietrich and Loret 1981:235 238; DDD col. 1076 1080 (Puech); TR:311 315; RCU:199. For the Rapa’ ma, see further p135 136. See further Chapters 3 and 9. See e.g. Kilmer 1971 passim. Jirku 1963; Albright 1964:171n47 ( uotation); Astour 1965:139n5; Astour 1966:281; Nougayrol 1968:59; GC:143 144, 147 148; Gese et al. 1970:169; Parker 1970:244n9; Kapera 1972:196; Bunnens 1979:355; Dugand 1973:200; Ca uot and S nycer 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 5 Chapter One etymology, although we shall see that it can be traced back to the Hellenistic period and beyond,28 is now ancillary. A Divine Kinnaru on the Syrian coast which on a clear day may be seen from Cypriot Salamis and the Karpass Peninsula demands comparison with Kinyras in its own right.29 Musical etymology, geographical proximity, and the close political and cultural relations now documented between Ugarit and LBA Cyprus (see below) combine to make some connection seem inevitable especially after S. Ribichini’s perceptive reconnaissance in 1982.30 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 A ma or obstacle is the disparity between the evidence for Kinyras and Kinnaru. The former’s mythological domain can be fairly well charted from numerous Greco-Roman sources. But the Divine Kinnaru appears certainly only in a few further pantheon texts.’ Baurain, while acknowledging that an etymological link between Kinyras and kinýra was not in itself implausible, re ected the idea of a real’ god Kinnaru as fort excessif, and so declined to extend his study of Kinyras beyond Cyprus and into Ugaritian and other ANE material.31 This is a common reaction from Classicists, for whom Greek words like theîos ( of the gods’) or théspis ( lled with divine voice’) often applied in early epic diction to singers, their voices, and even their lyres32 make it natural to understand divine’ as simply sacred’, through association with Apollo, the Muses, or other gods and their cults. et these very words have a theological prehistory about which we are largely ignorant, and they may (once) have been more numinous than we suppose. Be this as it may, divini ed cult-ob ects are a well-attested phenomenon in the ANE and especially Mesopotamia, and these sources must obviously 28 29 30 31 32 6 et al. 1970:113 115 and n115; Kapera 1971:133, 136 138; Ribichini 1982:486; Baurain 1980b:305; Baurain 1980a:10. See p188 189, 280. 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 dis unction between Kinyras and κινύρα in Greek sources. I engage with his results as each point arises. Baurain 1980b:305 ( uotation); cf. Gese et al. 1970:169; contrast Kapera 1971:138 139. In the Homeric Hymn to Hermes the lyre has the god- lled 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. Kinyras and Kinnaru take priority over Greek literature when seeking illumination for the Divine Kinnaru. et Ugaritologists too have tended to see Kinnaru as only an instrument’, however wonderful. For M. H. Pope, The mind and mood altering power of music su ces to explain the divini ation of the lyre while the determinative for wood retains touch with reality. 33 Similarly, M. Koitabashi wrote that the lyre’s magical practice for manipulating the god’s feelings was a motive for its dei cation in ancient Ugarit. 34 These observations are psychologically sensitive and anthropologically relevant. But we are left with a conundrum. Where Kinyras was the center of a rich legendary cycle, the Divine Kinnaru does not certainly (n.b.) appear in any of Ugarit’s narrative or paramythological’ texts (the latter combine myth and ritual35). And how could a physical ob ect like the innāru become an actor like the versatile Kinyras et these problems are not insurmountable. Astarte herself is largely absent from such contexts at Ugarit, though the goddess was of vital importance to the city’s royal cult.36 This parallel becomes all the more relevant given Kinyras’ persistent intimacy with Aphrodite’ on Cyprus. Moreover, Mesopotamian texts provide clear evidence that cult-ob ects could indeed be personi ed and take part in mythological narratives; and there is a probable parallel from the SyroHurrian world.37 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 di erent gures. Plan of This Study and Preliminary Conclusions From the foregoing discussion, three broad areas of investigation may be identied, corresponding to the three main Parts of this study. Part 1, The Cult of Kinnaru, begins by examining the divini ation of instruments as a general pattern, especially through the rich Mesopotamian sources (Chapter 2). This will provide a comparative framework for understanding the speci c case of Ugarit’s Divine Kinnaru, although Kinnaru himself must be seen as epitomi ing a much broader and older Syro-Levantine lyric culture. This may be partially reconstructed, after identifying the innāru itself and de ning the 33 34 35 36 37 M. H. Pope in Cooper 1981:385. Koitabashi 1998:373 374; cf. Koitabashi 1992. Classicists may nd the term ungainly, but it is established in Ugaritic studies (see TPm). See p114, 377. See 26 33, 103; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2a. 7 Chapter One 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 2, Kinyras on Cyprus, I rst assess the uality and anti uity of traditions about Kinyras’ musicality obviously essential for conclusively proving some historical connection with the Divine Kinnaru. I show that the By antine authors who are our most explicit witnesses were in fact well usti ed in their belief. A distinctly Cypriot lyric tradition can also be identi ed, and closely associated with kinýra, thanks to J.-B. Cayla’s recent recognition of an Our en rist s Apollo’ at Roman Paphos (Chapter 9). This musical Kinyras can then be traced back to the fth century BCE on the island through a close reading of a wellknown 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 knr38 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 harmoni ed, 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 38 8 I leave the root unvocali ed here, and sometimes elsewhere, to avoid implying a speci c source dialect: see further p53 57. Kinyras and Kinnaru and analy e these extra-Cypriot traces in Part 3, 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 gure who had already ac uired 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 Ki uwatna comprising the later Cilicia and partly eighth-century Phoenician cultural in uences 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 ow 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 (divini ed harps or lyres), generously contributed by Professor Wolfgang Heimpel. This work illuminates the breadth and depth of the phenomenon of divini ed instruments I refer to it repeatedly and will be an important resource for further research. With Kinyras we are in the unusual position of being able to reconstruct, in broad outline, the complete lifecycle of a mythological gure. Beginning as an instrument of ritual and secular music in the EBA, the Syro-Levantine innāru was exalted, in emulation of Mesopotamian cult practice, to a Divine Lyre by the second millennium. Coming to LBA Cyprus from one or more mainland locations, Kinyras, as the Greeks would call him, en oyed a brilliant regal career before devolving into the human king of Greco-Roman myth. But we must always distinguish between Kinyras’ treatment in classical literary sources generally, and the situation on Cyprus itself. Ribichini’s description of the Divine Lyre as un modello ormai superato 39 best applies to the former. We shall see that Kinyras remained numinous on the island much longer than extra-Cypriot sources would suggest. 39 Ribichini 1982:54. 9 Chapter One Pre-Greek, Greek, and Phoenician Cyprus Cyprus, and Kinyras’ dominant connection with a speci c moment of its history, are at the heart of this study. The Cypriot king mythologically delimits the preGreek LBA from the EIA40 Aegean migrations. The same historical and cultural transition is e ually re ected in the dis unction of sources for Kinnaru and Kinyras the former winning elucidation from ANE texts and iconography especially of the BA, the latter compiled from Greek and Roman authors of later times, often much later. A brief historical sketch is therefore advisable. While the problems of Alashiya and the Sea Peoples’ are among the most discussed and debated in Cypriot studies, they are still generally unfamiliar to most classicists (this being a period without Greek literary texts). I hope that specialists will not nd this sketch too facile, especially as to the archaeological record which, though of central importance to these uestions, is far too complex to address in detail here.41 My purpose is rather to bring out, in broad strokes, what I deem most relevant to the coming arguments (where I shall bring archaeological material to bear as speci c issues arise). It is uite universally agreed that the land of Alashiya, mentioned in ANE texts going back to the nineteenth century, is to be e uated with, or located on, Cyprus. There are two decisive points. First, Alashiya is fre uently 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 su cient si e 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 con dently identi able 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 40 41 42 43 44 10 I use EIA’ as a shorthand for the twelfth, eleventh, and sometimes tenth centuries; for this convention, see Iacovou 2006b:28n6. 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. See further p324 326. For the Ahhiyawa texts, and an up-to-date overview of the issues and secondary literature, see Beckman et al. 2011. 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 re ects Aegean ascendancy on the IA island, the long-lasting epicenter of Greek in the region (see p204). Kinyras and Kinnaru diplomatic correspondence with Amarna and Ugarit45 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 t 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 record51 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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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; on 1999; Singer 2006:255. Goren et al. 2003 (con rming the earlier analysis of Art y et al. 1976); cf. SHC 2:6; Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 1. Longtime Alashiya skeptics’ (Merrillees 1987) ob ect 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 re oinder, see Cline 2005. Goren et al. 2003:248 249; Cline 2005:44. Knapp 1997:61 62 ( uotation): 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: Had isavvas 1996. Kalavasos: South 1984; Todd and South 1992. See further p400, 363. 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. Merrillees 1992; Keswani 1993; Keswani 1996; Iacovou 2006b:31. See the sensible comments of Goren et al. 2003, especially 251 252. 11 Chapter One 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 I , 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 e ual interlocutor, here it was probably usti ed by Ugarit’s status as a Hittite sub ect-city. Hittite and Ugaritian texts also show that the Alashiyan king could receive deportees, another mark of Great Kingship.56 Alashiya was therefore no provincial backwater. Intensive material and economic relations with its neighbors are well documented both archaeologically and textually.57 Mercantile agents and other royal protégés passed from Alashiya to Egypt and Ugarit (and elsewhere), or resided there for reasons of state and personal interest.58 The Amarna letters contain many detailed references to the precious materials, nished products, and skilled craftsmen which were bartered and haggled over by the monarchs of Egypt and Alashiya as part of the gift-giving which characteri ed Great Kingship.59 New Alashiya letters from Ugarit also con rm the longtime suspicion that, if the Cypro-Minoan script was used for internal records, the royal court also housed scribes who could execute letters in diplomatic Akkadian.60 Alashiya’s scribes were a heterogeneous corps, with Canaanite,61 Hurrian, and Assyrian dialect elements in ecting the Peripheral Akkadian used in the Alashiya texts, alongside fairly pure Middle Babylonian specimens; one scribe was from Ugarit itself.62 Looking westward, 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 12 HC:42. KUB 23.1 iv.1 7 (CTH 105). See e.g. KH:343 344. Kushmeshusha (linguistic a liation 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). 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 By antine period (SHC 7, passim). See generally PPC; for Alashiya and Ugarit, HUS:675 678 (concise survey). 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). For BA gift-exchange, note Strabo’s astute description at 1.2.32, and see generally accagnini 1973; accagnini 1983a; accagnini 1987. For Egypt and Alashiya, below p323. Malbran-Labat 1999. For these texts, see above n45. I use the conventional Canaanite’ to denote the Levantine dialects and culture from Byblos southwards (cf. Gelb 1961:42), switching to Phoenician’ in rst 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. 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 . Kinyras and Kinnaru the Cypro-Minoan script implies some interaction with Minoan scribes, with whose own Linear A it is related.63 The power and sovereignty of Alashiya waned in the later thirteenth century, with the Hittite kings Tudhaliya I (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: The foreign countries, they made a conspiracy in their isles. Removed and scattered in battle were the lands at one time. No land could stand up against their arms, beginning from Hatti; ode, Karkemish, Ar awa, and Alashiya, cut o (all) at once in one place . A camp was pitched in one place, within Amurru coastal Syria ; they devastated its people and its land was like what had never existed. They came (on) (but) the re was ready before them on towards Nile-land. Their alliance was: the Philistines Peleset , T ekkeru, (Sicelu) Shaklusha, Danu na , Washash, lands united. They laid their hands on the lands to the (outer) circuit of the earth, their hearts trusting and con dent: Our plans succeed 66 We may avoid the long-running but vital debates about the exact identity and provenance of the several groups mentioned, and the historical accuracy 63 64 65 66 For the a liation of Linear A and Cypro-Minoan, and the latter’s continuity with varieties of rst-millennium Cypro-Syllabic, see ICS:34 42; Steele 2013:18 19, 47 51, 93 94, et passim; essays in Steele 2012. The text is KBo 12.38 CTH 121; SHC 2 no. 38: G terbock 1967; AP:53 55, 58; Knapp 1980; H. A. Ho ner 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 fteenth century: Goet e 1928; Beckman and Ho ner 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 pro ected by the pharaohs was often at variance with political realities. 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. Medinet Habu Inscription, Ramesses III: trans. Kitchen 2008:34; also Edgerton and Wilson 1936:53; ANET:262 263; SHC no. 85. 13 Chapter One 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 van uished’ 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. arious explanatory models have been advanced and continue to be re ned.69 But the outcome of any reconstruction must allow the island’s Arcado-Cypriot dialect of Greek rst attested by the famous Opheltas obelós (spit) from the Paphos region in the eleventh century,70 around the same (dramatic) time that the Egyptian o cial Wen-Amun found that his own tongue was now practically unknown on Cyprus71 to emerge as the ma ority 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 Helleni ation.’ The Aegean in ux is practically invisible in the archaeological record, to udge from which there was a fairly general blending by the tenth century, at least as regards material culture (including the 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 14 Dothan and Dothan 1992:26 27 et passim. 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. 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. Opheltas obelós (ca. 1050 950): Palaipaphos Skales, Tomb 49 no. 16: Karageorghis 1980b; Steele 2013:90 97. CS 1 no. 41 (here p. 93, col. A). 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. ARAB 2:266 690. Probable e uations 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; Lipi ski 1991; Masson 1992; Iacovou 2006a:318 319; Iacovou 2006b:48. For Amathous and Eteocypriot, see p349. Kinyras and Kinnaru 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. Chapter One 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 Another ma or trend was underway by ca. 900, with Phoenician groups, led by Tyre and drawn more or less by Troodos copper, settling in various places; Amathous and especially Kition were important early epicenters.77 Formal Tyrian political control of Kition, and perhaps elsewhere, probably rst emerged in the later eighth century as an extension of Assyrian provincial structure.78 The inland sites of Idalion and Tamassos fell to Kition in the early fth and midfourth centuries respectively, while rulers with Phoenician names ruled Salamis periodically under the Persians.79 Some kings of Lapethos also had Phoenician names.80 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 su ce as a preliminary framework, into which speci c developments can be t as the argument unfolds. 75 76 77 78 79 80 16 PPC:286 290; Iacovou 2006b:33 42. See especially p349 351. Phoenician expansion generally: Bunnens 1979; Lipi ski 2004. Cyprus speci cally: G erstad 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. See Smith 2008:261, 264 274 (reprised in Smith 2009), who recogni es that political control of Kition may not have been continuous down to the fth century. The rst direct epigraphic evidence for a Phoenician royal-name at Kition is fth-century: Iacovou 2006b:50. Iacovou 2006b:50 51; Smith 2008:274 275. See p339, 510. PART ONE THE CULT OF KINNARU 2 Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia Divinized Instruments A lread in t e late Uru eriod (ca. 3300 2900), reverence for cult-ob ects is implied by the ritual deposition of retired’ tools from an old temple when a new one was built over it (for example, the Eanna complex at Uruk); the burial of ob ects including musical instruments and weapons in the royal cemetery’ of Ur (ca. 2600) may also be relevant.1 In the so-called Metal List, known from various copies running from Uruk III down to the OAkk. period (ca. 2340 2159), various cult-ob ects of metal are written with divine determinatives; presumably this is a collection of items and their dei ed counterparts, although the precise nature of that divinity is not made clear.2 God lists going back to F ra and Ab al b (ca. 2600) contain names that indicate an origin in divini ed cult-ob ects, such as crowns, staves, temple-doors, and foundation pegs. Also included are dei ed o ces and professions related to temple administration and society more generally (for example, divine brick-maker, divine shepherd, Lady of the Granaries), as well as cultural achievements’ like incense, bees’ wax, re, kettle, and torch. We also rst nd a musical instrument accompanied by the divine determinative (d b, probably a small kettledrum).3 In the generation before Sargon came to power (ca. 2340), administrative texts from Lagash document o erings and votive donations to gods and dei ed ob ects (statues, steles, and emblems like The Bron e Date-Palm’); paraphernalia relating to royal ideology (staves, scepters, chariot); and musical instruments including the balang (Sum. bala ), which in the third millennium at 1 2 3 For the material in this paragraph, see Sel 1997, especially 169 177. See also p580n21. For the b, see also PHG:142 et passim. 19 Chapter Two least referred to a kind of stringed-instrument, whether harp, lyre, or perhaps sometimes even lute.4 Divini ed cult-ob ects could receive o erings of animal sacri ce, spices, oil, fruit, or ewelry.5 Although these must have been consumed or otherwise processed by cultic personnel, it remains the case that the ob ects themselves were the intended bene ciaries of the o ering-rituals.6 The great diversity of divini ed ob ects in Mesopotamia strains familiar conceptions of the divine.7 Apparently there was no essential distinction between gods’ and those ob ects we might see as merely representing them, or being otherwise associated. These were not symbols of the gods, but instantiations of some sort: No distinctive feature could be found that functionally separates the divine images proper from cultic ob ects, including the statues of the ruling elite. They both seem to vary only in their degree of religious importance, not in their conceptuali ation.8 The aura of a god in his temple could so attach itself to the temple, or architectural parts of it in particular, also to implements he used, and to the city which housed the temple, in such a way that these various things also became gods and received o erings as a mark of the fact.9 So for all practical purposes, divini ed cult-ob ects were gods. A large number of these are attested in god-lists a subset of lexical text containing accumulated material from various eras and royal inscriptions from the later third and early second millennia (N-S and OB periods). Especially prominent among musical instruments is the balang; from Heimpel’s analysis, it is clear that most ma or and many minor master-gods had one or more balang-gods as servants. 10 If o erings to divini ed cult-ob ects were generally small, be tting their status as servant-gods,11 nevertheless their power was real. It was possible, for instance, to take an oath on one or more musical instruments. The evidence for this comes from Šurpu (Burning), a series of incantations, prayers, and 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 20 For the identity of the balang, see Appendix I and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 1 (with 9, 11, 12 13, 15, 17f, 20a 20b, etc. for ED III and later evidence of balang-o erings). Cf. Jean 1931:159; Galpin 1936:65 66; Hartmann 1960:53 and n3, 61 62; MgB 2/2:13, 140; RlA 8:464, 466 (Kilmer, Musik A I). For o erings to the balang speci cally, see references in S berg 1984 , s.v. 1.1.1 2; further material noted by Heimpel 1998a:6 10. Sel 1997:176 177; cf. Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2b and 13. Sel 1997; Sel 2008. Sel 1997:167 (emphasis added). Lambert 1990:129. Heimpel 1998b:4 ( uotation). See further Heimpel, Balang-Gods. Sel 1997:175. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia instructions for magic practices, known from N-A copies, but including older material (for instance several Sumerian incantations known from OB versions).12 Tablet III contains a long incantation for freeing the participant from the e ects of a previously sworn oath that may have been violated unknowingly; accordingly it includes an exhaustive catalogue of oaths that may have been taken.13 It is in this context that several di erent musical-instrument oaths are itemi ed.14 It was feared, it appears from this tablet, that the numen inherent in these, once invoked, would stay unbound and a ict the person who had sworn the oath. 15 Although the precise purpose of such oaths is not clear, it is worth noting here a cylinder seal of unknown provenance dating to ca. 1500 1000, interpreted by E. Porada as a treaty agreement; a king shakes hands with a smaller gure, presumably a client ruler, behind whom a musician, of e ual stature to the king, plays an upright harp (Figure 2).16 Presumably the music somehow served to bind the agreement.17 Note that a number of balang servant-gods are attested for the sun-god Utu, who was associated with law and ustice; these bear such apt names as Let me live by His Word’, Just Judge’, and Decision of Sky and Earth’.18 The religious and political importance of divini ed instruments is shown by a startling number of o cial year-names referring to their construction and dedication in ma or temples. In Lagash ca. 2100, one year of Gudea’s reign (perhaps the third) was called the year in which was fashioned the balang U umgal-kalama ( Great Dragon of the Land’). 19 As it happens, this event is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Reiner 1958:1 ( uotation). The series was cited in connection with Kinnaru by Nougayrol 1968:59. Note that the instruments are not written with divine determinatives. et if instruments held such power without being divini ed, their divini ed counterparts will have been all the more numinous. The evidence is therefore relevant. Reiner 1958:3. Šurpu III:37 and 88 91. The translation of Reiner 1958:20 21 will serve to illustrate the variety of combinations, although the identi cation of speci c instruments may be uestionable. Thus we nd an oath of the cymbals or harp (37); oath of the drum and kettledrum (88); oath of the timbrel and cymbals (89); oath of lyre, harp (pa-lag-gi), and timb tu-harp (90); the oath of lute and pipe (91). Reiner 1958:55. London, BM 89359. See Porada 1980; MgB 2/2:102 104 ( g. 108); Collon 1987 no. 665. Compare perhaps Homer’s use of ρμονίαι for an agreement between two warriors overseen by the gods (Iliad 22.254 255), and the invocation of Κενυριστ ς Apollo in the loyalty oath to Tiberius at Roman Paphos: see p205. See Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 53 III 153 158; cf. 291 (a balang-servant of Ishtaran, with Heimpel’s comments there). Falkenstein 1966:8; Sigrist and Gomi 1991:317; RIME 3/1:27 (1.1.7, 3); Sel 1997:200n218; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 17b. The precise se uence of Gudea’s regnal years has not been fully established: RIME 3/1:27. 21 Chapter Two Figure 2 ‘Harp treaty’, unprovenanced Mesopotamian cylinder seal, ca. fourteenth century. London, BM 89359. Drawn from MgB 2/2 fig. 108. treated at some length in the Gudea Cylinders (see below).20 During the reign of Ibbi-Sin, the last king of Shulgi’s line (see below), one year was called Ibbi-Sin, king of Ur, fashioned the balang Ninigi ibara for the goddess Inanna. 21 A divine balang of this same name features in an illuminating lamentation ritual for Ishtar at OB Mari, to be discussed later.22 Also from the OB period come a handful of further years named after the dedication of divini ed instruments.23 The creation of a divini ed instrument was clearly a momentous event, and must have involved, at all relevant periods, complex rituals comparable to those whereby a god took up its abode in a new or repaired statue.24 Ethnomusicology provides many parallels for such processes. S. C. Devale, in a seminal synthesis, surveyed material from Africa, the Paci c, and elsewhere for rituals governing various stages in the lifecycle of an instrument, from the several stages of construction through rst, subse uent, and last use, with various actions before, between, and after. Construction rituals include o erings to and blessings of the 20 21 22 23 24 22 Gudea dedicated another balang to the goddess Bau (spouse of Ningirsu), called Greatly speaking with the Lady : RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StE iv.12 14; cf. Radner 2005:51 no. 52; iegler, FM 9:222 (on 8). Sigrist and Gomi 1991:329, year 22; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 23a1. See p84 85. See p83 84. Lambert 1990:123. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia necessary trees, animals, or other materials, or to a culture-hero who invented some essential tool; sacri ce of animals and use of blood or body parts both for the instrument itself, and in appropriate priestly and communal feasting practices; special procedures for releasing an instrument’s voice; endowment with a special name describing the instrument’s powers; and so on.25 The only direct evidence for such construction rituals in Mesopotamia comes from a collection of late texts that document the divini ation of the lilissu-drum.26 The exemplars’ the various tablets actually contain variations in the ritual27 range in date from the N-A period (Assur, Nineveh) down to the Seleucid (Uruk). One of the seventh-century versions, however, is known to have been copied for the library of Ashurbanipal from an older Babylonian tablet. The ritual was thus traditional, if certainly not static.28 In any case, the lilissu texts provide the only hints for imagining analogous rituals of the third and second millennia.29 Even a selective summary of the lilissu rituals will reveal the astonishing elaborateness of the divini ation procedure.30 The science was performed and guarded by the so-called lamentation-priests (Sum. gala/Akk. kalû) whose best-known function was to assuage divine anger and grief through ritual performance.31 A pure steer, never sub ected to yoke or whip, was brought to the temple on a day chosen by careful divination. O erings were made to Ea, incense burned, and incantations sung. Around the animal were placed twelve god- gurines in a magical arrangement, an actual diagram of which has been found. The gures’ positions had cosmogonic and theomachic implications, so that the nished drum would ultimately be strengthened by the renovation of cosmic order.32 The beast’s mouth was washed an action also attested for the divini ation of cult statues, and related to the process of animation33 while 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 De ale 1988. For drum-construction rituals of several African cultures, see Rattray 1923:258 266; HMI:34 36; Nketia 1963:4 16; Blades 1984:57 64. Thureau-Dangin 1921:1 5; Thureau-Dangin 1922 no. 44 46; Livingstone 1986:187 204; ANET:334 338; Linssen 2004:92 99, 267 282; cf. also Stauder 1970:199 201 and g. 3a; RlA 8:465 (Kilmer, Musik A I); Sel 1997:201n215; PHG:118 138. Linssen 2004:94n495. See Livingstone 1986:200; Linssen 2004:267, whose study upholds in general the traditional nature of the late ritual texts (167 168); similarly Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 4a 2. Thus Sel 1997:178 179 assumes that, already in the N-S period, divini ation entailed rituals of name-giving, animation, induction to an appropriate cult place, and ongoing o erings and maintenance. The following account con ates elements from several versions; they are, however, essentially compatible. For the gala, see Michalowski 2006; Bachvarova 2008; Gadotti 2010; Shehata 2013; PHG; and further p29 30. Livingstone 1986:201 204; PHG:137 139. Sel 1997:178. 23 Chapter Two Sumerian and Akkadian incantations were sung into its ear through a special tube of aromatic wood. The slaughter was accompanied by further apotropaic lamentation-songs, in which the bull was promised a kind of immortality: ou are the choice bull, the creation of the great gods . ou were created for the wo rk of the great go ds our hide and your sinew have been assigned to the mystery of the great gods. Abide for eternity in the mystery of that god 34 The victim’s heart was extracted, placed in front of the drum, scattered with uniper, and burned. Its skin was removed, treated with our, beer, wine, fat, alum, and gall-apples, and then applied in many complex steps to a previously prepared drum frame. The rest of the animal was buried.35 One of the gods to whom o erings were made was Lum a,36 whose name is written in some exemplars as Divine Balang’ (dBALA ).37 Lum a himself was therefore a kind of instrument god, his goodwill needed for the new divini ed drum.38 One should also note the substantial element of seven-magic that underpins the ritual.39 On the fteenth day after the drum’s completion, it was presented to the templegod. It was now a Divine Lilissu, and could only be played by the priest to whom it was assigned. Through these procedures, as U. Gabbay has convincingly argued, the bull belonged to both the living and the dead. Its heart’ survived in the drum itself, which wore its skin, and continued to beat in the beating of the instrument; this was in turn the beating heart of the god to be soothed through ritual lamentation, when the kalû would imitate the gestures of mourning.40 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 24 KAR 50 ( AT 8247), trans. Linssen 2004:267 268, obv. 1 12; cf. 278, I.22: For the great god s, guard the divine decrees See PHG:127 128, 138. A0 6479 II.5, 33 35, III.15, after drum has been made. For example, KAR 60, obv. 15, N-A, seventh century; in this text the bull is placed in front of Lum a while being sacri ced. Thureau-Dangin 1921:49n13, calls Lum a the god of the tympanum, patron of the kalû; Linssen 2004:96, treats him as a divine harp’, but for this period BALA probably represents a drum: see p531, 573. For the relevance of seven-magic to the larger uestion of divini ed instruments and ritual music, see p40 41. Seven-magic in the lilissu texts includes sevenfold o erings in AO 6479 I.17 and 23. Among the twelve divine gurines are the seven children of Enme arra (enumerated at AO 6479 III.3 14), represented by seven heaps of our (as stated in K 4806, 5 8). These heaps, accompanied by the god-names, are apparently represented in the diagram of O175 reverse, where they have a de nite arrangement vis-à-vis the bull. See Livingstone 1986:194, 203. The seven gods/heaps correspond somehow to seven hands or handles (on the drum itself ), and stand in an obscure relationship to the seven defeated Enlils who also appear in the diagram. PHG:79, 173, 177 (mimetic performance of kalû); 126, 138, 154 (lilissu e uated with the divine heart in theological commentaries, and both connected with that of the bull). Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia The mechanism was thus sympathetic magic: the kalû enacted the lamenting god(dess), leading his or her heart to release from anger and grief through the performance of mourning. A divini ed instrument, like other cult-ob ects, was endowed with a name. This could re ect its physical and conceptual properties, or some aspect of the master-god to whom it was devoted.41 In either case, the naming ritual endowed the divini ed instrument with individual existence.42 This bears in turn on the capacity of divine ob ects to en oy personal’ relationships with ma or gods, and hence appear in mythological narratives with them. Thus, for example, in the Babylonian Erra Myth, an Akkadian narrative work of the early rst millennium,43 the god Erra’s vi ier Ishum is perhaps his dei ed scepter, endursanga.44 His seven weapons are de nitely anthropomorphi ed as warriors.45 Much earlier is the N-S poem Lugal-e, telling the adventures of Ninurta.46 The god’s mace Sharur is personi ed as his advisor, who alerts him in a lengthy speech (24 69) to the existence of a new enemy in the mountains A ag, who has been chosen leader by that region’s plants and stones, the latter represented as warriors.47 Later as Ninurta carries his mace it snarled at the mountains (79). Notable among Sharur’s several other actions is his transformation into the thunderbird, ying overhead to spy out the enemy and bring news back to Ninurta (109 150). The appearance of divini ed cult-tools in myth is probably related to their use in ritual. This is well explained by A. Livingstone: In Babylonian thinking the distinction between ritual’ and myth’ is slight. Statues or symbols used in the rituals were believed to be in every sense the deities which we regard them as representing A ritual in which the statue or symbol of a deity participated was therefore in e ect a myth. On the other hand, myths which we would conceive as having happened once in the past were believed by the ancient thinkers to be capable of repetition.48 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 See PHG:113 114. For examples of conceptual names,’ see below and Heimpel, Balang-Gods . Sel 1997:178; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 4b1. Text: Cagni 1969; English translation: Foster 2005:771 805. Despite the work’s late date (Machinist 1983a:221 222), endursanga himself is known already in the third millennium (Fara; I II dynasty of Lagash; Ur III): Cagni 1969:138 140 with further references. Cagni 1969:138 140; Foster 2005:742. Machinist 1983a:222. As Divine Heptad, RlA 12/5 6:461 (Wiggerman, Siebeng tter A). Lugal-e: ed. van Di k 1983 Exploits of Ninurta, ETCSL 1.6.2; trans./comm. Jacobsen 1987:233 272. The work has been dated to soon after ca. 2150, due to its allusion at 475 478 to Gudea’s building of Ningirsu’s sanctuary Eninnu: see van Di k 1983:1 9; Jacobsen 1987:234. For the allegory of the stones, see van Di k 1983:37 47. Livingstone 1986:169 170 (original emphasis). 25 Chapter Two While there is no obvious connection with ritual in the case of Sharur in Lugal-e, his very existence was grounded in the realia of Ninurta’s cult. The closeness of Sharur’s mythological relationship to his master-god must have depended on the physical proximity of the mace to Ninurta’s statue, which will have been regularly involved in temple rituals. It is likely enough, however, that once such a background was taken for granted, a divini ed cult-tool like Sharur could take on a life of his own’ in the minds of singers and storytellers. Similarly the myth of Erra’s seven warrior-weapons presents no overt ritual dimension; yet they are a manifestation of the Divine Heptad, a polymorphous group whose appearance in cult and ritual is otherwise well attested.49 This evidence for the ritual-poetic treatment of cult-ob ects and processes will be important when considering several myths relating to Kinyras and his family.50 Gudea and the Balang-Gods of Ningirsu This fundamental link between ritual and poetics is most clearly illustrated by passages in The Building of Ningirsu’s House, a work which Gudea of Lagash (ca. 2140 2120), to memoriali e his completion of a new temple to the citygod Ningirsu, caused to be composed and inscribed on two large clay cylinders (henceforth Gudea Cylinders). It is a lengthy praise-hymn ( .m ) describing in great detail the process of construction.51 Complementary documentation’ comes from a series of gurative steles, including several scenes of musical performance, which were dedicated at the temple’s inauguration.52 The praisehymn itself may have been performed on the same occasion.53 The text, rich in 49 50 51 52 53 26 For the Sebettu (vel sim.), their association with the Pleiades, and other variations, see RlA 12/5 6:459 466 (Wiggerman, Siebeng tter A), with ritual uses at 461 2 and 464 4. The bulk of the evidence is from the rst millennium (especially N-A contexts), but there are scattered antecedents going back to the N-S period. Classicists will recall here W. Burkert’s hypothesis that the myth of the Seven against Thebes derives ultimately from these Seven Warriors (1992:106 114; cf. EFH:455 457), although the pattern of seven against seven suggests Anatolian mediation (for the Hittite doubling of the Divine Heptad, see RlA 12/5 6:466 Polvani, Siebeng tter B ). See p280 291. Text: RIME 3/1:68 101 (1.1.7 CylA/B); ETCSL 2.1.7 (translation followed here, with exceptions as noted); CS 2 no. 155. For the work’s genre and title (Gudea Cylinders B 24.17), Suter 2000:277. Pantheon of Lagash: Falkenstein 1966. Suter 2000:274 et passim. The musical scenes are Suter 2000:ST.9, 13, 15, 23, 25, 53, 54, with discussion on 190 195; for those showing a giant drum, see p532. A proposal by J. B rker-Kl hn to restore a bow-harp on a further fragment is unlikely: see Suter 2000:189, with 172 g. 19a. Suter 2000:157 and 278, wondering about the audience for the text of the cylinders, notes their reference to the performance of various songs during the construction process, and suggests that the cylinders were a draft’ for a more polished stele-inscription. Be that as it may, the content of the text and the gurative steles are to a large extent parallel, and sometimes Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia sociological and cultic information, brilliantly illuminates the anthropomorphic visuali ation of cult-ob ects, slipping easily between material-ritual description and vivid mythological scenes. Thus, at the poem’s climax, Ningirsu, arriving at his new palace’, is accompanied by the functionaries of his divine court all of whom are actually’ architectural elements of the temple itself, divini ed cultob ects, or cultic personnel mas uerading as such.54 Once again we encounter Sharur, this time as the mace of Ningirsu; a second weapon is called Sharga .55 It is told how Gudea goes to the cedar mountain to make Sharur’s shaft an event that gave its name to yet another regnal year.56 After Gudea dedicates the mace in Eninnu, it is personi ed, and Sharur takes up his position; his duties as Ningirsu’s general’ are described in detail.57 Other cult-ob ects are made the god’s family members. One son, Ig-Alima, is the dei ed door of the hall of ustice; he serves as Chief Baili ’ in Ningirsu’s court.58 Ningirsu’s oldest son, ul aga, is butler to his table.59 Many such familiar relationships are found in the canonical lamentations,60 and will be important parallels for approaching Kinyras and his family.61 The text is also a key source for understanding divini ed instruments, and how ritual music was believed to a ect the gods through song-acts’.62 Early in Cylinder A, the goddess Nanshe interprets an ominous dream for Gudea. He is to seek Ningirsu’s approval and with it exact architectural plans for the temple’s construction. Ningirsu must rst be made favorably disposed to the king’s pleas through the building and dedication of a magni cent chariot. Gudea can then make his re uest. But it must be translated’ by the balang Great Dragon of the Land: 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 mirror each other. Thus, for instance, the steles depict ritual musical performances like those mentioned in the text, which in turn alludes to various decorative schemes on steles set up in the temple. Given that the verbal composition was probably recited in some form at least once (Suter 2000:279), it is an easy guess that this was during the same set of events that saw the dedication of the steles i.e., inauguration of the temple. For this last uali cation, see the comments of Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2a. Gudea Cylinders A 9.24. For the historical con ation of Ninurta (Nippur name) and Ningirsu (Lagash name), see Jacobsen 1987:233 235. Gudea Cylinders A 15.19 25. For The year in which the wood for the Sharur-weapon was made, and a further year-name from the making (or repair) of the mace itself, see Falkenstein 1966:8; RIME 3/1:27 (1.1.7, 6). Gudea Cylinders A 22.20, B 7.12 21. Gudea Cylinders B 6.11 23. Cf. Jacobsen 1987:430n22. Gudea Cylinders B 6.24 7.11. See e.g. Elum Gusun (Honored One, Wild Ox) and CLAM:296 297, 314 316. See p280 291. Adapting the formulation of Austin 1962. For theoretical considerations of the intersection of speech-act’ and song’ in the Hellenic sphere, see inter al. Martin 1989 (with illuminating cultural parallels 1 14 et passim); Nagy 1990:30 34. 27 Chapter Two Enter before the warrior who loves gifts, before your master Lord Ningirsu in his temple E-ninnu-the-white-An ud-bird, together with his beloved balang, U umgal-kalama, his famous instrument, his tool of counsel (n -ad-gi4-gi4). our re uests will then be taken as if they were commands;63 and the balang will make the inclination of the lord which is as inconceivable as the heavens will make the inclination of Ningirsu, the son of Enlil, favorable for you so that he will reveal the design of his house to you in every detail.64 In Cylinder B, this same balang, along with the rest of the god’s accessories, is dedicated in the nished temple the same event that gave its name to the regnal year. But now the narrative becomes fully mythological as Ningirsu arrives to take up residence. His divine spirit permeates the temple and its sacred parts and contents. U umgal-kalama materiali es from the balang to be inducted to the o ce of nar the musician-singer’ whose repertoire included songs of divine and royal praise.65 We are given a clear description of his duties: To have the sweet-toned instrument, the tigi-harp, correctly tuned (or put in order’66), to place the music of the al ar and miritum, which make the temple happy in Eninnu for the hero, the wise Ningirsu, was his beloved musician-singer (nar), U umgal-kalama, going about his duties for the lord Ningirsu.67 This balang-god appears as a kind of musical director for the temple orchestra, responsible for the production of celebratory music in times of peace and good order. I shall return to his larger role in the text below. 63 64 65 66 67 28 This is translated by Wilson 1996:36, as (Then) he will receive (even) your most insigni cant words as exalted. Gudea Cylinders A 6.24 7.6. My translations adapted from ETCSL and Jacobsen 1987. Gudea carries out these instructions at A 7.9 8.1. For the status and organi ation of nar generally, including the elite o ces of Chief Singer (nar-gal, a substantially administrative position) and Singer before the King (nar lugal, associated especially with the Ur III period), see now Pru sins ky 2010; Pru sins ky 2013. The evidence naturally varies from city to city. In the Ur III period there was a great academy’ (e2 umum gu-la) for royal musicians at Ur itself: Pru sins ky 2013:35 36. Wilson 1996:158. Gudea Cylinders B 10.9 15: translation after Jacobsen 1987 and one by Stephen Langdon in the margin of his copy of Thureau-Dangin 1907, held in the Sackler Library, Oxford. Wilson 1996:159 renders the last line as (sc. U umgal-kalama) passed by the lord Ningirsu with (emblems of the) rituals. U umgal-kalama appears further at B 15.19 16.2, for which see below; and B 18.22 19.1, U umgal-kalama took its stand among the tigi-harps, the alu-lyres roared for him like a storm (trans. Jacobsen). For these instruments, see 531n1, 532, 575, 606 7n92. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia Upon his heels follows a second balang-god Lugal-igi- u , the Red-Eyed Lord’:68 With his divine duties, namely to soothe the heart, to soothe the spirits;69 to dry weeping eyes; to banish mourning from the mourning heart Gudea introduced his balang, Lugal-igi- u , to Lord Ningirsu.70 Although an exact title is not given, the Red-Eyed Lord’ is clearly a kind of lamentation-priest akin to the gala/kalû.71 In aetiological myth, this gure is associated especially with Inanna; Enki created him either to soothe the goddess’s wrath, or to rescue her from the underworld by assuaging its grieving ueen Ere kigal.72 The gala’s ritual performances could be sung to self-accompaniment, that of another (Heimpel suggests), or together with a chorus.73 The several genres of lament used the linguistic mode or register called Emesal, otherwise found of female speech in literary texts and arguably connected with an early tradition of women mourners that was later embraced (co-opted ) by select, male’ lamenters.74 This is clearly relevant to certain third-gender ualities long noted for the gala, and that his’ earliest documented function was lamenting at funerals amidst mourning women.75 The gala/kalû also imitated, in styli ed manner, the gestures of female mourning (prostration, torn clothing, breastbeating).76 Institutionali ed lamentation was performed both periodically 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Falkenstein 1966:82 ( Herr mit dem schrecklichen Blick ); Sel 1997:178 ( Red-Eyed Lord ). The existence of two distinct balang-gods is usti ed by their separate functions. The lexical collection An:Anum lists no fewer than seven balang-gods of Ningirsu, all otherwise unattested (Heimpel 1998b:5 and Balang-Gods, Section 2c and 53 100 106). Wilson 1996:159: to calm the inside, to calm the outside. Gudea Cylinders B 10.16 11.2. Wilson 1996:160: His lyre, Lugal-igi- u , passed by the lord Ningirsu with (emblems of the) rituals. Cf. also Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 4b2. For the following overview, see PHG:63 64, 70 71, 159 168, et passim. I assume that the detailed rst-millennium sources can serve at least as a rough guide to earlier periods. Surviving literary laments: CLAM. The two narratives are The Fashioning of the Gala (BM 29616, balang-composition of OB date): see Kramer 1981; and Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld (ETCSL 1.4.1) 228 239. See further Shehata 2006a; PHG:76 78; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 3b. PHG:83 84; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 3b. See especially Cooper 2006:43 45; approved by Michalowski 2006:49. For the linguistic evidence itself, Schretter 1990. Whittaker 2002 is a good critical review of theories. See also Bachvarova 2008; PHG:68. The use of male’ and his’ are complicated by the third-gender interpretation. See recently, with earlier literature, Cooper 2006:44 45; Gabbay 2008; PHG:67 68. Evidence for the gala’s funerary function is early (third-millennium and OB), cf. e.g. Gudea’s suspension of funeral rites when purifying the ground for Ningirsu’s temple: corpses were not buried, the gala did not set up his balang and bring forth laments from it, the woman lamenter did not utter laments (RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StB v.1 4; translation after Cooper 2006:42 43); see further material in PHG:18 19n19. PHG:79, 172 173. 29 Chapter Two ( chronic’) and as occasion demanded ( acute’). Regular laments, scheduled by day, month, or year within a cultic calendar, were either conducted in front of the god’s statue or elsewhere within a temple precinct, depending on the event (including processions to and from sanctuaries).77 Occasional’ laments responded to particular situations, and accordingly could be either prophylactic or corrective. Even such a fortunate chance as a royal victory could call for apotropaic lament.78 Lament was also prescribed for such potentially dangerous transitions as eclipses and the construction or repair of temples, statues, and cult-ob ects, including musical instruments.79 Lamentation-priests were also needed for repairing temple walls, gates, and even canals, with the place of performance varying as re uired.80 The activity attributed to U umgal-kalama is ad-gi4-gi4, return a sound’, that is, answer’ or advise’.81 The same word is applied to Lugalsisa, another counselor’ of Ningirsu, who was to conduct regular prayers on behalf of Lagash to keep the city in good repair, the king in good health, and his power stable.82 Considerable external evidence shows that ad-gi4-gi4 typically describes advice or responses from divine sources. The word appears as the name or epithet of several temples or shrines.83 The balang as counselor’ is seen in a rich array of material independently assembled by Heimpel and Gabbay.84 In rst millennium god-lists, many minor deities are identi ed as counselors’, where the Akk. mundalku can be written with the Sum. signs GU4.BALA ( balang-bull’). Their names often incorporate the word balang; refer to musical sound and voice; express some facet of their master-god; or constitute a theophoric sentence describing their counseling services. Some of these GU4.BALA advisors are also found bearing the title ad-gi4-gi4, the word even appearing once as a DN in its own right 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 30 See PHG Part II. Heimpel 1998a:14 16 with parallels; also Balang-Gods, 42a. PHG:164n76, 165 166, 173, 180. For the lilissu ritual, see p23 25. Dada, a well-documented gala attached to the royal palace in the reigns of Shulgi and Shu-Sin, is also known to have supervised the manufacture and repair of instruments. For Dada, see Michalowski 2006; Mirelman 2010; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 54. Ambos 2004:171 198; PHG: 87, 158, 165 168, 181 182, 187, 272. See further p280 282. Gudea Cylinders A 7.25. To which he keeps listening, in the translation of RIME 3/1:73, will yield compatible sense when other evidence for the counseling balang is take into account. Gudea Cylinders B 8.10 22. See the ve entries for House of the Counsellor in George 1993:65 66 ( 41 45), which include the seat of Ennunda allu and anun edu, the counsellors of Marduk in Esagil at Babylon ( 41); seat of Nuska in the sanctuary of Ningal at Ur ( 42); a shrine at Nippur ( 44); a sanctuary of Ea ( 45). For other shrines of counsel’ or wisdom’, see George 1993:89 ( 333, 336), 91 ( 355 359, 362, 364 365), 129 ( 830), 138 ( 951); for those of divine decisions’, 106 ( 544, 546 547); cf. perhaps 137 ( 943), House of the Open Ear. The following points come from Heimpel 1998b; Gabbay 2014 9 13. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia (dad-gi4-gi4) attached to a balang-god.85 As Heimpel notes, this last name is of particular interest as it merges with the function of balang -gods as counselors It means that all balang -gods were understood as counselors of their divine masters. 86 Both Heimpel and Gabbay note the extension of an instrument’s physical sounding’ or resounding’ (ad-gi4-gi4) to the idea of sounding someone out’ or being someone’s sounding board.’87 But the Sumerian conception is no mere metaphor, as the instruments’ ability to communicate with the divine world was regarded as real. As Gabbay sums up: The theological image manifested by these references is of the main deities sharing their deliberations with their beloved counselors, the ad-gi4-gi4 deities, also known as GU4.BALA . As counselors (mundalku) they are asked for their opinion on di erent matters, and they answer (Sum. gi4-gi4) with their voice (ad) the advisor echoes the god’s speech through his counseling and by that calms him.88 These astute observations can be fruitfully applied to the Gudea Cylinders. The counsels’ to be carried out by U umgal-kalama and Lugalsisa implicitly refer to modes of divine communication that will be in fact conducted by temple personnel. As presented in the narrative, however, the relationship between a king and his counseling ministers is e ually evoked, since Ningirsu’s temple is portrayed as a royal court. That a singer or musician should have a king’s ear like this, empowered to advise and soothe, may be compared with the in uential position of Chief Singer’, well known from the OB period,89 and the representation of musicians playing before seated gures (even when these are convivial scenes).90 There is also young David’s service in the court of Saul, where he soothes the evil spirit which besets the king.91 But if the poem’s mythological imagery is converted back to cult realities, one must conclude that the instrument itself possessed the power of such counsel. This explains the passage uoted above, describing the balang’s communication of Gudea’s message to Ningirsu, whose obedience it will compel. The balang is like a herald and translator who speaks directly to the divine mind, otherwise inaccessible to man, with a special hermeneutic language. One may compare a Hittite text that refers to the sweet message of the lyre, the sweet message 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Cf. Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2c. Heimpel 1998b:5. Heimpel 1998b:5; Balang-Gods, Section 2c. Gabbay 2014 13. See p28n65, 74. See MgB 2/2:52 53 ( g. 28 29, ca. 2600/2450), 54 57 ( g. 32 34, ca. 2600), 60 61 ( g. 36, ca. 2550), 62 65 ( g. 38 39, 41 43, OAkk. period). See p165 166. 31 Chapter Two of the cymbals. 92 In the Bible, too, one nds evidence, uite abundant, for the inn r as a medium through which gods and mortals can communicate.93 The god who consults’ with his balang-servants is a mirror image of the king who seeks divine guidance through the medium of balang-music. Gudea submits his uery, and receives his response, through the balang. The respective musings of god and king meet precisely in the instrument, which is thus a kind of hotline between king and divine patron. Practically speaking, it would seem that any musical counsel a balang was capable of would need to be activated by its player. This assumes that divini ed instruments were in fact played, and not merely venerated. This is the case at least with the divini ed lilissu in rst-millennium lamentation rituals.94 And, after all, U umgal-kalama himself is represented as a musician in the Gudea Cylinders. This leads to the circular conception that the balang-god plays the very instrument of which it is considered the spirit. It e ectively plays itself, so that all human agency is e aced. Ultimately this seems to imply that the priestmusicians who played such divini ed instruments impersonated, or better instantiated, the balang-god, whose epiphany was presumably synchronous with the ritual-performance itself.95 A scene of the Gudea Cylinders describes the king’s own duties at the temple: To see that the courtyard of the E-ninnu will be lled with oy; to see that the ala-drums and the balang will sound in perfect concert with the sim-cymbals, and to see that his beloved balang U umgal-kalama will walk in front of the procession, the ruler who had built the E-ninnu, Gudea, himself entered before Lord Ningirsu.96 In the future rituals that are imagined here, as in the earlier balang-rite in which he appealed to Ningirsu, Gudea is the sole visible actor. While this might re ect political posturing vis-à-vis the temple clergy,97 it is also consistent with the ideology of the king as a bridge between the human and divine spheres. To all appearances, Gudea will single-handedly supervise the procession of 92 93 94 95 96 97 32 KBo 12.88.5 10; also KBo 26.137, 2: see HKm:203. See p158 164. See p24. There may have been occasions, however, when the instrument itself was the focus of a ritual, without actually sounding. In the Ishtar ritual from OB Mari, a balang is said to be placed’ the instrument was heavy but whether it was actually played is not made clear; it may rather have been the ob ect of lamentation. See further p85, 291 292. Gudea Cylinders B 15.19 16.2. Cf. Gabbay 2014 4 (in another context): by donating the main instrument which accompanied one of the most important prayers of the temple cult, the king was able to be involved in the ritual and not only the temple and its personnel. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia U umgal-kalama, and the balang-god will walk in front. On the mythological level, this evokes a scene of king and balang-god side-by-side an epiphany in which the cultic agents necessary for bringing it about are eclipsed, and suggesting a guardian angel’ relationship between U umgal-kalama and Gudea, akin to presentation scenes’ on cylinder-seals of the Akkadian and Ur III periods.98 But if the scene is imagined on the mundane level, we are still left with Gudea as the leading human agent, escorting his divini ed balang at the head of the procession. The two visions suggest a close association between king and balang, perhaps even their identi cation. Note especially that the king’s duties in the passage ust given are strikingly reminiscent of U umgal-kalama himself, who is to supervise musical rites of ust this sort. Shulgi and the Royal Ideal of Music The conceit of the king who personally performs complex state rites as a doppelg nger of a balang-god leads naturally to the image of the musician king, and his own enactment or instantiation of divini ed instruments. Much relevant material is connected with Shulgi (ca. 2094 2047), second and greatest ruler of the Ur III dynasty, who continued his father Ur-Nammu’s ambitious temple-building program and expanded the state’s borders to their greatest extent.99 The issue is caught up with the relatively short-lived phenomenon of divine kingship in Mesopotamia.100 The rst king known to have been proclaimed divine is Naram-Sin of Akkad (ca. 2260 2223); one of his inscriptions describes it as a reward from the gods, petitioned by the people, for uelling the Great Revolt.’101 Divine kingship is next seen ourishing under Shulgi, systematically elaborated the under the political conditions of his time. Shulgi presented himself as the interface between the gods and human society, itself conceived as a terrestrial re ection of the divine realm with its complex hierarchy of powers.102 This model was inherited by his successors, and at least super cially perpetuated by the Isin dynasty, which set itself up as heir to the Ur III legacy; but by this time 98 99 100 101 102 E.g. Collon 1987:36; Asher-Greve and Westenhol 2013:199 202, with emphasis on underlying rituals. Building works of Shulgi and Ur-Nammu: Sallaberger 1999:137 140, 151 152. For divine kingship, see the lucid account of Michalowski 2008, distinguishing between sacred and divine (41 42). Bassetki statue: Al-Fouadi 1976; RIME 2 1.4.10; CS 2 no. 90; Kuhrt 1995 1:48 49, 51 52. Great Revolt: Westenhol 1999:51 54. For the evidence of Shulgi’s divine status, Sallaberger 1999:152 156. 33 Chapter Two the ideology began to wane, consciously re ected by subse uent generations, and dying out for all practical purposes during the OB period.103 One aspect of the Shulgi’s divine perfection was his absolute command of music, within an otherwise sophisticated musical culture ourishing under royal patronage.104 This is well illustrated by passages in his royal praise-hymns a new genre which arose in connection with divine kingship, and a key source for its conceptions. These poems, cast in the rst person, consist almost entirely of ostensible self-praise for the universal perfection of the royal person.105 The most expansive passage relating to the king’s musical abilities is worth uoting in full: I, Shulgi, king of Ur, have also devoted myself to the musician’s art. Nothing is too complicated for me; I know the depth and breadth of the tigi and the adab, the perfection of music. When I x the frets on the lute (gi ukarak), which enraptures my heart, I never damage its neck; I have established procedures for raising and lowering its intervals. On the sc. instrument with eleven tuning-pegs, the lyre ( ami), I know the harmonious tuning. I am familiar with the three-stringed instrument (sa-e ) and with drumming on its musical sound-box. I can take in my hands the Mari-lyre (miritum), which brings the house sc. astonished silence. I know the nger techni ue of the hori ontal-lyre (al ar) and the Sabu-lyre (sabitum), royal creations. In the same way I can produce sounds from the King-of-Kish instrument (ur ababitum), the ar ar, the an(n)aru-lyre,106 the urgula and the dim-lu-magura. Even if they bring to me, as one might to a skilled musician, a lute (gudi) that I have not heard before, when I strike it up I make its true sound known; I am able to handle it ust like something that has been in my hands before. If in tuning I tighten, loosen or set sc. the strings , they do not slip from my hand. I never make the double-pipe sound like a shepherd’s instrument, and on my own initiative I can wail a sumun a or make a lament as well as anyone who does it regularly.107 103 104 105 106 107 34 uotation: Michalowski 2008:41. For Isin’s cultural relationship to Ur, and the promotion of legitimate continuity from Ur in royal hymns and other media, see Michalowski 1983:242 243. For the royal promotion and organi ation of music in this period, see the studies cited in n65 above. Hallo 1963; Klein 1981. For an(n)aru with the double-n guaranteed for Akk. by Diri III.043 see further p55, 78 79. Shulgi B, 154 174, trans. adapted from ETCSL 2.4.2.02, partially on the basis of text and commentary in Krispi n 1990 (who attempts some identi cations with the catalogue of MgB 2/2). See especially 8 12 for miritum, sabitum, ur ababitum, and an(n)aru. For the rst two, which are also found in Enki’s Journey to Nippur as part of the god’s temple orchestra at Eridu (ETCSL 1.1.4, 60 67), see too Hartmann 1960:77 78; cf. Castellino 1972:162 170; Henshaw 1993:84 86. Similar Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia No doubt a king could be well educated, and really cultivate music. asmahAddu of Mari (crowned ca. 1790) may have studied as a boy with his father’s master musician.108 One of the Hurrian hymns from Ugarit may have been composed by king Ammurapi of Ugarit.109 Psalms were attributed to several Biblical kings.110 But Shulgi’s claims are so extravagant as to be incredible. The essentially symbolic nature of his achievements’ is revealed by their deliberate recycling in the royal praise-hymns of Ishme-Dagan (ca. 1953 1935), fourth king of the Isin dynasty.111 At the pinnacle of human society, the king was all things to his people a living god, the ideal embodiment of civili ation and all its arts. His preternatural beauty made the royal shepherd a worthy spouse of Inanna, a new Dumu i. He was the perfect soldier, the wisest udge, the best diviner, the ultimate scribe and the ideal musician, of celebratory song and lamentation alike. Thus, although the royal praise hymns are composed in the rst person, there is no compelling reason to believe that the king himself was always, or perhaps ever, the actual composer. (If he were, of course, it would be still more interesting.) The mode of presentation allows any king to compose and perform, at least in spirit, through the mouth of a singer or singers who voiced these songs in the rst person. This circular conception is similar to the poetics of divini ed instruments considered above.112 With both, human ministers are e aced, and their o ces, actions, and abilities are symbolically co-opted by a higher power be it god, king, or god-king. The ur ababitum which Shulgi claims to play presents a uite remarkable specimen of the interaction between divini ed instrument and divine-king-asmusician. The ur ababitum takes its name, for some mysterious reason, from Ur- ababa, the historical king of Kish whose throne was sei ed by Sargon the Great.113 Ur- ababa himself is found in the OB/MA god-list An:Anum as a balangdeity of Ninurta.114 The ur ababitum is de ned elsewhere as the god Ninurta’s 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 boasts are found in Shulgi C, segment B, 75 101 (especially 77 78, ETCSL 2.4.2.03); Shulgi E, 34 35 (ETCSL 2.4.2.05). iegler 2006b:36. See p119, 383. See p178, 383. See p80 81. See p30 33. Could there be a connection here with the obscure but important honori c King of Kish which was assumed by several Sumerian rulers of the ED III period and Sargon’s dynasty See generally RlA 5:608 610 (Ed ard, Ki A); Maeda 1981; Kuhrt 1995 2:41 43. An:Anum I 268 (cited according to Litke 1998). For this god-list, and this entry, see further Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2c and 53. 35 Chapter Two instrument or Ninurta of music. 115 The speci city of this material makes it reasonable to treat it as a semantic system, despite the disparate dates of the sources. One therefore has a divini ed king (Shulgi) who plays ( takes counsel’ from) an instrument named after another divini ed king (Ur- ababa), who as the god of the self-same instrument is in turn counselor to a higher mastergod Ninurta, himself the image of the warrior-king.116 To make matters still more complex, asmah-Addu, king of OB Mari, also possessed an (Akk.) urzababîtum, this one probably featuring his own name as a theophoric element.117 This material lets us glimpse an intricate network of ideas about divini ed instruments, the cognitive interaction of instrument and player, and the elaboration of both in the ritual poetics of kingship. Another such case may be a GU4. BALA servant of the moon-god Suen/Sin, called Amar-Suen ( Calf of Suen’); for this is the name of Shulgi’s successor (ca. 2046 2038), while Suen/Sin was the patron god of the dynasty.118 Similarly Ishbi-Erra, rst king of the Isin dynasty, dedicated a divini ed balang called Ishbi-Erra trusts in Enlil’.119 To udge from its name, this instrument was a servant-god of Enlil. And yet, the incorporation of Ishbi-Erra’s own name suggests that the balang was e ually an intermediary between the earthly king and his divine counterpart. These conceptions will be important when considering David, an overt lyre-king’ serving, praising, and giving voice to ahweh. And the inn r-playing David is in turn our best parallel for understanding Kinyras himself a Divine Lyre lingering on in Greco-Cypriot and Levantine myth, remodeled as an ancient lyre-playing king in the service of Aphrodite’. It is noteworthy that the Shulgi-hymn cited above mentions at least four instruments of foreign’ provenance and/or associations (the Mari-lyre, the Sabu-lyre, the king-of-Kish instrument’, and the an n aru).120 Elsewhere in the Ur III hymns, the Sabu-lyre and Mari-lyre again occur side-by-side, within the larger instrumentarium. These passages suggest that the contemporary court and 115 116 117 118 119 120 36 h 79 80 (MSL 6:123); g 169 (MSL 6:142); Diri III.49 (MSL 6:119, 15:138): see Falkenstein and Matou 1934:147 49; Castellino 1972:166 166; Heimpel 1998b:6 (translating Sum. n r ti as music ). As U. Gabbay notes, It is also not coincidental that the Ur ababa instrument is the balang of Ninurta, since this god as hero going out to war was often conceived as the mythological mirror image of Mesopotamian kings (communication, March, 2010). See further p86. An:Anum III 51, noted by U. Gabbay (communication, March, 2010); but Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 53, sees in the name rather a direct reference to the moon-god. RIME 4 1.1.1, 13 14; CS 2 no. 92; Radner 2005:56 no. 82; FM 9:222 (on 8); Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 40. For identi cations, see p34n107, 35 36. For the an(n)aru (Krispi n’s Anatolian lyre ), see further p78 79. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia temple ensembles were deliberately cosmopolitan, with a diversity of instruments representing the cultural hori ons of Ur. When the king extends his claim of mastery to instruments I have not heard before, one imagines musical exotica sent as gifts or tribute, or carried by visiting musicians from beyond Ur’s own periphery. Shulgi’s international musical vision is therefore an expression of both cultural prestige and political power. It e ually alludes to the harmonious peace that his political power has enabled a portrait of the king at rest from his campaigns, passing his time by en oying the varied musical delights his e orts have assembled.121 Lovely Lyrics For Inanna We must also glance at the royal hymns that intimate a relationship between the king and Inanna/Ishtar, since here too one sees the con unction of royal ideology and music-making. The king’s position as the goddess’s favorite is very ancient. T. Jacobsen sought its roots in the agricultural revolution, interpreting the famous Uruk vase (ca. 3100) showing Inanna in front of her temple, receiving o erings from a king or priest-king gure as re ecting some form of hierogamy or Sacred Marriage’.122 That the goddess was royal patroness in the OAkk. period is shown by the inscriptions of Naram-Sin, who evidently oined the goddess Ishtar-Annunitum as divine city ruler, and possibly as her consort. 123 Ishtar regularly appears as the divine patroness of Sargon and Naram-Sin in the legends that developed around the Akkadian kings.124 The N-S royal hymns contain many literary re ections of Inanna as the protectress of the king, who assumes the position of Dumu i, the goddess’s ancient, archetypal lover.125 121 122 123 124 125 By contrast, catastrophic situations are marked by the silencing of music; for example, Ur-Nammu A (The Death of Ur-Nammu, ETCSL 2.4.1.1), 187 188 ( My tigi, adab, ute and zamzam songs have been turned into laments because of me. The instruments of the house of music have been propped against the wall. ); so too the ruin of Isin in The Destroyed House (Jacobsen 1987:475 477, lines 17 24). For the Curse of Agade, see below. Jacobsen 1975:76, cultic drama in Mesopotamia as elsewhere has its roots back in primitive’ society, that is, one based on hunting, herding, or incipient agriculture. Here the drama was a rite of direct sympathetic magic aiming to create fertility. uotation: Michalowski 2008:34. Ishtar appears rst in the list of gods who supported NaramSin’s divini ation (Bassetki statue: RIME 2 1.4.10; Foster I.c3, cd. Westenhol 1997:35, 83, 109, 137 139, etc. The convergence of these themes is seen clearly in Shulgi X (ETCSL 2.4.2.24) and Iddin-Dagan A (ETCSL 2.5.3.1). Shulgi as shepherd: Shulgi D 2, 60, 364; E 5, 11; G 28 30, 49 53, 60 62; P 11 14, 17, 56 66; Q 6, 28, 45 48; R 41, 67, 84, 89; X 9, 37, 40, 53; etc. (these are ETCSL 2.4.2.04, 05, 07, 16, 18, 24, respectively). 37 Chapter Two The precise nature and purpose of any actual rites underpinning this ideology at various periods remain disputed. Recent studies downplay the more hands-on’ interpretations of Fra er and his followers in favor of symbolic rituals tied to regeneration of the land and periodic renewal of royal legitimacy and social order.126 In any case, the poetic treatment of intimacy between king and goddess remains an observable artifact in its own right, with especially rich material from the N-S and OB periods. B. Pongrat -Leisten has recently elucidated an important bene t of the king’s hierogamous relationship with Inanna/Ishtar. The goddess served as a messenger from Enlil and the assembly of gods, transferring divine knowledge to the king in order to allow him to partake in the divine plan. 127 When in the OB period hierogamy faded from royal ideology, a close relationship between king and goddess persisted in the venue of prophecy, with Ishtar continuing to function as an oracular go-between. In the present state of evidence, the richest material comes from N-A prophecies, which evince a systematic elaboration of the ideology, with the goddess now interpreted as the spirit’ or breath’ of the transcendent god A ur the medium by which male and female prophets alike, in an ecstatic state sometimes achieved by lamentative techni ues, could consult the divine council, headed by A ur, and report back to the king by channeling the voice of Ishtar.128 Such ideas are compatible with Shulgi’s boasts of expertise in omenreading ( my diviner watches in ama ement like an idiot ),129 and help explain the representation of Inanna as a sort of Muse in the royal hymns. Shulgi B makes the king boast that the protective deity of my power has perfected the songs of my might. 130 The poem’s opening verses He praises his own power in song show that these songs of my might are the selfsame royal hymns that Shulgi is represented as having composed and sung.131 Hence the goddess guides the king’s own (real or notional) singing. Another royal hymn represents 126 127 128 129 130 131 38 For an up-to-date survey of approaches formerly and presently taken, see the essays in Nissinen and Uro 2008, especially those of P. Lapinkivi, B. Pongrat -Leisten, and M. Nissinen. Representative recent studies are Cooper 1993; Sweet 1994; Steinkeller 1999; Jones 2003; Lapinkivi 2004. Cf. RlA 4:251 259 (Renger, Heilige Hoch eit), for cautions about earlier studies, of which one may cite inter al. Jacobsen in Frankfort et al. 1946:198 200; Frankfort 1948:295 299; Gurney 1962; Kramer 1963; Kramer 1969:132 133, for the idea of transmission to Anatolia, Greece, and Cyprus in connection with Adonis; amauchi 1973; Jacobsen 1975. Pongrat -Leisten 2008:54 60 ( uotation at 60), et passim; further references in Parpola 1997:CI n237; Jones 2003:291. Parpola 1997: III I, L II L III (with reference to antecedents), et passim. Note that here Ishtar often appears in the role of the king’s mother. Shulgi B (ETCSL 2.4.2.01),131 149. Shulgi B, 381 382. Shulgi B, 1 10 ( uotation at 9 10). Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia Inanna herself singing an erotic Dumu i-song to Shulgi, promising I will decree a good fate for him 132 A nal gyration elsewhere touches upon the realities of performance and perhaps ritual, while simultaneously removing the king to the divine realm: My singers praised me with songs accompanied by seven tigi-lyres. My spouse, the maiden Inanna, the lady, the oy of heaven and earth, sat with me at the ban uet.133 In this vignette a striking example of seven-magic combined with music (see below) the king receives musical o erings, the godly honors he en oys with his goddess wife, here still a maiden, performed by his royal musicians. et once again, by the logic of genre, it should actually be Shulgi who presumably inspired by Inanna, as in Shulgi B sings about his own musicians. This creates an in nite regrade in which Shulgi embodies the entire musical activity of his court.134 Sub ect and ob ect, performer and recipient, merge in a single musical epiphany. The conceit of the musician-king performing in the Sacred Marriage’ is also found in a hymn of Iddin-Dagan (ca. 1974 1954), third king of the Isin Dynasty. The poem is devoted exclusively to praising Inanna, and includes a uite erotic description of her union with the king.135 Again the hymn is presented as sung by the king himself: I shall greet the great lady of heaven, Inanna For the young lady I shall sing a song about her grandeur, about her greatness, about her exalted dignity Making silver al ar instruments sound for her, they parade before her, holy Inanna. I shall greet the great lady of heaven, Inanna 136 The passage is valuable for envisioning the participation of actual cultmusicians. As presented, however, they merely echo and amplify the king’s own praises of the goddess. It seems they are to sing the very hymn in which they are themselves so described. Once again, a purposefully circular construction blurs the line between king and musicians, spotlighting the royal performance. The muse-like role of Inanna in these texts is a suggestive precedent for Aphrodite, who exhibits similar ualities, especially in connection with 132 133 134 135 136 Shulgi X (ETCSL 2.4.2.24), 13 41. Shulgi A (ETCSL 2.4.2.01), 81 83. For the tigi instrument, see p531n1, 575, 606 7n92. Compare the double harpist imagery on a thirteenth-century bron e stand from Kourion: p388 392. Iddin-Dagan A (ETCSL 2.5.3.1), 181 194. Iddin-Dagan A, 3, 9 10, 35 37. 39 Chapter Two Cyprus.137 That the lyre-playing Kinyras was seen as her royal lover is a still more striking parallel. The royal takeover’ of cult-performances will be seen at Ugarit where there is also a Singer (or singers) of Astarte active in the royal palace138 and still more so with David who, like Shulgi and Iddin-Dagan, outshines his own cult-musicians when leading the Ark to Jerusalem.139 Music and Seven-Magic In early Greek sources, the orderly relations of tunings and rhythms were probably believed capable of inducing or restoring, via sympathetic magic, a similar state in either the natural or social world. Prominent in the sources for Greek musical mysticism is the magical powers of the number seven.140 Sevennumerology is of course e ually ubi uitous in the literature of the ANE. et this was not always a mere literary convention, a convenient number’ signifying totality, or a story-structuring device.141 I have already mentioned some ritual and cultic aspects of the Divine Heptad.142 Ritual texts from various times and places show that seven-magic was an important structuring device.143 We shall encounter examples at Ebla, Ugarit, Emar, and in the Bible.144 The not-infre uent con unction of seven-magic and ritual music is to be connected, I believe, with ANE traditions of heptatonic tuning on stringed instruments.145 This conception goes back, in Mesopotamia, to the OB period at the latest, when a complete tuning cycle was formulated in terms of the (Akk.) sammû.146 Although this was a nine-stringed chordophone (at least in theory), the heptatonic structure of the tuning-system itself is clear.147 The same perspective is now graphically con rmed by CBS 1766, a neo- or late-Babylonian tablet that visuali es the 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 40 See Franklin 2014:224 226. See p114. See p167 174. For the wonder-working lyre in early Greek poetics, and the importance of seven-magic, see Franklin 2002b:17 21; Franklin 2006a:52 63. For the symbolism of seven in the ANE generally, a good source book is Reinhold 2008; for Greece with some discussion of neighboring cultures, Roscher 2003; in Pythagorean cosmology, Burkert 1972a:465 482 et passim. See p24, 39. Cf. Wyatt 2001:92 94; Wyatt 2007:54 vis-à-vis the Ugaritian ritual texts: evidently the number seven was of symbolic signi cance no doubt with broad cosmological and ontological echoes. See index s.v. seven-magic’. Franklin 2006a:58. For an introduction to these texts, see RlA 8:463 482 (Kilmer, Musik A I) with further literature. From the so-called Retuning Text UET 7/74 (Ur, ca. 1800), as well as CBS 10996 (Nippur, ca. 500 300), which enumerates and names intervals formed from the rst seven strings. For these texts, see also p59 60, 97, 119, 392, 451. Instrument Gods and Musician Kings in Early Mesopotamia heptatonic tuning cycle as a seven-pointed star; some ulterior, extra-musical purpose seems likely, but remains elusive.148 These heptadic harmonic phenomena were surely perceived, from early on, as manifestations of sacred seven.’ Chordophones especially, and other instruments by extension, were probably seen as structured by, and emitting waves of, sacred seven-ness. This should be borne in mind when dealing with such details as the seven tigi-instruments on which Shulgi’s singers sang their royal praises, or much later the gestures of seven-magic in the ritual(s) of lilissu-divini ation. There is also an archaic tablet from Girsu (Tello, ca. 2400) that records o erings of seven liters of oil and seven liters of dates for the seven balangs. 149 Similarly, in the Curse of Agade, during Akkad’s prosperity, the heart of the city was of tigilyres ; but when, after the hybris of Naram-Sin causes Enlil to destroy the city, the survivors try to appease the god, the chief lamentation singer for seven days and seven nights put in place seven balangs, like the rm base of heaven (this action is accompanied by lamentative music to percussion instruments).150 As Heimpel observes, the motif of the seven balangs meant that all festival activity was then pooled in the one great e ort to pacify Enlil. 151 Another half-do en such examples can be given.152 Conclusion Mesopotamian sources present very rich evidence for the practice and ideology of music in many contexts. The material’s abundance varies considerably with time and place through accidents of survival and discovery. I have restricted my discussion to those issues that provide the best parallels for Kinyras, Kinnaru of Ugarit, and Syro-Levantine innāru culture generally: divini ed cult-tools, their construction and anthropomorphosis in myth; conceptions of musical cognition and communication with the gods through this medium; and royal ideology 148 149 150 151 152 Horowit 2006 (ed. princ.); Waer eggers and Siebes 2007 (connecting to musical texts, suggested emendations); Horowit and Shnider 2009 (collation and veri cation of some proposed re-readings); Shnider 2010 (suggesting some connection with astronomical and/or divinatory lore). TSA 1 ix:12 14 (dated to end of rst dynasty of Lagash, p. I ). ETCSL 2.1.5, 34 36, 196 204. Translation after Cooper 1983 and Jacobsen 1987; cf. Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 43. Discussion: PHG:16 17, 58. For music as symboli ing Agade’s prosperity, Cooper 1983:38 39; 238; 252. For the identity of tigi-lyre, see 531n1, 575, 606 7n92. Balang-Gods, Section 2c. Further material: Balang-Gods, Section 2c and 9, 11, 37, 43; PHG:91, 117, 141, 161n55 56. Probably relevant is the intersection of balang-cult with the lunar calendar. A monthly o ering is known from Umma during the Ur III period, made to the Balang of the Day-of-Laying’, that is, when the moon was invisible before starting again to wax; presumably the occasion called for apotropaic magic. Cited by Heimpel 1998a:6 7 and Balang-Gods, 28. Cf. Linssen 2004:93 and 306 320 for the kettledrum’s use in late Babylonian rituals relating to lunar eclipse. 41 Chapter Two and self-representation, including ideas of hierogamy. The separate functions of Ningirsu’s two balang-gods will also be echoed by the celebratory and lamentative contexts in which Kinyras and the knr are found. Mesopotamia is of course a di erent world from Cyprus and its environs, so one must not expect exact parallels. Nevertheless the material considered here will help illuminate many otherwise obscure facets of Kinyras and his mythology. 42 3 The Knr T e Meso otamian material, together with the Divine Kinnaru of Ugarit and further evidence from the Hurro-Hittite world, indicates that the divini ation of instruments was one facet of an international’ music culture operative in the BA Near East. Fortunately, the latter enormous sub ect need not be exhausted here. We may simply focus on the knr, for which there is relatively abundant textual evidence and associated iconography. To be sure, this multiform word/instrument does o er an instructive sample of a global economy’ of music. But it is also the very soul of Kinnaru. So a detailed examination of the instrument’s geographical di usion and cultural position, both practical and symbolic, will illuminate the larger environment from which, I shall argue, Kinyras sailed for Cyprus. Jubal: Looking Back from Israel The knr was long known best from Heb. inn r, the famous harp’ actually lyre (see below) of David, with more than forty occurrences in the canonical Old Testament, and many further mentions in the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic literature.1 The prestigious position which this suggests is paralleled by a wide range of performance contexts, often exalted: sacred psalms, royal praise poetry, triumphal processions and other revelry, musical exorcism, ecstatic prophecy, and even lyric plaints.2 The Bible itself, however, is well aware that its inn r had had a much more ancient past outside of Israel and Judah. The instrument is mentioned in Canaanite/Phoenician contexts, and among the Aramaeans of the patriarchal age.3 Its invention is appropriately placed in the antediluvian chapters of 1 2 3 Sendrey 1969:266 278; Sendrey 1974:169 172; Polin 1974:67 68; MGG 1:1516 1517 (Braun); MAIP:16 17. For lyric lamentation, see Chapter 12. Phoenician/Canaanite contexts: Isaiah 14:10 11 (Rephaim, see further p146 147), 23:15 16 and E ekiel 26.13 (Tyre). Aramaean (Laban story): Gen. 25:20, 31:20, 27; cf. Polin 1974, 16 17. The 43 Chapter Three Genesis, where it is attributed to Jubal a seventh-generation descendant of Cain as part of a larger family of culture-heroes:4 Lamech took two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other illah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre ( inn r) and pipe ( hā h). illah bore Tubal-Cain, who made all kinds of bron e and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.5 According to this chronology, the inn r’ had existed from time out of mind, long before the emergence of Israel’ symboli ed by Jacob from the larger popular matrix descended from Noah. The passage incorporates a further chronological indicator: the inn r arises within a nomadic way of life such as was believed to have characteri ed the age of the patriarchs.6 An e ually important component of this ancient lifestyle, according to the inclusion of Tubal-Cain, was the working of metals. This portrait of Lamech’s family has often been connected with an Egyptian tomb-painting from Beni-Hassan, dating to the Twelfth Dynasty in the early second millennium (Figure 3 4.1 ).7 It shows a seemingly nomadic troupe men, women, and herd animals prominent among whom is a man towards the back who carries and plays the lyre. One obvious explanation for his presence is that music is the provision of the traveller. 8 But there is more. The accompanying text identi es the troupe as thirty-seven Asiatics of wt (‘3mw n šwt), led by a ruler with the Canaanite name of Ab -shar, who were bringing a load of the cosmetic sti ium (antimony) to the owner of the grave, a high-ranking noble 4 5 6 7 8 44 precise relationship between the Biblical Aramaeans and their historical counterpart is somewhat cloudy. See the recent synthesis of ounger 2007. Aram, their eponymous ancestor in the Table of Nations, is an eighth-generation great uncle of Abraham: Gen. 10:22 31, 11:11 26. Still useful is the discussion of Baethgen 1888:149 151; North 1964:378 383. Gen. 4:19 22. For hā h here see Cassuto 1961 1:236, cf. 235, suggesting a folk etymology connecting Cain’ (Qayin), su xed to the name of Tubal and referring originally to smith’ ( qyn, forge’; cf. GC:41; North 1964:378), and nā ( poetic composition’ dirge’); cf. Sellers 1941:40 41. Perhaps a similar association implicated qyn and kinn r, contributing to the development of a musician-craftsman mytheme; for this wider Syro-Levantine pattern, along with symptomatic variants in the reception of Lamech’s family, see Chapter 18. Cf. North 1964:380, who derives Jubal, Jabal, and Tubal alike from Heb. a al, bring in procession’, and notes the idea’s relevance to both psalmody and caravaneering. See Newberry 1893:41 72, especially 69, and pl. I; Shedid 1994:53 65 and g. 20. Comparison with Jubal and Tubal: Albright 1956:98, 200n7; Ribichini 1981:51 (also noting Kinyras’ metallurgical connections); Bayer 1982:32; Staubli 1991:30 35 and g. 15a; MAIP:77 79; Collon 2006:13. In the words of Ibn Abd Rabbihi (ca. 860 940 CE): SOM 1:9. The Knr Figure 3 ‘Asiatic’ troupe with lyrist, tomb-painting, Beni-Hassan, we fth Dyna ty, ca. 1900. Drawn from hed d 199 fig. 20. named Chnumhotep, in the service of Amenemhet II. Here is early evidence for the circulation of Syro-Levantine lyres beyond their home range. That the instrument is found in a kind of royal context accompanying’ a king or chieftain will nd parallels at Ebla, Mari, Ugarit, and elsewhere in the Bible. The group is e ually prepared for metalworking: they pack anvil, bellows, and tongs. The parallel to Lamech’s family is certainly striking although we shall see that the Biblical portrait is but one example of a more widespread association of music and craftsmanship, which remained a productive mytheme in the SyroLevantine sphere down into the By antine period.9 Returning to Jubal himself, it seems signi cant that he has been lodged in a genealogical context. This device is of course natural for representing the development of civili ation; it was e ually exploited by Philo of Byblos for his comparable Phoenician history.10 et it probably also acknowledges the early existence of musical tribes’ or guilds’ of some sort, with membership at least uasihereditary, long before the organi ation of the First Temple.11 The evidence for 9 10 11 See p453 455. See p446. Cf. AOM:289 (Kraeling and Mowry); Cassuto 1961:235 236; PIW 2:80. This is also how Theodore Bar Koni ( . ca. 800) understood the passage ( i er scholiorum, imrā 2.97: Hespel and Draguet 45 Chapter Three various forms of o cial musical management in the BA, from Ebla, Mari, and Ugarit to mention only those that bear most directly on the Bible lands’ lets us appreciate the accuracy’ of Jubal as an ultimate musical ancestor. We must remember nally the last member of Lamech’s family, Naamah. Although she lacks detail here, her siblings entitle us to expect that she too was regarded as some sort of culture-hero. In fact, extra-Biblical sources show that Naamah was the sub ect of a lively popular tradition, being associated with songs, laments, and an ancient women’s practice of frame-drumming before developing a Rabbinic afterlife as a demonic seductrix.12 As such, she complements the lyre’ and pipe’, which are credited here to Jubal. Together they constitute a full musical range of strings, winds, and percussion, and embrace both male and female musical activity. The overall instrumentation is very close both to the situation at Ugarit and the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls.13 Identifying the Knr The Bible’s memory of an ancient inn r is con rmed by relatively abundant lexical and iconographic evidence from the wider NE. The desire to match ancient instrument names with iconographic representations and physical remains goes back to the earliest phases of historical musicology, when the N-A reliefs o ered material for speculation well before enough reliable textual evidence had been amassed to support a broader approach.14 et even now, with do ens of instrument nds and scores of representations, secure correlations are often elusive. When one considers the cultural complexity and chronological immensity of the ANE, it becomes clear that the visual evidence, rich as it is, is but a fragmentary sample. The knr, however, is a partial exception to this rule. The word itself, like most ancient instrument names, is of obscure origin.15 Nevertheless, the Jewish 12 13 14 15 46 1981 1982 1:116), although his reference to troops of Cainite’ musical exorcists may be based merely on deduction from e.g. 1 Samuel 10:5 6. See with sources LJ 5:147 148n45; Utley 1941:422, 445 et passim; Patai 1964:305 307; Scholem 1974:322, 326, 357 358. See further Chapters 7 and 11. See inter al Engel 1870; Guillemin and Duchesne 1935; Galpin 1936; HMI; Sachs 1943; Wegner 1950; Stauder 1957; Stauder 1961; Aign 1963; Stauder 1973; Rimmer 1969; Duchesne-Guillemin 1969; Schmidt-Colinet 1981; RlA 6:571 576 (Kilmer, Leier A); Rashid 1995; AMEL; Braun 1997, with further literature; DCPIL; Duchesne-Guillemin 1999; Dumbrill 2000; MAIP. The uality of these works varies: some are inevitably dated, but even some recent works must be used with caution. Several excellent recent studies bring hope for the future: HKm; Shehata 2006b; Mirelman 2010; Mirelman 2014; Gabbay 2014; Heimpel 2014; PHG:84 154. As named from the kind of wood typically used in its construction: Behn 1954:54; Brown 1981:401 402. As onomatopoeic: Kapera 1971:134. The Knr inn r was clearly not a harp as rendered in the King James ersion but a kind of lyre.16 This is seen rst in its common translation as ith ra in the Septuagint.17 It is also so glossed in several Greek lexical collections.18 There is no reason to doubt these e uations: the basic similarity of the ith ra to various Syro-Levantine lyres must have been obvious to all educated inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean, Hellene or otherwise.19 This evidence is corroborated by lyres being the most commonly represented stringed instrument in Levantine and North Syrian art, from the third millennium through the rst.20 In the Levant alone, more than thirty representations are known.21 Most of the evidence was assembled and discussed by A. Norborg in 1995. Soon afterwards, B. Lawergren compared these with examples from the Aegean, analy ing the whole for regional patterns.22 My Figures 4 and 5 draw upon their work, incorporating Lawergren’s drawings (and a few others).23 I have separated Bron e and Iron Age specimens between the two diagrams, as this best re ects historical patterns in which we are interested, especially the EIA Aegean migrations eastward. Such distribution maps should naturally be used with care. One must allow for some variability in how instruments were depicted, and the randomness of nds. Where an ob ect was made is often not where it was found; and foreign instruments may have been depicted locally for various reasons. Nevertheless, some broad patterns can be detected. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 For the organological distinction, see p3n14. Krauss 1910 1912 3:85; Sellers 1941:36 37. The L ’s alternative renderings ργανον and αλτ ριον pose no problem, although the latter attests a distinction of performance techni ue, since άλλειν implies plucking strings with one’s ngers, rather than the πλῆκτρον of Greek tradition. But this was not absolute: see p58, 170, 540. uda, Hesykhios, Photios e icon, Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828 1829) 1:278, Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839 1841) 4:36.20: κινύρα ργανον μουσικόν, κιθάρα, el sim. Cf. Josephus’ portrait of Jewish Alexandrians as well integrated into the larger Hellenistic culture: A ainst A ion 2.38 42. For the intimate and productive ad acency of Jews and Hellenes in Palestine, see the illuminating discussions of Lieberman 1942; Bowersock 2000:159 174 (especially 165 172). Its relevance to knr long recogni ed (e.g. Nougayrol 1968:59; Brown 1981:387), the iconographic evidence is most fully collected and analy ed by Lawergren 1993:67 71; AMEL; DCPIL; see also orreiter 1972/1973; Eichmann 2001. DCPIL:51 57; MAIP:xxxii xxxvi, 18. Representations of Mesopotamian-style upright harps from LBA Cyprus, Alalakh, Egypt, and the Hittite world are only exceptions proving the rule, being explicable in terms of elite displays of cosmopolitanism through imported status symbols: see p90 92, 392. I leave aside the controversial identi cation of the Megiddo etching (ca. 3300 3000) as a harp rather than early lyre: see e.g. DCPIL g. 8a; MAIP:58 65, g. II.6a 7b; SAM:152 no. 116. DCPIL. Numbering of individual images follows DCPIL, .v. for further bibliography and information about each item, if not otherwise given here (also in AMEL). Those labeled Figure refer to the same numbered gure in this book. 47 Chapter Three Lawergren proposed a basic dichotomy (down to about ca. 700) between eastern’ lyres with at-based resonators, and round-based western’ lyres typical of the Aegean.24 We shall see that this division between East and West, and ust where the line should be drawn, concerns Cyprus closely (Chapter 11, with further specimens). For now we shall focus on the eastern’ lyres, as being most obviously relevant to Kinnaru. Lawergren divided his eastern lyres into thin’ (with a substantial rectangular’ subset) and thick’, although large’ and small’ might be more satisfactory, having a basis in ancient usage.25 Thick/large lyres are attested both in NK Egypt and the Hittite world, leading Lawergren to posit an unattested Levantine analog, which he would identify with Heb. n el often grouped with the inn r in the Bible (and having an Ugaritic cognate).26 But perhaps the Egyptian examples are modi cations of imported Anatolian specimens, given the collecting impulse’ otherwise documented for the NK.27 In terms of scale, the thick/large lyres may be compared with the large bull-lyres of southern Mesopotamia; but despite the third-millennium date of the latter, it is hardly certain that the Anatolian/Egyptian examples derive directly thence.28 Thin/small lyres are by far the more numerous, either with outwardly curving arms (often asymmetrical) or a more box-like structure ( rectangular’), and usually held more or less obli uely.29 Since the earliest representations (third millennium) are concentrated in North Syria, some now see this as a plausible point of origin not only for the Levantine instruments, but even those going back to roughly the same time in Mesopotamia, where they are found alongside harps.30 Naturally new discoveries could recon gure the picture. But we should certainly be cautious about the older tendency to see the history of lyres as part of a more general east-to-west culture drift’ out of Mesopotamia.31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 52 DCPIL:57 59. See p90. DCPIL:43, n el problem and sources, see Bayer 1968; cf. NG 3:528 529 (Braun); SAM:170. For a lyric identi cation, note especially Hesykhios s.v. νά λα ε δος ργάνου μουσικοῦ αλτήριον κιθάρα. The status of the n l at Ugarit has been uncertain (Sanmart n 1980:339; Caubet 1994:132; Koitabashi 1998:374; DUL s.v. n l), but now probably does appear in the phrase by the sound of the n l in the new Astarte song RIH 98/02 (describing praise of the goddess): see Pardee 2007:31 32; cf. Caubet 2014:176 177. See p104 111. Cf. DCPIL:43, It is hardly a simple Mesopotamian derivative, nor is it uni uely Anatolian. DCPIL:43 45. For this proposed revision, RlA 6:581 (Collon, Leier B); DCPIL:47. Note especially an OAkk. cylinder seal which shows a smaller lyre of rather Syro-Levantine shape, adorned by the slightest of bull-heads: MgB 2/2:64 and g. 43; SAM:68 no. 22; my Figure 4.1g. For this view, once standard, see e.g. Hickmann 1961:32 35; MAIP:72 76. The Knr Lawergren rightly noted that the earliest attestations of the word knr (see below) are roughly coterminous with the distribution of thin/small lyres. Linguistic and organological evidence thus unite for a secure identi cation of knr as lyre.’ But we must not be too categorical in our de nitions. Given the iconographical uctuations, which span such a wide geographical and chronological range, knr cannot have been the only name ever applied to all of these instruments. A case in point is the n l/n el. Conversely, the name knr may have been applied to other instruments that do not appear in Lawergren’s chart, perhaps even what modern musicologists would distinguish as harps. (Recall the debate over the identity of the early Megiddo etching, ca. 3200 3000.32) Such modulations might happen at points of cultural interface, where uxtaposition of traditions could be musically fruitful. This point will be important when we come to consider the situation on Cyprus, especially from the twelfth century onwards, when Aegean and Syro-Levantine traditions interacted within an older insular sphere having its own distinct cultural, and hence musical, identity. The result was a rich range of hybrid phenomena that invite analysis into separate original components, but which are ultimately transcendent and distinctively Cypriot. At the heart of this insular tradition is the Greek-Cypriot word kinýra, the interpretation of which, we shall see, calls for some morphological exibility (Chapter 11). Within the limitations sketched above, however, it is clear that the word knr will have been known with at least generic force throughout most of North Syria, the Levant, and ad acent areas variously from the third or second millennium onwards.33 This makes it methodologically sound to examine the textual sources as a coherent body of evidence. One must obviously allow for semantic and ideological variations, which will naturally increase with geographical and temporal distance. It is therefore best to privilege the oldest material, as being most relevant for illuminating divini ed instruments generally and Kinnaru/ Kinyras speci cally. Even so, we shall see that important information is sometimes found in uite late sources. The Early Lexical Evidence The earliest certain lexical evidence comes from Syria, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and Anatolia; it includes administrative documents, ancient lexica, mythological and uasi-ritual texts, and more literary narratives. I present here a 32 33 See Figure 4.8a; for further references, p47n21. One may compare the many subspecies of guitar’ in modern times, noting of course that this word is itself, along with ither’, cithern’, etc., but a development of Greek κιθάρα 53 Chapter Three preliminary survey in chronological order, thereby sketching the terrain to be covered in the following chapters.34 The oldest known form of the word is innārum, found at the important North Syrian site of Ebla (ca. 2400), written variously as i na ru um, i na r m, i na lum 35 It was glossed there as Sum. BALA , an important identi cation given the abundant evidence for the divini ation of the balang in early Mesopotamia.36 Around the same time innārum found its way, represented as i na ru , into at least one southern Mesopotamian lexical tradition, presumably as a loanword from the west; it appears there alongside the balang and another instrument written with a modi ed BALA sign.37 The Eblaite forms still show the mimation ( nal -m), which was largely lost in Northwest Semitic languages during the rst half of the second millennium.38 Eblaite orthography does not distinguish between voiced and unvoiced consonants,39 but the agreement of later forms shows that the unvoiced was probably intended. Representation of doubled consonants was also not mandatory by cuneiform convention:40 at Ugarit (ca. 1250) the word was rendered knr in the city’s alphabetic cuneiform, and as i na rù in the Akkadian practiced by its scribes. But fuller spellings from Mari (ca. 1800), the LBA archives of Alalakh and Emar, and an Egyptian papyrus from the late NK establish geminate -nn- as the usual pronunciation.41 The early distribution of innāru m has induced many scholars to classify knr as a WS word.42 The situation is complicated, however, by the example from Ebla, since that city’s position between East and West Semitic continues to be debated.43 Some have therefore supposed that innārum was a P-S word, which 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 54 arious subsets of the evidence to be considered here were assembled by Spycket 1972:190 191; RlA 6:572 574 (Kilmer, Leier A); von Soden 1988; Tonietti 1988:119; AMEL:86 87; RlA 8:483 (Tonietti, Musik A II); Koitabashi 1998:373 374; DCPIL:58 59; Ivanov 1999; MAIP:16 17; HKm:97 98. la oca ular 572: Pettinato 1982:264; cf. Fron aroli 1980:37n6; Krebernik 1983:21; Fron aroli 1984:141; RlA 6:573 (Kilmer, Leier A); von Soden 1988; Conti 1990:160; Sanmart n 1991:190; RlA 8:482 483 (Tonietti, Musik A II). See Chapter 2, and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 1a and 4d. Civil 2010:210 ( arl nastic Practical oca ular B2 MS 2340 22:20’), cf. Civil 2008:99 (suggesting Umma as the tablet’s source); Michalowski 2010b:119 120, 122; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 4c. See generally Harris 1939:32 33; ICGSL:96 98 12.71 72; Sivan 1984:124; SL:280 33.16; cf. DCPIL:59 and 61n35. CEWAL:229 (Huehnergard and Woods). ICGSL:18 6.2; Sivan 2001:12. Mari: i in na ra tim innārātim (genitive plural), ARM 13 no. 20, lines 5, 7, 11, 16 (cf. p76). Emar: i in na ru: Arnaud 1987 no. 545, line 392’ (cf. p78). Alalakh: i in na ru u li l innāru uli, AT 172.7 (cf. p98). For the Anastasi Pa rus, p106. Cf. Huehnergard 2008:138; van Soldt 1991:304. Caubet 1987:733; von Soden 1988; Koitabashi 1998:373; DCPIL:47; Pentiuc 2001:98. Diakono 1990:29; SL 4.2, 5.2. For Archi 2006:100 101, Eblaite and Akkadian represent two points in a Northeast Semitic’ dialect continuum. The Knr in Akkadian was displaced by balang or other Sumerian instrument names.44 And while the trisyllabic structure of knr would certainly accord with a Semitic origin, it remains e ually possible that this was an adaptation of an older culture-word.45 Related to this linguistic pu le is the inevitable kinship of innārum with both the zinar of Hattian/Hittite tradition, and the anaru/ annāru of Sumerian and Akkadian.46 This usti es expanding our scope somewhat beyond knr itself to include further contextual evidence, especially from the Hittite world, whose ritual texts provide valuable detail on the lyre’s use in the royal cult of a LBA society.47 That the second syllable of innārum normally had long is established by Heb. inn r the vocali ation of which is provided by the MT48 since the speci c divergence of the two forms must be explained by the so-called Canaanite Shift, whereby P-S developed unconditionally to in both Hebrew and the Canaanite/Phoenician dialects.49 (Despite the disruptions at the end of the LBA, there is no real cultural break between Canaanite’ and Phoenician’: the latter term, re ecting Greek usage, conventionally denotes Canaanite dialects and populations of the rst millennium.50) It was long known, on the basis of Canaanite words represented in the syllabic Akkadian of the Amarna letters, that the sound change was generally in place by the fourteenth century. Byblos may be taken as the approximate northern limit of this dialect one, which thus includes the core Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon.51 The OB tablets from Ha or, however, now show that the Shift was already underway, at least in places, some four centuries earlier.52 Ugarit, while sharing some innovations 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 This seems to be the view of Archi 1987:9; cf. RlA 8:483 (Tonietti, Musik A II); TR:311n119. Note that one does nd Akk. and Ebl. cognates for pipes’, respectively em u and na u um, presumably P-S n : Conti 1988:45 46 ( la oca ular 218); Catagnoti 1989:179n135; Conti 1990:99; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, Musik A II). As a substrate or culture-word, cf. already Ellenbogen 1962:116 117 (writing without knowledge of the Eblaite example); Tischler et al. 1977:578 (re ecting an etymology via Sum. gi NAR, with determinative reali ed phonetically, i.e. gi nar innārum). For this issue, see further p78 79, 89 92, 99. annāru’ is the convenient normali ation adopted by Michalowski 2010b:122. See p89 104. The Masoretic pointing also indicates gemination of n by a diacritical dot (da esh) within the nun. See generally Harris 1939:43 17; ICGSL:48 49, 51 ( 8.74, 77, 83); Friedrich and R llig 1970: 71; Sivan 1984:25 34; Garr 1985:30 32; SL:161 162 ( 21.9, 12). For a possible Phoenician Shift’ of , see p273. See e.g. Edwards 1979:94 98. Of the examples given by Sivan 1984:25 34, EA 101.25, 114.13, 116.11, 138.6 are from Byblos. An early second-millennium date, argued tentatively by Gelb 1961:44, and treated cautiously by Sivan 1984:34n1, is endorsed by SL:162 21.12, noting the vocali ation of Anat’ as a nu ta (/ An t/) in a theophoric name (versus a na at at Mari and A na tu ti te at Ugarit). 55 Chapter Three with the Canaanite dialects, resisted this particular development one of the features that give Ugaritic an archaic appearance53 whence we nd Kinnaru there. The comparative evidence thus re uires us to assume an early Canaanite form ancestral to Heb. inn r. Given the present state of excavation in Phoenicia, the evidence for these dialects is largely limited to the representation of Canaanite words in Egyptian sources.54 But as it happens, Levantine lyres en oyed a vogue in the NK, following imperial expansion into the region (see Chapter 6). Thus we nd a knr alongside two otherwise unattested instruments, perhaps exotic, in the Anastasi Pa rus (ca. 1200) a satirical portrait of a libertine scribe given to wild women and music.55 Although Egyptian writing typically did not indicate vowels, scribes of the MK and especially NK developed a uasi-syllabic system, perhaps under the in uence of cuneiform, with supplementary letters serving as phonetic complements (matres lectionis) to help represent foreign names and words, as well as rare or ambiguous Egyptian words and names. 56 Since this system is employed in the papyrus, it is clear that we are dealing with a Canaanite version of knr. It is represented in transcription as n n r that is, / inn ru/, / inn ru/, or somewhere in between.57 No certain example of the word has so far emerged from Phoenician inscriptions, neither in the heartland itself, nor in areas of Phoenician/Punic 53 54 55 56 57 56 Tropper 1994, with review by Pardee 1997:375; Gordon 1997; Pardee 2008:5, 10. Some PNs and DNs attested at Ugarit which do show the shift re ect dialects other than that represented by the syllabic transcriptions of actual Ugaritic words : Huehnergard 2008:257n188. Both in the syllabic cuneiform of the Amarna letters (in which Akkadian was used for international correspondence, including with many Canaanite client-states) and the syllabic orthography’ described below. Pa rus Anastasi I : Gardiner 1937:47 48 no. 18, line 12; Caminos 1954:187; Helck 1971:496; the scene is well interpreted by Teeter 1993:88 89. The vignette is reminiscent of a debauched scoundrel in a Sumerian morality tale: Roth 1983; RlA 8:469 (Kilmer Musik A I). Albright 1934, especially 12 13 22 33 ( uotation 1); the overall reliability of Albright’s method has been upheld by Helck 1989 (with intervening literature in 121n1). Already Burchardt 1909 1910 2:51 sensibly adduced Greek’ κιννύρα (sic) as the best parallel for this Old Canaanite foreign-word. The sign-group represented here as nù was used to transcribe /n /, /n /, and intermediate sounds: Albright 1934:6 ( 10), 27n99. Hoch 1994:324n44 reasonably gives inn ru. Albright 1964:171n47 vocali ed as enn ra with reference to a Phoenician Shift of (but see p273) Although the rst syllable lacks phonetic complement, the general agreement of other forms urges ki-, e-, or ke-. Thus Helck 1971:523 (no. 253) rendered as in n r . Note that, while Sivan and Cochavi-Rainey 1992:9, 28 (followed by DUL:451) have a n n r , in the updated system of Helck 1989 most signs of the form C a can also stand for vowel-less consonants. Earlier transcriptions which did not recogni e the syllabic orthography’ will also be found, perpetuated especially in musicological discussions; cf. DCPIL:61n33, with contribution of O. Goelet. The Knr expansion.58 et given the numerous Levantine lyres shown on the CyproPhoenician symposium bowls (ca. 900 600), one cannot doubt the existence of Phoenician dialect forms like inn r or enn r.59 I emphasi e the Canaanite Shift because such a dialectal form must be the source of Greek’ kinýra.60 I will analy e the abundant lexical and linguistic evidence for this word in due course (Chapters 9 and 11). The uestion is vital because, despite Ugarit’s importance for producing a Divine Kinnaru and rich material for the practical and ideological status of the instrument itself (Chapter 7), the shifted’ form Kinyras’ indicates that Ugarit was not the immediate and/ or only origin of the legendary Cypriot king. One must give serious consideration to traditions that locate Kinyras’ at the Canaanite/Phoenician sites of Byblos and possibly Sidon.61 The foregoing survey outlines the main historical and cultural milieux to be examined. The relevant sources provide generous information about the musical and ritual contexts in which the knr was used, as well as its symbolic potency. It is a likely guess that the Divine Knr embodied this total environment, in various regional incarnations potentially coterminous with the instrument itself. This I believe is re ected in the multiformity of traditions connecting Kinyras with Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Cyprus. The BA especially will emerge as the time of the Divine Lyre’s greatest potency, thanks to the palace and temple systems that supported the divini ation of instruments and other cultic tools. The Problems of Stringing and Tuning The stringing and tuning of the knr, like that of other ancient instruments, is a thorny issue. It probably di ered regionally and even from musician to musician. One may compare the large variation in string numbers and tuning practices in the local traditions of East Africa, where personal preference plays an important role.62 This is also suggested by iconographic variety, although one must e ually beware the limited reliability of such images: they are not photo58 59 60 61 62 an den Branden 1956:91 92, proposed reading lyre-players’ (knrm) in a fourth-century Phoenician inscription from Kition (Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1, at B7); cf. van den Branden 1968:31 no. 109; followed by Brown 1981:387n13. But this reading was disproven by reexamination of the stone: Peckham 1968:322n4; Masson and S nycer 1972 ad loc.; Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977:123n3. For the inscription, see also p113. The se uence KNR occurs in several PNs on neo-Punic inscriptions, but these have been interpreted as Libyan/Numidian: see p452n60. For the symposium bowls, see p258 272. The Canaanite/Phoenician dialects lost their nal caseendings around the end of the second-millennium: see p197n56. See p194 204. See Chapters 19 and 20. Owuor 1983:26 27, 31. 57 Chapter Three graphs. Nor need regional variations in stringing and tuning be incompatible with shared harmonic conceptions at a deeper level. Consider, for example, the variety of stringing and tuning in modern western instruments, where players nevertheless assume a common tonal apparatus. The same was true of art-music in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, where a single notation and key-system was used by a wide range of professional musicians.63 The detailed textual evidence of the Jewish tradition is ambiguous and con icting. Josephus asserts that the kinýra, tted out with ten strings, is struck with a pick, while the n la, with twelve tones, is plucked with the ngers. 64 His distinctions are probably too rigid.65 The Bible itself gives evidence that the inn r too could be plucked.66 In one psalm, it is apparently the n el that is given ten strings, although in another, either or both the inn r and n el could be so understood.67 In the War croll from umran, the n el apparently has ten strings, since it is to embla on the standards of ten-men tactical groups.68 On these points there arose a tradition of Rabbinic speculation, charting an evolution from the seven strings of David’s inn r, to the eight strings the instrument would assume at the coming of the messiah, to the ten strings of a still more distant future (the aforementioned psalms being interpreted as visions).69 This must depend in part upon imaginative exegesis and dubious textual readings of known Biblical passages, combined with constructions typical of Hellenistic music historiography.70 The agreement of the Psalms and the War croll do give some con dence in the idea of a ten-stringed n el (if not the inn r). et these texts can hardly be taken as sure evidence for the time of David himself (ca. 1000), much less the earlier knr-culture. It is likely enough that further strings were added to Jewish instruments during the life of the Second Temple: such an expansion is well attested for Greek lyres from the later Classical period onwards, and increasing musical sophistication must 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 58 See now Hagel 2009. Josephus Anti uities of the e s 7.306: μὲν κιν ρα δέκα χορδαῖς ἐ μμέν τ πτεται πλ κτρῳ, δὲ νάβλα δώδεκα φθ γγους χουσα τοῖς δακτ λοις κρο εται; varied slightly by onaras itome historiarum 1.116.3. Note that in Ethiopic tradition it is the e ena, a sacred lyre associated with David by tradition (see p62n101, 167), which has ten strings; by contrast the krar ( enar), used in profane contexts, typically (n.b.) has ve or six. See Kebede 1977; MgB 1/10:64 65, 106 109. 1 Samuel 16:23. This is also implied when the inn r is rendered as αλτήριον in the L ; note especially Psalms 151:2 (L ): α χε ρές μου ἐποίησαν ργανον, / ο δάκτυλοί μου ρμοσαν αλτήριον. Psalms 144:9 and 33:2. 1 33 4:5; ermes 2011:169. ‘Arakin 13b BT 16:73 74; also idrash Ra ah Numbers, 15.11 (Freedman and Simon 1983 6:651); cf. LJ 6:262n81. See e.g. AGM:63 64. The Knr have characteri ed much of the Hellenistic world.71 Relevant here is the GrecoRoman morphological in uence on the lyres of the Bar Kokhba coins and in other musical imagery of the period.72 It is uite possible, however, that the Rabbinic attribution of seven strings to David’s inn r re ects a genuine tradition. The number seven en oys some a riori plausibility in the context of ANE chordophone music given the heptatonic-diatonic tunings that are found in the small collection of theoretical’ texts from Mesopotamia.73 It is true that the Mesopotamian musical texts per se are products of scribal tradition, being used primarily for educational purposes.74 et there is no reason they should not re ect, at a literate remove, a living tradition of musical practice; after all, the Akkadian terminology found practical application in the Hurrian hymns from Ugarit.75 When this is taken together with the considerable evidence for musical mobility throughout the ANE in many periods (to be encountered in the following chapters), one has a strong case for supposing that heptatonic-diatonic tunings were also known beyond Mesopotamia and Ugarit. I shall devote a separate study to this problem.76 Here I raise the issue only occasionally, especially in connection with the appearance of seven-numerology in ritual contexts where music is also involved; and also when considering the appearance of divini ed instruments outside of Mesopotamia, since this may well have gone hand-in-hand with the di usion of musical practice in cult contexts. Unfortunately, little certain support for a heptatonic koine’77 can be drawn from iconographic evidence. The very low string-counts of the Bar Kokhba coins, for instance, are clearly due to the limited space of the medium.78 True, where an image is otherwise detailed and apparently precise, one’s con dence grows. A good example is the nine-stringed instrument shown on the thirteenth- or early twelfth-century ivory pla ue from Megiddo.79 Here one is tempted to look to the nine-stringed expression of the heptatonic tuning-cycle in Mesopotamia and its adaptation to a kind of schematic harmonic notation in the Hurrian hymns of nearby Ugarit.80 et ANE music-iconography is otherwise so variable 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 See recently the papers in Martinelli et al. 2009; for the astonishing complexity of Hellenistic art music, see now Hagel 2009, especially 256 285 for harmonic observations on the Hellenistic musical documents. See p180 181. See p40. Michalowski 2010a. See below and further p97. Franklin forthcoming, revising Franklin 2002c. For this idea and term, Franklin 2002b; Franklin 2002c:92, 111. See p180 181 and Figure 14. See p126 and Figure 11 4.1p. See above. 59 Chapter Three that one cannot be certain that the Megiddo pla ue’s nine-strings are not fortuitous. In any case, one should not expect strict patterns in the iconography. The Mesopotamian tuning system, whatever its diachronic changes, attests an ongoing conceptual resource that could be held in musicians’ minds without being strictly deployed on every instrument ust as in our own times the knowledge of intervals, scales, and chords nds many di erent applications. All in all, though the uestion is anything but irrelevant, we may remain agnostic as to the stringing of Jewish and other early lyres, since the knr’s attested performance contexts and related ideology are the more urgent evidence for understanding the Divine Kinnaru and Kinyras. Limits of the Investigation I have had to abandon many intriguing byways. The decoration of Egyptian instruments with the heads of gods, pharaohs, and animals demands comparison with other ANE material for divini ed instruments; but the evidence is so abundant across three millennia, and opens so many philological and conceptual vistas, that even a cursory sketch has proven impractical here.81 I closely examine only part of the available iconography, although many specimens would reward further detailed study for example the fascinating ar from EIA Kuntillet A rud, which shows a seated female lyrist who may be Asherah, ahweh’s evanescent consort (Figure 5.1y).82 There is also a remarkable grave-stele from the Neo-Hittite site of Marash, with a goddess holding a lyre on which perches a falcon, possibly symboli ing Ishtar; a small gure, perhaps representing the soul of the deceased, sits on the goddess’s lap (Figure 5.1gg).83 Knr has further lexical and contextual rami cations in Coptic,84 Aramaic dialects (Syriac,85 Palmyrene,86 Mandaic87, and perhaps Nabataean88), Middle 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 60 I know of no single study devoted to this uestion, though much material and useful observations can be found in Schott 1934, 459 461 with references there; cf. Hickmann 1954a; AEMI:80, 107 109 s.v. Animals heads, Decoration heads, and Deities. I am grateful to A. von Lieven for initial discussion and references (Sept. 9, 2009). Bayer 1982:31; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:210 248; DCPIL:55; CS 2 no. 47 with references; Dever 2005:160 167; MAIP:151 154; Burgh 2004:90 91. See further HKm:73 74 and pl. 14 no. 45, with bibliography. Coptic: Burchardt 1909 1910 2:51n1; Albright 1927; Albright 1934:47; AOM:273 (Farmer). Syriac: SOM 2:389 (festive ennara in Isaac of Antioch, died ca. 460 CE); Brockelmann 1966:335; Hoch 1994:324; K hler and Baumgartner 1994 2000:484; DUL s.v. nr Palmyrene: Levy 1864:105; Farmer 1928:516; Farmer 1929:5; AOM:425 (Farmer); SOM 1:155. Mandaic: N ldeke 1875: 104; Brown et al. 1962:490; Brown 1981:387n14. Nabataean: the Persian Ibn urd bih (died ca. 912), cited by al-Mas d (died ca. 956), may have attributed the innāra to the Nabataeans (which he says was played like a lute); but the text is The Knr Persian (Pahlavi),89 Arabic,90 Old Armenian,91 Ethiopic,92 and several Indic and Dravidian dialects.93 There are, besides, apparent cognates in Caucasian languages, perhaps more directly connected with Hatt./Hitt. zinar.94 The later Aramaic dialects in particular o er fruitful areas for further research. In Syriac, the theological riddles of St. Ephraim (ca. 306 373 CE) about the lyres of God seem to convert’ earlier Aramaean ideas of the knr; this transition must also pass through Bardaisan (ca. 154 222), whose biography suggests that he brought together the Aramaean and Hellenistic traditions in the service of early Christian songs later regarded as heretical by Ephraim.95 In Mandaic texts, one nds a lyre of lust paired with pipes and frame-drum, clearly recalling both the ancient ensembles of the Syro-Levantine world, and a recurring pattern of knr-playing women from the scantily-clad musiciennes of NK Egypt (Figures 9 and 10) to the inn r-playing harlot’ of Isaiah 23:16 and beyond.96 There are also the Arabic traditions about d inn who could be con ured by means of music or inspire the songs of musicians; and an instrument’s sound could be likened to the voice of the d inn.97 Such pagan ideas, and related concepts of musical enthusiasm,’ fueled the Muslim legists in their condemnation of the art.98 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 corrupt: Farmer 1928:512, 515 516; MgB 3/2:24; cf. p543n32. Pahlavi: AOM:425 (Farmer); SOM 1:155 6; Dahood 1966 1970:287; Ivanov 1999:587n15. ennar was used of the Greek constellation Lyra in a lost Pahlavi translation of an astrological work known as the i er de stellis ei eniis (its title in an eventual Latin version); this can be deduced from the ninth-century Arabic translation by Ab Ma shar, and another in Hebrew: see Bos et al. 2001:85 (Arabic), 118 and 125 (Hebrew). I thank A. Hicks for this reference. Arabic: AOM:273 (Farmer); Brown et al. 1962:490; Hickmann 1970:63 64, noting oscillation between lute and drum ( ); Hava 1964:667; Hoch 1994:324; K hler and Baumgartner 1994 2000:484. Armenian: Tischler et al. 1977:578 (as Hittite loanword); Ivanov 1999:587n15. Ethiopic: krar, seemingly dissimilated from enar: Ivanov 1999:587 (cf. SL 17.6: in western Gurage dialects of Ethiopic non-geminated n becomes r in non-initial position ). Indic: Mayrhofer 1956 1976 1:209 (Sanskrit, Tamil; deriving Dravidian forms thence); AOM:224 (Bake); Tischler et al. 1977:577 578; Brown 1981:387n17. These are too early to be Arabic imports. The Kinnara gods of Hindu mythology (celestial musicians and choristers) should also be relevant: see e.g. Stutley and Stutley 1977, s.v. Kinnara(s); the interpretation as what man ’ (kim nar ) is a folk etymology (M. Schwart , communication, April 17, 2014). Ivanov 1999:587. Note the early (third/second-millennium) archaeological evidence for Caucasian lyre-culture: Kushnareva 2000:103 104, 107 109 pl. I.1, II.2, III. For Ephraim, see for now Palmer 1993 (an excellent beginning). Bardaisan: Dri vers 1966; Ramelli 2009. The lyre of lust ( inar iha) is found in Gin ā am na 113:6, 187:18: Drower and Macuch 1963:214 s.v. kinar, kinara; Rudolf 1965:390 line 20. For the Egyptian evidence see further p105 111. Farmer 1929:7 and n9; SOM 1:586. See SOM 1:7 8 for further references, and 9 33 for the ni ue ec lace of Ibn Abd Rabbihi (ca. 860 940 CE), which responds to the controversy with a more moderate stance. 61 Chapter Three Of special interest are the legends and cognitive conceptions of the living lyre cultures of south-coastal Saudi Arabia,99 Egypt, and East Africa,100 with the professed connections to Davidic tradition in Ethiopia.101 I hope that the present study will provide a useful foundation for the pursuit of all this further material. 99 100 101 2 For the simsimi ah and am rah, Shiloah 1972; Shiloah 1995:147, 162; Braune 1997:48 50, 138; L. A. Urkevich in GMO s.v. Saudi Arabia. Kebede 1968; Jenkins 1969; MGG 5:1042 1046 (G. Kubik); Plumley 1976; Kebede 1977; MgB 1/10, 64 65, 106 109; Owuor 1983; U. Wegner in GMO s.v. Lyres. 3. Modern Africa, with further bibliography. See also p167, 456n81. Mekouria 1994. 4 Starting at Ebla The City and Its Music T e cuneiform te ts of Ebla (Tell Mardikh) have now yielded the word innārum, nearly a millennium and a half before King David. By ca. 2400, Ebla controlled a si eable area of upper inland Syria; its dependencies included Karkemish, Alalakh, Hamath, Emar, and Harran.1 Ebla’s political and commercial interests were uite wide-ranging, extending into Mesopotamia (including Kish and Mari) and the Levant (Ugarit, Byblos).2 Its pantheon included early forms of WS deities (Dagan, Hadda, Ra ap) and others from a non-Semitic substrate, most importantly the city-god Kura and his consort Barama.3 With the possible exception of Ea/Haya,4 the pantheon is essentially independent of Mesopotamia, and while Ebla was in the orbit of Sumerian scribal culture, the few Mesopotamian hymns and other literary texts found there probably had no cultic use.5 A possible exception is a collection of Sumerian and Akkadian incantations, which may have stimulated the formation of a comparable local genre.6 Publication of the royal archives, spanning some forty- ve years and at least three kings igri -Halab, irkab-Damu, and i ’ar-Damu is incomplete.7 et they already reveal a vibrant, cosmopolitan musical world.8 Numerous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Matthiae 1989:259; Stieglit 2002:215 and n1, 216; Archi 2006:99. Michalowski 1985; Archi 1988b; Matthiae 1989:256 266; Archi 1997. Archi 1978 1979; Stieglit 1990; Archi 1993; Archi 1994; Pomponio and ella 1997 (87 88, 245 248 for Kura and Barama). Archi 2006:98. Archi 2006:98; Tonietti 2010:71 72. Archi 1993:8. Catagnoti and Bonechi 1998, expanding on the catalog of Michalowski 1992, distinguish Sumerian and Akkadian incantations at Ebla from local Eblaitic ones, as well as Akkadian ones that were Eblaiti ed’; Tonietti 2010:71 72, suggests that creating a local incantation genre was a programmatic goal of Ebla scribes. For these archives, their dating, and the kind of information they provide, Archi 1986a; Matthiae 1989:221 298; Archi 1992; Archi 2006:101 109. The musical evidence spans the entire period of the archive, but becomes more detailed from the reign of i ’ar-Damu: see Tonietti 2010:73. See especially the stimulating survey by Biga 63 Chapter Four singer-musicians (NAR), dancers (NE.DI), and acrobats or cult dancers’ ( B) came from other palaces to perform for royal occasions like feasts, wedding celebrations, and religious festivals (temple-musicians per se remain elusive, as no temple archive has been found).9 Mari, Nirar, Kish, Emar, Tuttul, Nagar, and Aleppo are all attested as sources of musical exchange, with performers often travelling in the train of royal or aristocratic visitors.10 Local Eblaite musicians active in and about the palace are revealed by repeated appearances in distribution lists.11 Some have names that suggest an origin outside of Ebla itself.12 That singer-musicians can be named individually shows the relative prestige that members of this profession might achieve when steadily visible to the world of kings and notables.13 Some singer-musicians must have traveled in their turn to foreign centers, but such movements remain invisible, not involving palace disbursements on the home end. A group of some twenty female singers (NAR.M ), and a number of dancers, were apparently housed among the royal women, presumably performing within the palace, and perhaps at festivals involving women. There is no evidence to show that they were also concubines, as commonly at OB Mari; but this would hardly be surprising.14 As to the female mourners who are attested for the funeral of a royal princess,15 we do not know if this involved more than raw ululation, nor whether there was some overlap with the palace musiciennes. While Sumerian musical titles were regularly used by the scribes of Ebla, it is unclear how far this re ects actual Sumerian musical in uence, rather than mere orthographic convention. Still, the regular distinction in the palace archives between senior’ and unior’ singers (NAR.MA and NAR.TUR, literally big’ and small’ singers) reveals a strati ed professional environment comparable to that of Mari and various sites in Babylonia. Clearly de ned ranks would have been very practical in a world where regular allocations had to be made to 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 64 2006, with some references to unpublished material. Festival and other contexts: Biga 2011:481 482; Tonietti 2010:75 79, 82 83. For the problem of temple musicians, Tonietti 1997; Tonietti 2010:81n69; but cf. Archi et al. 1988:273: musicians were also active in peripheral towns, in some cases in the temples. Tonietti 1998; Biga 2006; Tonietti 2010:75 79. Textile-payments to the NAR were generally done by the group on an annual or biannual basis: Tonietti 1989:118 119; Tonietti 2010:73 74. That they were not monthly, and never involved foodstu s, has suggested that the NAR did not actually reside in the palace: Biga 2006:30. More recently, however, Biga writes: la cour d’ bla vivaient chanteurs (Biga 2011:490); cf. Tonietti 2010:83 ( attached to the palace ). Tonietti 2010:75. Cf. Biga 2011:490. usiciennes at Ebla: Tonietti 1988:115; Archi et al. 1988:273; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, Musik A II), noting that the feminine determinative is otherwise unknown in connection with NAR; Biga 2003:65; Biga 2006:26, 28, 30; Tonietti 2010:74 75; cf. iegler 2006b:34. Tonietti 2010:84. Starting at Ebla visiting artists, and there was periodic relocation and reintegration of musicians through con uest and gift-exchange. At Ebla it is sometimes possible to follow the promotions, demotions, re-promotions, arrivals, departures, transfers, and deaths of singers over many years.16 The careers of around fty Eblaite male singer-musicians (NAR) can be so traced, with clear correspondence between position in list and length of service. One can even observe a nearly 200 percent corporate growth over the period covered by the archives, probably connected with an overall increase in the prosperity of the palace prior to its destruction by Sargon or Naram-Sin.17 It also seems that this management structure operated, on a smaller scale, throughout the kingdom.18 Kinnārum and Balang Ebla thus represents a sophisticated, regionally interconnected music-culture prevailing throughout North Syria. It is appropriate that the rst attestation of innārum should come from such an environment. It is found in the so-called la oca ular , a massive bilingual lexical collection developed during several generations following the introduction of cuneiform to the city.19 The scribes glossed innārum with Sum. BALA , uite decisive evidence that, at least in third millennium Babylonia, the Sumerian word could refer to a stringed instrument.20 This e uation cannot be dismissed as scribal confusion.21 After all, the innārum was e ually known, we saw, to the scribes of ED Mesopotamia, where it was also associated with the balang.22 Nor can performance context be made the sole basis of these connections, so that the lamenting l re of the west becomes the functional e uivalent of the Mesopotamian lamenting drum. For BALA appears in another Eblaite text where there is clearly no uestion of lamentation a BALA -man’ (L .BALA ) who appears in company with a group of cult-dancers/acrobats ( B) as recipients of textile disbursements.23 Elsewhere 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Tonietti 1988, especially 106 109, 117; Archi et al. 1988:271; Tonietti 1989; Matthiae 1989:283; Catagnoti 1989:176; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, Musik A II); Feliu 2003:36; Biga 2006:25 26; Tonietti 2010:74. For Mari, see p73 76. Tonietti 1988:107 108, who speculates about un cambiamento della situa ione musicale, forse nel tipo di utili a ione dei NAR.MA ; cf. Tonietti 2010:74. Cf. Archi et al. 1988:272 273 (temple of Dagan and elsewhere); Tonietti 1988:118; Biga 2006:26; Tonietti 2010:82. See generally Archi 2006:106 109; Tonietti 2010:70. See p54, 531; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 1a. So DCPIL:58. See p54; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 4c. L .BALA : ARET 15.1 25 obv. II.1 ( 24): Tonietti 2010:80. 65 Chapter Four the instrument of a NAR is a BALA .24 These designations recall the NAR.BALA of Sumerian texts, and U umgal-kalama, Ningirsu’s balang-god who was not a lamenter but a nar.25 So the scribes’ e uation of BALA and innārum was clearly not based on genre’ alone: they must have seen some organological similarity between the two instruments.26 At Ebla, therefore, the expressions L .BALA and NAR.BALA will mean simply innārum-singer’. Besides the many NAR known at Ebla, palace records attest to the maintenance of another musical class, the BALA .DI. In some texts, they appear as a group of nine.27 Elsewhere, four BALA .DI are speci ed in connection with a kind of cultic chapel’ (É.NUN), presumably a dedicated location in which they often operated.28 These BALA .DI are usually interpreted as lamentationpriests, on the basis of early Sumerian usage.29 They are indeed known to have performed in such a context (see below), and this function helps account for the otherwise conspicuous absence from Ebla of Sum. GALA.30 Although the comparative evidence is good as far as it goes, it should not dictate too rigid an interpretation of the BALA .DI’s musical character at Ebla itself. It is intrinsically likely, rst, that the city’s lamentation practices were rather distinct from those of contemporary southern Mesopotamia. Moreover, Sumerian BALA .DI meant originally merely a player of the balang; its application to lamentationsingers is thus a speciali ed development,31 and it is unclear where the Eblaite usage falls along, or branches from, this continuum. Now the scribes e uated BALA .DI with na ti lu um in their own language.32 This has been plausibly derived from the root n l, raise up’, so that BALA .DI/ nā il m is he who lifts sc. the voice ; a comparable semantic development 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 66 TM 75.2365 rev. II.17 20; ARET 15.1 23 obv. II.14 15 ( 34). See Archi et al. 1988:273; cf. Tonietti 2010:80. See p28. The appearance of BALA in various compounds in Sumerian lexical texts might suggest a looser usage for a variety of lyres, or even stringed instruments generally: see Krispi n 1990:6 7; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 1b, 4b. Nine BALA .DI appear in four texts cited by Archi et al. 1988:273; cf. Fron aroli 1988:12; Matthiae 1989:283; Conti 1990:160; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:140, 162 163, cf. 171; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, Musik A II); Tonietti 2010:80. Tonietti 2010:83, with this translation of É.NUN; for the possible cultic implications of the word, see Conti 1990:118n253 with references. The texts are ARET 12 773 I.1 2 (wool); 874 I .11 12; cf. 709 I.3 4 (wool). A further textile disbursement for one BALA .DI is recorded in ARET 3 44 .1. BALA .DI in Sumerian sources: Hartmann 1960:124, cf. 64; RlA 8:469 (Kilmer, Musik A I). Noted by Tonietti 2010:85, also suggesting a correlation with the lack of Sumerian names among the NAR of Ebla (by contrast with the Sumerian names borne by the NAR of Mari present at Ebla: Tonietti 1998:89 97). Pettinato 1992:277 278. la oca ular 571: Pettinato 1982:264. Starting at Ebla is noted for the Hebrew cognate n , where the context is lamentation.33 From here, and the e uation BALA innārum, it is an easy inference that the BALA . DI of Ebla performed to the lyre; the two entries in the la oca ular are in fact ad acent. We shall see further evidence in Chapter 12 of lyric lamentation to the nr. But since the BALA - innārum of Ebla was de nitely used for more than lamentation-singing, clearly the distinction between NAR and BALA .DI relates to their respective functions more than the instruments used. And the BALA .DI of Ebla probably had some broader purview than lamentation alone, to udge from their association with the cultic chapel’ (É.NUN). Obviously this professional segregation’ of the BALA .DI from the NAR e ually implies some social di erence. While it would be rash to draw a hard line between secular and sacred since NAR could perform at religious festivals, royal weddings, and so on it does seem likely that the BALA .DI were responsible for the main liturgical functions re uired by the palace. As such, their range would not have been limited to lamentation. Lamentation and Royal ancestor Cult The one context for which there is any information about BALA .DI performance is a complex series of royal rites attested in three versions. One is evidently a kind of prescriptive template for the other two, which describe speci c and slightly varied manifestations relating to the city’s last two kings.34 These two are semi-narrative accounts of what actually transpired, although they e ually follow a more-or-less xed se uence.35 The occasion and purpose have been variously interpreted, most often as a royal wedding and/or enthronement.36 The latter idea, at least, is now ruled out by correlations with the textile and metal-distribution tablets, whose chronology, having been established, is incompatible with an accession; nor do these texts give any support to the wedding hypothesis. Biga and Capomacchia have now argued convinc33 34 35 36 Fron aroli 1988:12 13; Fron aroli 1989; Fron aroli 1991:33; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:42. This interpretation is accepted by Conti 1990:160; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, Musik A II); Tonietti 2010:83. Pettinato 1992:237, nds this plausible (237), but at 209 gives some credence to the alternative proposal of D’Agostino 1988:79n19 (looking rather to the root ndr, attested in Hebrew in the sense of giurare ). For another interpretation, see Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 3c2. The texts are TM.75.G.1823 , TM.75.G.1939 , and TM.75.G.1672. See the edition of Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993 (ARET 11); also Pettinato 1992, partial edition with alternative reconstruction. Chronology: Fron aroli 1992:178 183; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993: I, 21, 72; Biga 2011:487; Biga and Capomacchia 2012:20 22. Whereas a prescriptive ritual’ lays out re uired actions, a descriptive ritual’ gives an account of what transpired on special cultic occasions. See the good theoretical discussion of Levine 1983; cf. Levine 1963a:105 ( uotation). Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993: I et passim. 67 Chapter Four ingly that, while the ritual se uence may have been executed on, and adapted to, various occasions, the unifying purpose of all three texts is the renovation of royal authority through veneration of the royal ancestors and the regular maintenance of their cult. It may still be, however, that the ritual could be coordinated with such occasions as wedding and enthronement, and that such royal themes partially contributed to the ritual’s symbolism.37 The ritual called for the royal couple to travel to di erent stations within the kingdom, executing rites and making o erings to various gods and certain of the royal ancestors’ divini ed shades.38 The centerpiece was three seven-day ritual cycles undertaken at the mausoleum at Nena , where the king and ueen took up temporary residence.39 The actions are enumerated in considerable detail, although the precise timing is not always clear. Included were acts of puri cation, investment, washing, anointing, and benediction, accompanied at every stage by abundant animal and material o erings, notably to royal ancestors, the Sun, and Kura and Barama of whom the king and ueen were the terrestrial counterparts.40 O erings on the seventh day of each cycle were themselves sevenfold.41 It is during this long se uence that the BALA .DI lamenters, indispensable to the rites, were called upon to perform.42 It must have been dramatic. The royal couple, after braving a spooky night in the mausoleum, emerged to sit upon the two thrones of their fathers and await the dawn: The god Sun rises, the invoker invokes and the lamenters (na ti lu) intone their lamentation he Goddess intu Who is An ered.43 And that 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 68 Biga and Capomacchia 2012 ( rifonda ione dei valori sacrali rappresentati dalla coppia regale in rapporto agli antenati del re, 25). For the importance of the ueen, and tentative suggestions about hierogamy, Pettinato 1992, with the contribution by P. Pisi, Considera ioni storicoreligiose sulla regalit ad Ebla, 313 341 (complicated by the di ering textual reconstruction of Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993); cf. Pomponio and ella 1997:87, 245, 333). See the account of Fron aroli 1992. For the identi cation of the royal mausoleum, Fron aroli 1992:173 175. Fron aroli 1992:164 165, 180 181; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:47 48 85. Three-seven day cycles at the mausoleum itself is made explicit by ARET 11 3 11 14 (this text is abstracted from ARET 11 2). For Kura and Burama, see Pomponio and ella 1997:87, 245, 333. ARET 11 1 85, 88, 91; 2 89, 92, 95. Cf. Biga and Capomacchia 2012:24, emphasi ing that all three versions of the text, including its handbook’ form (ARET 11 3 12), call for lamentation. The BALA .DI’s participation is presumably implied by further allusions to lament elsewhere, if this is the correct interpretation of SI.D : Fron aroli 1988:13; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:25 11. The passages in uestion are ARET 11 1 11, line 6 (restored) and 13, line 16 2 16, lines 8, 18. Cf. also ARET 11 1 32, line 20 (with note on p34 32). Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:42 read ti a nu here as a derivative of n, be angered’. But cf. Pettinato 1992:209, who would see rather a reference to song via the corresponding Sumerogram at ARET 11 2 66, line 22. Starting at Ebla which makes to shine’ i.e. aromatic oil44 makes its re uest to do so. And Nin tu makes sh ine the new Kura, the new Barama, the new king, the new u een .45 The text appears to preserve the inci it of an actual lamentation.46 The song’s character is con rmed by the rite’s outcome, since the angered’ goddess is induced to make shine the royal couple. In Sumerian tradition, Nintu was a goddess of childbirth whose powers became associated speci cally with the begetting of kings.47 So this was evidently a kind of symbolic rebirth. The lamenters are mentioned again soon afterwards, following another series of rites. This time the action is presented in the past tense, apparently indicating not a second performance, but the completion of a se uence that began with the song ust discussed:48 And the lamenters (na ti lu) have executed their lament. And sc. the man of Harugu49 recites the benediction. And he ( ) sounds the lament of the king three times and of the ueen three times.50 The importance of this passage lies in the word translated here as sounds (i-a1ba-ad). Fron aroli would read this as / ila at/ and derive it from the root l t ( touch’), pointing to Akk. la ātu, which can be used to describe the playing of a stringed instrument (compare Greek s llein).51 If this is right,52 it corroborates the argument above that the innārum was employed in lamentation-singing at Ebla. Admittedly the present performance con guration is hardly clear. With the standing group of BALA .DI apparently excluded, the possibilities envisioned by Fron aroli are that the man of Harugu accompanies either himself in reciting the lament, or the king and ueen as they do so.53 Unfortunately the identity and role of the man of Harugu is entirely obscure. And the passage is 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Fron aroli 1992:171; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:25, 42. ARET 11 1 63 65 2 66 68 (all translations after Fron aroli). Tonietti 2010:85. See Jacobsen 1973:286 289, 293 295; cf. Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:42 65. Regarding the Ebalite e uivalent of Nintu, Pomponio and ella 1997:333 write only that elle était vraisemblablement vénérée comme un variante locale of similar powers, noting that no e uivalent is found in the lexical lists. For this interpretation, see Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:79 79. For this obscure gure, see Fron aroli 1992:167, 172; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:35 36 (suggesting that he was a village chief or son thereof). ARET 11 1 75 77 2 79 81 3 12. Fron aroli 1988:13; Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:45. For the Akkadian usage, CAD s.v. la ātu, 1p, 4d; Kilmer 1965:263, 13; RlA 8:464 (Kilmer, Musik A I). Note the alternative interpretation of Pettinato 1992:213. Fron aroli and Catagnoti 1993:45 77; cf. Fron aroli 1988:29 31. 69 Chapter Four Figure 6 Seated/enthroned lyrist with animals. Unprovenanced North Syrian cylinder seal, ca. 2900–2350. Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 2462. Drawn from SaM no. 70. so laconic that one should not rule out the further involvement of the BALA . DI. They may have completed the former se uence, but are now employed in a further lament for which only the three key new participants are speci ed. What kind of music would be involved in such a mortuary ritual 54 The appropriateness of lamentation at a funeral is self-evident, and is the earliest documented function of the Sumerian GALA.55 But if the ritual was related to the long-term maintenance of mortuar cult, we need not envision only acute grief and continuous ululation. If the innārum was indeed employed, something more musical more lyrical should also be supposed.56 Probably the lamentation-singing served here, as often in Mesopotamia, a prophylactic function perhaps securing the good will of the divini ed ancestors towards the kingdom’s continued prosperity.57 54 55 56 57 70 Following Schmidt 1994:4 12 and Pardee 1996b in connection with Ugarit, funerary’ refers to one-time rites associated with the death of a king, notably burial and his successor’s accession. Mortuary’ relates to the ongoing maintenance of the royal dead, comparable to the Mesopotamian is u ritual (for which see generally Tsukimoto 1985; for the problematic connection with Ugarit, see with further references Pardee 1996b; TPm:176 178). See p29. Compare the Aegean vintage festivals where the lyrist Linos was lamented in what appears to be, as Homer describes it, a uite cheerful occasion: see p308. Note, however, the arguments of Schmidt 1994 against the currency of bene cent dead’ in this early period. Starting at Ebla The template format of the ritual indicates that this was a traditional procedure, insulated from rapid change by being set down in clay. The ritual was executed for two consecutive kings, and something analogous, if slowly evolving, must have been practiced for many generations. After all, the Ebla in ist goes back twenty-six generations or more, conceivably to the twentyeighth century.58 This list must be associated with eleven further cultic texts in which various divini ed kings are named in the contexts of o erings and rituals.59 Such a royal ancestor cult, enacted by a very small and socially/historically self-conscious group, and limited to occasional but regular performances, might very well en oy great longevity on the order of many centuries.60 Ebla thus evokes a deep historical background for the innāru’s connections with the royal mortuary cult of Ugarit, a millennium later.61 Divine Lyre at Ebla? No o erings to musical instruments have yet been found in Ebla’s economic records.62 et the documents do attest to the veneration of other cult-ob ects: two sheep were o ered for the provisioning of the sheath or spear of Ra ap of Atanni; sheep for the head and feet of the same god’s statue; sheep for the scepters of several gods; and one sheep for a throne (god not speci ed). Although such ob ects are not written with divine determinatives at Ebla,63 the very fact that they received such o erings indicates that Ebla shared with Mesopotamia some conceptions about their potential divinity. Another text apparently relates to bad omens that were believed to result from the improper worship of a divine statue.64 So one may at least say that the conditions for a divini ed innārum were in place at Ebla, especially given bilateral scribal familiarity with BALA and innārum between Mesopotamia and Ebla.65 It seems uite certain, at least, that the instrument was already considered to possess special powers. This is well illustrated by a cylinder seal in the 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 See Archi 2001; Stieglit 2002. Cf. also Archi 1986b; Archi 1988a; Biga and Pomponio 1987; Archi et al. 1988:212 215; Matthiae 1989:253; Archi 1993:16; Archi 2006:98. For the intentional if mysterious patterns of veneration that emerge from these cultic texts, see Stieglit 2002:220 222. Cf. Stieglit 2002:217: The Ebla archives now extend this royal tradition in Syria back to the rst half of the third millennium. See p134 147. Biga 2006:30 alluded to a wool-distribution to BALA s of the crown prince’s palace (TM 75.G.2337 obv. II 47, reign of i ’ar-Damu), but the recipients were actually the BALA .DI lamenters; I thank her for con rming this (correspondence, 10/1/2009). Pettinato 1979:27 28, 111 112; cf. Baldacci 1992:277; Sel 1997:176. Fron aroli 1997. See p54; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 4d and 4e. 71 Chapter Four Bible Lands Museum (Figure 6), apparently from North Syria to udge from stylistic parallels, which also indicate a third millennium date.66 A seated, perhaps enthroned, gure (male ) plays an instrument not dissimilar in shape to contemporary Sumerian lyres, but lacking a bull’s-head. In motion before the musician are two animals, perhaps a dog and a lion (or e uid). It is a very early example of a motif lyrist facing or surrounded by animals which had a long history in the Syro-Levantine sphere.67 Later parallels suggest that the seal may re ect wisdom traditions associated with lyre-playing and/or the use of lyremusic to symboli e a harmonious realm the wise and powerful ruler prevailing over the wild forces that threaten social and political stability.68 Whatever the precise interpretation, the importance of the lyre itself is suggested by its careful rendering and central placement. Well out in front of the musician, in an impossible playing position, the lyre is fully represented, practically independent of its player an ob ect of interest and signi cance in its own right. 66 67 68 72 Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem no. 2462. See with references SAM:110 no. 70, where it is dated ca. 2900 2350 BCE. Cf. DCPIL:53 and index s.v. animals:lyrist and’. See index s.v. order, symboli ed by music’. 5 Mari and the Amorite Age The City and Its Music T e is ne t attested in the eighteenth century at Mari (Tell Har ri) on the middle Euphrates. The city’s massive archive makes it a typesite for the political dynamics and economic complexities of the period. There is rich evidence for an international’ music-culture, much like that of Ebla or Ur under Shulgi, but currently known in much greater detail.1 I would stress that, while the larger scope of this study usti es my focus on the innāru material, these lyres were but one element of Mari’s diverse instrumentarium. All the same, the innāru’s linguistic association with the West gives it a special position vis-à-vis the OB city. For this was the so-called Amorite Age, when dynasts of western extraction held power in many Mesopotamian cities most famously Hammurabi, who ultimately destroyed Mari.2 Mari was apparently sub ect to signi cant Sumerian musical in uence in pre-Sargonic times, to udge from the famous statue of Ur-Nanshe who bore, in addition to the title NAR, both a Sumerian name and professional garb like that worn by singers on the Standard of Ur’ and elsewhere.3 This same Ur-Nanshe, earlier in his career, may be among a group of visiting Mariot singers attested 1 2 3 This material has been well analy ed in several recent studies by N. iegler: FM 4; iegler 2006a; iegler 2006b; FM 9. Other relevant discussions include: Williamson 1969; von Soden 1988; Malamat 1999; Malamat 2003. For the ED period, see also Tonietti 1998. See further below. I use Amorite’ advisedly, well aware of the current debate about the nature of Amorite ethnicity, the degree to which those so described in Mesopotamia (Sum. MAR.TU/ Akk. amurrum) identi ed themselves as a coherent group, and so on (recently Miglio 2013:189 197). Nonetheless, the term remains a useful shorthand for discussing cultural and demographic patterns of the period. Ur-Nanshe: Damascus S 2071, Parrot 1967:88, g. 127 131 and pl. 45 46; Gelb and Kienast 1990:13 14; Braun-Hol inger 1991:249; FM 9:7 9; RIME 1, 10.12.3. Parallels: MgB 2/2:44 45 (Standard of Ur), 48 49 ( g. 11 12, 17), etc. 73 Chapter Five at Ebla, of whom at least nine have names that are recogni ably Sumerian, presumably adopted as being professionally appropriate.4 The sparse administrative texts of the so-called Shakkanakku period (ca. 2100 1850), which record isolated distributions to singers (NAR), chief singers (NAR.GAL), and songstresses (NAR.M ), are clear traces of a lively and strati ed music-culture.5 But it is the reigns of two later kings the interloper asmah-Addu (ca. 1790 1776) and the restored imri-Lim (ca. 1775 1761) for which we have much material detailing the royal management of music. The texts, which yield abundant evidence for artisan mobility generally,6 include numerous musical contacts with Karkemish, Babylon, Aleppo, atna, Ha or, and elsewhere. The city’s musical a airs were directed by a Chief Singer (Akk. nar allum), typically a foremost con dant of the king and often appearing among other high o cials in the economic documents.7 Based in a sort of conservatory (mummum), his duties included recruiting and training harem musicians (often from war captives),8 supervising the construction and repair of instruments,9 organi ing musical ensembles and events, and undertaking sensitive diplomatic missions like arranging royal marriages.10 imri-Lim even left his Chief Singer, WaradIlishu, in charge of the city while taking the eld against Eshnunna.11 (Compare the unnamed singer whom Agamemnon left in charge of Klytaimnestra at Mycenae.12) Enough Chief Singers are attested for other states in contact with Mari for us to conclude that such o cials were uite typical of this period.13 Mari’s musical apparatus, if not identical to that of other states, must have been compatible for all practical purposes. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 74 Mander 1988:482; Steinkeller 1993:237 238, 240; Tonietti 1988:88 89; Archi et al. 1988:283; Tonietti 1998:91; Archi 2006:98. Limet 1976:7 9, 36 (dating), 28 (singers), and text-references in index. Sasson 1968; Durand 1992 passim; accagnini 1983b. See generally FM 9:7 12, 83 201. As a boy, asmah-Addu seems to have been tutored by IbbiIlabrat, the Chief Singer of his father Shamshi-Addu, and, once king of Mari, he appointed his friend Rishiya to the o ce (FM 9:83 88, 148 149 and n109 110). FM 9:10 11, 42 43, 168 169, 180 189; iegler 2010:119 126. The term harem’, despite its orientalist connotations, is both convenient and appropriate; for a defense of its use vis-à-vis OB Mari, see FM 4:5 8; for Achaemenid Persia and other ANE contexts, see Llewellyn-Jones 2013:97 102. The distribution lists do not distinguish sharply among ueen, secondary wives, royal princesses, musiciennes, and a variety of domestic sta . The harem’ thus comprised all female residents of a palace, not all of whom served as concubines. FM 4:30n173; iegler 2006a:345n6, 348, and n31; FM 9:86, 170, 190 193. iegler 2006a:348; FM 9:11, 86 89, 149 151, 171 175. FM 9:200 201; cf. 176 179 for a synopsis of Warad-Ilishu’s attested activities, which e ually show his high standing. Homer d sse 3.267 272. iegler 2006a:347n21, citing examples from Shubat-Enlil, Ekallatum, and Karana; FM 9:10. Mari and the Amorite Age Although systematic records for male musicians are lacking, there are examples of them receiving land allotments from the king, and other indications of esteem.14 The management of female musicians, however, may be reconstructed in considerable detail from a series of administrative texts, which, though not completely continuous, span many years. This was a relatively stable, self-sustaining system, with singers maintaining their careers in the face of dynastic change, although naturally the individual was ever vulnerable to royal whim. Thus, while Ilshu-Ibbishu, chief musical instructor under asmahAddu, does not reappear in the records of imri-Lim,15 Rishiya, the Chief Singer under asmah-Addu, continued for a time in this o ce after imri-Lim’s restoration.16 Similarly, the same three female music-teachers were apparently active under both kings training harem-musiciennes.17 This helps explain why, despite numerous demotions when asmah-Addu’s harem was integrated into that of imri-Lim, four young girls of the previous regime emerged as full- edged musiciennes in the new.18 Evidently they had not only come to sexual maturity, but completed their musical training, for which they were duly rewarded. It is clear that an international style’ of music was deliberately cultivated, with the foreign and exotic carefully recorded as though important for an accurate inventory.19 In an age without sound recording, the craving for musical variety was satis ed through the mechanism of royal gift-exchange.20 In practice this involved the ac uisition, training, and trading of players. One set of texts deals with a heavily armed caravan, supervised by imri-Lim’s Chief Singer, which escorted a group of Ben aminite’ musiciennes to the king of Aleppo.21 Another tablet refers to the integration of a group of Elamite musiciennes into the harem.22 The need to have a ready stockpile of these commodities’ accounts for the surprisingly high numbers maintained by the palace at least 200 in the reign of imri-Lim, managed by several do en Senior usiciennes.23 Music was 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 iegler 2006a:347; FM 9:20 31. FM 9:205. Durand 1988:95 117; FM 4:96; iegler 2006a:348n33; FM 9:83, 97 et passim. FM 4:82 83; FM 9:15 16. FM 4:12, 35 38. iegler 2006a; FM 9:19 20, 37 41 et passim. This point was stressed by R. Eichmann in discussion at the 2006 meeting of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology in Berlin. FM 9:172 175, 194 199 (no. 45 46). For the sense of Ben aminite’, see p82. FM 9:120 122 (no. 21). FM 4:71 72, 78 79, 81 82, 94 96, and n527, 116 118, 120 122; iegler 2006a:346 347; iegler 2006b:36. Between thirty-two and thirty- ve Senior usiciennes (MUNUS.NAR.GAL) are always listed immediately after the royal family, an indication of their high social standing. A main body of Junior usiciennes (MUNUS.NAR.TUR) follows. Next comes a certain I amu, principal second wife of asmah-Addu, who once en oyed the title Servant of the King’ and led a group of former wives and singers of the deposed ruler. Some of these were probably imri-Lim’s own sisters or 75 Chapter Five thus one of the household industries’ that contributed to a larger interpalatial economy. Women might even be trained in a speci c foreign style: imri-Lim committed captives from Ashlakka to a Subarian’ musical education. From the contemporary Mariot perspective, this probably means Hurrian, so that the Ashlakkans would be cultivating their own traditions for the enrichment of musical life at Mari.24 The Kinnāru At Mari This cosmopolitan musical environment is important for fully appreciating the position at Mari of the innāru, relatively well attested in the city’s administrative texts, some of which deal with the building, decoration, and maintenance of musical instruments. A letter to imri-Lim from one of his o cials is a statusreport on a royal order for ve innāru-lyres; two were ready for delivery to the king, while another three were behind schedule.25 Another text records an allocation of a kind of varnish for two innāru-lyres.26 A third, gold given to adorn several instruments, including a innāru.27 A fourth mentions a kind of skin or leather allotted for various cult-ob ects, with several instruments; here two innāru-lyres are found alongside instruments of foreign provenance or associations.28 This further attests an openness, at the highest social levels, to 24 25 26 27 28 76 cousins, whom Shamshi-Addu had committed to musical training after his ac uisition of Mari: FM 4:12n59, 70, 76 79. iegler suggests that the giving away of harem musiciennes was further motivated by the need to avoid incest (FM 9:15). FM 9:18, 20, 168 169; iegler 2010:16. It seems clear that Ashlakka was in the area known to the Mariots as Subartu; and that while Subartu’ itself underwent several semantic shifts in di erent periods (Michalowski 1986; Michalowski 1999), it included for the Mariots the Hurrian one of the upper Habur triangle: see Finkelstein 1955:2 3. ARM 13 20.5, 7, 11, 16 J. Bottéro in Dossin et al. 1964:39, with brief comment on 162; FM 9:72 73 (no. 11); cf. Ellermeier 1970:77; Krebernik 1983:21; HKm:97 and n196. For royal audition’ of instruments, cf. FM 9:220 221 (no. 53), 6. ARM 23 180.12 Bardet et al. 1984:174 175. ARM 25 547.9 Limet 1986:171 172 with FM 9:72 and n247. Among the several other instruments mentioned here is an ur a a tum, for which see p35 36. For gold and silver adornment, see further Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 23g, 34c, 42c. ARM 21 298, lines 16, 20 Durand 1983:370 371, cf. comments on 367 368, including the mysterious material šinûntum. This text is largely duplicated by ARM 23 213 Bardet et al. 1984:189 191 ( innāru in line 31 32), cf. 140. See also FM 9:71 72n245. The tilmuttu is the instrument from Dilmun’ (Baurain, or the east coast of the Persian Gulf: Howard-Carter 1987). The ara situ or ara itu is the instrument from Marhashi’, an area of the Iranian plateau. These instruments have been identi ed as lyres (or other chordophones) partly on the basis of their ad acency to the innāru here (they also appear in lexical lists alongside other instruments): Durand 1983:368; cf. Stauder 1970:217; von Soden 1988; FM 4:70n465; iegler 2006a:352. Steinkeller 2006:7 10 assembles the textual evidence for the ara itu and proposes an identi cation with the horiontal harps commonly depicted in pre-Iranian art of the region. But note that they appear to be an exclusively female instrument at Mari: FM 9:49. Mari and the Amorite Age the blending or uxtaposition of di erent music-streams, whether in concerted or consecutive performances. Among the musiciennes known to have served members of the nobility outside the royal palace, some are mentioned as playing the innāru.29 This is earliest textual evidence for a recurring pattern, from the Levantine lyre-girls of NK Egypt to the female lyre-ensembles of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, the inn r-playing harlot’ of Isaiah, and beyond.30 Vis-à-vis Mari itself, one may note an unprovenanced terracotta pla ue of the OB period which shows a naked woman standing on a pedestal and playing a box lyre with curving arms in nearly hori ontal position; before her a man dances and plays a frame-drum (Figure 4.1i).31 This pla ue’s lyre has clear morphological a nities with instruments of Syria and the Levant. Nor is it alone. There are ve further OB representations of such instruments, and others from the Ur III and even OAkk. periods.32 While such lyres must have been current in Amorite traditions,33 this was probably not an exclusive association; the chronological spread of the material indicates a more general, long-term musical interaction between Syria and southern Mesopotamia. innāru m must have been one name by which these instruments were known.34 We saw that the glossing of BALA as innārum at ED Ebla is mirrored by the roughly contemporary presence of innāru in Mesopotamian lexical tradition.35 While the cognate annāru evidently prevailed in southern Mesopotamia during the OAkk. and Ur III periods, P. Michalowski has plausibly suggested that the currency of innāru at OB Mari may not be due solely to Amorite in uence, but represent the same larger regional usage that accounts for innārum at Ebla.36 While innāru has not yet appeared in the extant portions of any OB lexical text, it most probably was present in some strands of the scribal tradition in this period. This is the readiest explanation for a pair of parallel passages in 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 FM 4:70n465, 221 222 (no. 42.4 5); iegler 2006a:347n18; FM 9:41, 50. See p61, 105 111, 245, 250, 258 272, 302. Berlin, orderasiatisches Museum, A 7224: MgB 2/2:76 77 g. 59; DCPIL:44 g. 1(i); AMEL:60 g. 21. A suggested connection with Inanna-Dumu i cult is doubtful: MgB 2/2:76 (following Moortgat); embraced by MAIP:76. OAkk. cylinder seal: RlA 6:581 (Collon, Leier B, 2 II.5.a); MgB 2/2:64 65 ( g. 43). Ur III gurine: MgB 2/2:66 67 ( g. 47 48); AMEL:38 39 and g. 14; DCPIL:44 g. 1(h). OB material: MgB 2/2:76 77 ( g. 59), 90 91 ( g. 76 77, 80); AMEL:59 60. HMI:79; Stauder 1961:12 19; AMEL:38 39. This is implicit in Lawergren’s analysis, who in DCPIL includes them among his thin lyres’, which he connects with innāru (58 59). See above p54, 79 and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 4c. Michalowski 2010b:122. 77 Chapter Five MB (later second millennium37) exemplars of two distinct lexical series, found in areas outside of Babylonia itself.38 From HAR.ra hu ullu ( h),39 as it was known at the Syrian site of Emar on the upper Euphrates in the fourteenth or thirteenth century, comes the following triad of e uations: h, Emar40 M a-an M a-an M a-an a-na-ru: i in na ru ti in du u -an t -bi-tum41 M functions here as a logogram, one way of designating the goddess Inanna; the signs A.AN are plausibly taken by M. Gant ert as a phonetic gloss of the underlying pronunciation (the rst part of annāru).42 Each of the three entries here was thus considered a variety of Inanna-instrument’, and closely comparable or akin. One may note here the OAkk. seal, which shows a bull-lyre played before the goddess Inanna/Ishtar.43 Further permutations of Inanna-instrument’ (gi a.dInanna, gi .m dInanna, etc.) are known from other Mesopotamian lexical texts, and lyres are commonly so described in Hittite sources.44 Note that annaru also occurs as one of the names by which Ishtar was known in a passage of the mn to the ueen of i ur (a MB cento of earlier sources); as annaru she was the wise/skillful goddess and honored by Dagan, the latter phrase suggesting a special connection with the middle Euphrates and North Syria.45 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 78 In this usage Middle Babylonian’ is chronological, not geographical. I thank Joan Westenhol and oram Cohen for con rming the likelihood of this point (communication, November 2011 and July 2013, respectively). HAR.ra is now also read/known as ur5-ra: see e.g. eldhuis 1997:46. Arnaud 1987 no. 545, lines 391 393’ (p. 76); I print the text as it appears in Gant ert 2008, I:102 ( h I.10 12), also I:118 and II:65 (composite text, entry 4253a c), where the rst two signs are interpreted as a phonetic gloss (see below). Note that the wood determinative is written only at beginning and end of the column: Civil 1989:14. Dating: Pentiuc 2001:10; Civil 2004:5. Cohen 2010:825 826, has recently reread this second gloss’ as an t i tum (see CAD s.v. tim uttu: stringed instrument), thus correcting ka-[a]n da i tu in the texts of Arnaud and Gant ert. I owe this reference to Sam Mirelman (communication, June 2013). MgB 2/2:64 65, g. 42. See further Heimpel, Balang Gods, p574. For Hittite, see p89 96. Material collected by CAD s.v. annaru; discussions in S berg 1965:64 65; MSL 6:119, 123, n81, 142; Lambert 1982:213; RlA 6:573 (Kilmer, Leier A); Lawergren and Gurney 1987:41; Krispi n 1990:12; HKm:98. Lambert 1982 for text and commentary: annaru at III.65 68, cf. I .28, where Inanna is o spring of Dagan. The most important cult-site of Dagan was at Tuttul, at the con uence of the Euphrates and Balikh rivers; he received state worship at Ebla, and theophoric PNs show that he was venerated throughout northern Syria, including Mari and as far north as Tell Beydar, from at least late pre-Sargonic times onwards: Feliu 2003:8 41. An e uation of annaru here with the annāru instrument which could also accord with her being named by and beloved Mari and the Amorite Age Now the scribal traditions of Emar and other cities of the so-called western periphery including Ugarit are known to derive from those of OB southern Mesopotamia.46 But because they also contain a number of local innovations and expansions, it was natural, when our passage of Emar h was viewed in isolation, to see innāru as a secondary elaboration of the entry for annāru.47 But the same se uence has now turned up in a tablet from Assur (Assyria), part of the series Diri atru (a di cult collection of compound logograms) which also derives from an OB tradition of the south:48 Diri, Assur49 a-an-na-ru GI . A.M GI . A .M GI . A .M annāru innāru tind Here too, presumably, A is a phonetic gloss, and GI the determinative wood’. The agreement of h and Diri is so close that the passages should be considered duplicates.50 Although such correspondences are not extensive in OB exemplars of h and Diri, there are enough to believe that the two compositions in uenced each other (the direction of in uence is unclear in any given case).51 The simplest conclusion to be drawn from this material is that innāru, if it did not persist from the third millennium in Mesopotamian lexical tradition, re-entered two or more branches in the OB period thanks to the instrument’s currency in the Amorite age. It then returned’ to the western peripheral cities as part of the scribal tradition, and passed independently northward into Assyria. Whatever the explanation, the probable OB scribal currency of innāru has interesting implications for the treatment of the Divine Kinnaru in the pantheon texts of Ugarit.52 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 of Ea/Enki is assumed by CAD s.v.; MSL 6:119, 123, and n81; S berg 1965:64 65; uestioned by Lambert 1982:213. I thank Joan Westenhol for feedback here (2/2011). eldhuis 1997:67, 70 71, stressing that the relationships between OB traditions and their MB descendants on the western periphery cannot be precisely determined before the lexical texts from Ugarit are fully published. For the latter, see van Soldt 1995:171 175. Pentiuc 2001:98; DCPIL:59; Michalowski 2010b:122. For Diri generally, see eldhuis 1997:56, 117; Civil 2004:4 6. Diri III.043 045: I follow the mise en a e of Civil 2004:138. His text as presented is, like a Greek or Latin edition, an editorial composite from several exemplars. See his textual notes on 139 for the reading ki]n na ru in Assur 11884 (exemplar E: key on 134); cf. 6, the signi cant sources for Diri III are all M iddle A ssyrian . The text is in the so-called 1-2-4 format (Civil 2004:4), where the rst column is a reading gloss’ or phonological description’ of the compound ideogram in column 2; the nal column contained the Akk. translation. For lexical text formats, see generally CANE:2305 2314 (Civil). Cf. eldhuis 1997:118 (on two other parallels from OB texts of h and Proto-Diri): Since the item is repeated three times both in ur5-ra i.e. h and in Proto-Diri we may safely assume that the sections duplicate. See eldhuis 1997:118 120. See p121 122. 79 Chapter Five The Amorite Connection One must in any case assume, on general historical grounds, some integration of Amorite musical traditions into a wider Mesopotamian music-stream. We should therefore examine the broader cultural phenomenon in more detail, as it may further illuminate the position of the innāru in this time and place, and ultimately perhaps help account for its divini ation at Ugarit and elsewhere in the West. Increasing numbers of Amorite names in Ur III texts indicate a gradual process of in ltration and integration into Mesopotamian society during the late third millennium.53 In the rst centuries of the second, many Mesopotamian cities were controlled by dynasties of Amorite descent. The whole complex process is re ected in several compositions dealing with the god Martu, a Sumerocentric eponym for the Amorite parvenus.54 In the so-called arria e of artu, he is presented as a powerful but crude barbarian seeking a bride among the local gentry.55 His people are mocked for their nomadic ways, eating raw meat, ignorance of the gods and their temples, and the inability to recite prayers.56 The text’s conclusion is broken, but presumably Martu succeeded in his suit, and so at last won a place in polite society. There are also two hymns to Martu, much like those for other Sumerian gods, which seem to show his integration into the Mesopotamian divine order. While keeping his savage power, he is accepted as a son of An, favored by Enlil, and ranked among the great gods.57 As such he now en oys the per uisites of civili ation, including a normal’ cult: In holy songs musicians sing of him the dearly cherished one, the god, the man of the hills, renowned everywhere and promote his name gloriously. Martu, son of An, it is sweet to praise you 58 These texts make it reasonable to suppose the Amorite adoption or adaptation of Mesopotamian liturgical practices in the course of their acculturation. This inference is supported by the case of Ishme-Dagan, the fourth king of Isin, who, while bearing an Amorite name, promoted a late owering of Sumeriani ing 53 54 55 56 57 58 80 Buccellati 1966, with the problems raised by Michalowski 2011:82 121. See generally Klein 1997; Pongrat -Leisten 2011:93 94; other texts, in which Amorites are characteri ed in similar terms as the portrait of Martu to be discussed, are collected in Buccellati 1966:89 95, cf. 330 332. Ironically, the bride herself seems to have an Amorite name dAdgarudu Ashratu, cognate with Athirat: Cross 1973:57; Smith and Pitard 2009:377. arria e of artu (ETCSL 1.7.1), 126 141. R mer 1989; Kramer 1990; Klein 1993; Klein 1996. artu A/B (ETCSL 4.12.1, 4.12.2). artu A, 57 59, translation ETCSL; cf. Falkenstein 1959:120 140. Mari and the Amorite Age literary activity, including more than twenty royal hymns.59 In one of these is found a direct imitation 60 of Shulgi’s boasts of musical prowess including expert command of the annāru: I have devoted myself to the art of singing, and know the occasions when praise songs are to be sung. That I am eminent in the performance style for songs; that I know how to intersperse appropriate words with the accompaniment of the ngers and instruments; that I have mastered the drumsticks, the sa-e , the sabitum, the ar ar and the anaru instruments; that I have completely mastered the developed aspects of the art of singing and the recondite points of songs all these things the scholars and the composers of my songs have put in my great songs and have declared in my hymns.61 If such posturing was largely symbolic, it was so within a Neo-Sumerian ideological framework; the important point is its purposeful resurrection by IshmeDagan, which he grounded in a real cultural program.62 Similarly the king of Mari continued to promote Sumerian cult-music. We nd a music-instructor re uesting a gift from the king for teaching his students balang-compositions, while an Ishtar ritual, discussed below, contains cues for a number of Sumerian lamentation-songs.63 The Amorites’ own ancestral culture, however, is practically invisible in the archaeological and written record. With the exception of PNs, their language went largely undocumented, since textual production continued to be in Akkadian and literary Sumerian. Nevertheless, the Amorites and their kings evidently maintained a sense of distinct ethnic identity. This may be inferred rst from a large corpus of PNs, often theophoric (and so giving limited theological information), or containing words relating to social structure, tribal ancestries, and a semi-nomadic cultural background.64 A relatively high proportion of Mariot scribes, carriers of literate Mesopotamian culture, nevertheless bore Amorite names. Constant political relations with the West probably further encouraged the preservation of inherited traditions, and perhaps the mother 59 60 61 62 63 64 R mer 1965; Klein 1990:65 67. Klein 1990:67. Ishme a an A , 10 20 (ETCSL 2.5.4.01, 367 377). For the oining of A and , Ludwig 1990:161 162 with Frayne 1998:7, 9. For a detailed comparison with Shulgi, and other parallels, see Ludwig 1990:189 200; Klein 1990:72 79; Frayne 1998:20 23. But note also Michalowski 2005:201, et passim on inno ations in the hymnography of Ishbi-Erra, rst king of Isin. FM 9:237 238 (no. 59); cf. Durand 1992:127; iegler 2006a:346, 348, 352; iegler 2010:122 123. Hu mon 1965; Buccellati 1966; Gelb 1980. 81 Chapter Five tongue, for some part of the OB period.65 The case of imri-Lim is suggestive: as a young exile he went west to Aleppo and the court of arim-Lim, the powerful king of amhad who became his father-in-law through interdynastic marriage to the princess Shibtu. It would hardly be surprising if, in the cosmopolitan musical environment that is clearly seen in the administrative texts, the kings of Mari e ually cultivated their Amorite musical heritage. An event of special interest here is the arrival at Mari of a caravan from Ha or carrying three Amorite musicians, for whom imri-Lim exchanged three of his own musiciennes.66 Whether Amorite’ here has an ethno-linguistic or only a geographical sense is unclear, but it is likely enough to be both.67 The text is e ually valuable for tying Canaan, otherwise poorly documented in MBA texts, into a larger, cosmopolitan musical world. From the earlier reign of asmah-Addu, a letter from the chief musical instructor complains about the uality of Amorite musiciennes who had been brought back from a westward military expedition in support of atna ( They are all truly cold and old. There’s not a single woman among them ).68 They were six in number, a small subset of the ninety-four women whose training he managed.69 The Ben aminite’ musiciennes sent by imri-Lim to Aleppo, mentioned above, are also probably relevant, as the Banu- amina was an Amorite tribal group in the area of Mari.70 These texts indicate an awareness of Amorite music as something identi able across a considerable geographical range. It was a distinct strand within the complex web of musical traditions that were brought together and elaborated by the royal courts of Mari, atna, Aleppo, and elsewhere. The fairly prominent position of the innāru at Mari thus becomes more intelligible. The presence of these lyres among other cult-ob ects indicates that they were being constructed not solely for novelty entertainment in the harem, but for more lofty roles. We saw that the Bible, in crediting its inn r’s invention to Jubal, not only traces it to the distant past, but makes it part of a semi-nomadic lifestyle; and while in isolation this may seem a romantic anachronism, the portrait is generally con rmed by the Beni-Hassan tomb-painting.71 A comparable intersec65 66 67 68 69 70 71 82 Durand 1992:123 126; Durand 1997 1:39 40. For this event, Bonechi 1992; Malamat 1999; Malamat 2003; iegler 2006a:4; FM 9:19 20. Cf. FM 9:19 20. FM 9:217 220 (no. 52.8’ 9’), following her translation. For the political background, Charpin and iegler 2003:101 102, 124 125. FM 4 37; cf. FM 9:20, 85n14. For the Banu- amina, see e.g. CANE:1238 (Whiting). See p44 45. Mari and the Amorite Age tion of music-making and a semi-legendary nomadic past may also be inferred behind king-lists relating to Amorite dynasts of Babylon and Assyria. The Ass rian in ist famously lists seventeen ancestral kings who dwelled in tents. 72 This section agrees partially with the Genealo of the ammura i nast (G ), where several pairs of cognate rhyming names reveal that the two texts derive from a common heritage of myth-making, and suggest that this segment of the tradition was originally preserved as some kind of desert chant perhaps as part of oral epic of early tribal heroes. 73 The ancient kings’ of these texts are in reality a variety of tribal eponyms names and relationships that were probably gradually recomposed over the generations to re ect shifting political and social patterns in relations between various Amorite groups and the urban states with which they interacted.74 One of the names (Dit nu/Did nu) resurfaces at Ugarit as a uasi-deity and seemingly an ancestor of the royal line.75 The uidity of this material would indeed accord with a derivation from some form of oral epic tradition. Numerous ethnographic analogies show that musical accompaniment is often involved in such narrative singing; most common are stringed instruments, which provide in a single convenient package both tonal material and the rhythm essential for structuring verse. Note that the performance medium for the preservation of the G was royal ancestor cult, internal evidence showing that it was used in the course of a is u ritual, when food and drink were o ered to the ghosts of kings past.76 We encountered something of the sort at Ebla, where I argued for the involvement of innārumthrenody; similarly at Ugarit I will explore the symbolic importance of the innāru in royal mortuary cult. Divine Instruments and the Amorite World The third-millennium practice of divini ing instruments continued strong in the OB period. ears named after the dedication of lilissu-drums are known for Immerum of Sippar (ca. 1845), Itur- ama of Kisurra (ca. 2138), and Iter-Pi a of Isin (ca. 1833 1831).77 An inscription of Warad-Sin of Larsa (ca. 1834 1823) commemorated a lilissu (and perhaps also a BALA ) dedicated for his own life 72 73 74 75 76 77 ANET:564; CS 1 no. 1.135 (here p. 463). Finkelstein 1966:112. See Michalowski 1983:243 246. Lipi ski 1978; HUS:613; RCU:113 114n124. Finkelstein 1966:113 116; cf. CANE:1239 (Whiting). See PHG:99 100, with reference to the issue of semantic shift and performance contexts of BALA (see p531, 573 ); cf. Gabbay 2014 4. 83 Chapter Five and for the life of his father. 78 ears were also named from the dedication of aladrums by two early nineteenth-century kings, one in the temple of ababa by Iawium of Kish,79 the other in that of Nanna by Manana of Urum/Ilip.80 An administrative text from Mari records a large consignment of silver and gold sent to Tuttul, in northern Syria, for decorating Ninigi ibara’.81 We saw this name earlier applied to an instrument built and dedicated by Ibbi-Sin of Ur.82 Ninigi ibara is otherwise well known from Ur III and OB god-lists, where it can appear as a GU4.BALA advisor of Inanna. 83 Animal o erings to Ninigi ibara are also attested at Uruk, once on the occasion of a lamentation rite which accompanied a circumambulation starting from the gate of the ipar, and in a number of other ritual contexts.84 Most striking of all, as a comparandum for Kinyras, is a detail in the OB balang-composition (or oratorio’) Uru’amma’irabi ( hat it Which as een Pilla ed), in which Inanna lamented the destruction of her city, temple, and the balang Ninigi ibara itself, as well as Dumu i’s in delity and death.85 In this work, Ninigi ibara seems to be treated as Inanna’s husband or lover, shar ing Inanna’s bedroom as an intimate partner of the goddess. 86 Other laments show that it was a trope of these compositions to include the balang, or its hall, among what has been destroyed in a city or temple.87 Uru’amma’irabi also featured in a ritual performed at Mari itself during the reign of asmah-Addu, which focused on the balang Ninigi ibara. This text gives us our most detailed glimpse of how divini ed instruments might serve in complex ceremonies, in this case a se uence of lamentation rites involving the 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 84 RIME 4 2.13.1002, iii: 4’-9’; PHG:99 ( uotation), noting: Another possibility is that the se uence bala li-li- s ( abar) is to be understood as bala and (bron e) lilissu drum’, perhaps indicating that in this period the bala stringed instrument was still used in cult together with the lilissu drum. (The same interpretive issue arises with the inscription of Hammurabi discussed on p86 87.) See also Gabbay 2014 4; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 44. Simmons 1960:83 (ii); Charpin 1978:28n56, chronology on 40; cf. Mirelman 2014. Simmons 1960:76 77 (kk, ll); Charpin 1978:28 (e), chronology on 40; cf. Mirelman 2014. The text is ARM 25 566 Joann s 1985:111 112 no. 10; cf. FM 3:47, discussing this goddess’s relationship to Dagan at Tuttul; PHG:106; RlA 9:382 (Heimpel, Ninigi ibara); Heimpel, BalangGods, 23g2. See p22. Heimpel 1998:10 11; RlA 9:382 384 (Heimpel, Ninigi ibara); Gabbay 2014 10 and n23 ( uotation); PHG:106 107; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 23. FM 3:47; RlA 9:382 384 (Heimpel, Ninigi ibara, uotation 383), noting several contexts in which Ninigi ibara is known from Umma (see Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 23). CLAM:536 603; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 47. olk 2006:94, line 14 with PHG:112 113 ( uotation), raising the uestion of Ninigi ibara’s gender; also Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2d and 23f. See for example ruhula e of Gula ( he of the Ruined it ), a 45, 48 (CLAM:256, 262) and A u Pelam ( he e led A su), 86 (CLAM:55, 60); I thank U. Gabbay for these references (communication, July 2012). See further Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 49. Mari and the Amorite Age king himself.88 On the last day of an unnamed month, the goddess’s temple was puri ed and the instrument set up before her. The king and other participants, including lamentation-priests and ensembles of male and female musicians, were carefully arranged around and facing Ninigi ibara, which was itself anked by various cultic symbols.89 An elaborate series of rites then unfolded, punctuated by lamentation-singing; the structure of this ritual seems to be informed by the se uence of elements in Uru’amma’irabi itself.90 Laments were somehow con oined with prophecy by an ecstatic’ (muhh m), although the precise relationship between the two practices is unclear.91 It may be that Ninigi ibara was not actually played in these performances, but was the o ect of song as a representation of Inanna herself in her aspect as a lamenting goddess. 92 This interpretation would t nicely with the idea, attested in both Greek and ANE sources, that lamentable situations like war and royal deaths are times when lyre-music should be stilled.93 At the same time, the participating ensembles make it uite certain that instrumental music, including strings, was indeed heard. Thus, while Ninigi ibara itself might represent the stilling of music, the ritual as a whole will have used music to reverse the divine mood the normal function of lamentation singing.94 Perhaps sympathetic vibration played a role here, since an unplayed Ninigi ibara would still murmur in response to the music of others. Was this seen as evidence that the instrument was indeed alive, had its own voice, and was itself lamenting The Mari tablet, which records silver and gold for Ninigi ibara, makes it uite possible that, with other texts involving precious metals for musical instruments, we are again dealing with divini ed specimens. We saw above that the innāru is attested in ust such a context. Indirect support for the deduction comes from the ur a a tum included in the same transaction, which transpired 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 OB Ishtar ritual from Mari: Dossin 1938; FM 3 2, the name appearing as dNingi ippara at i.8’, 10’ (see comments on 47), also in Le rituel d’E tar d’Irrad n, FM 3 3 i.21’ (cf. p62); FM 9:55 64; Nissinen et al. 2003:80 82 (nos. 51 52), with further literature; cf. PHG:106; iegler 2010:126 127. Cf. FM 3:48, with the illustration of FM 9:56. See FM 3:49 50; FM 9:61 (on ii.19’); PHG:182 183. FM 3 2 ii.19’ 27’, and the comparable 3 iii.4’ 13’, is unfortunately lacunose. See remarks of Durand 1988:386 387; FM 3:50; Nissinen et al. 2003:82n a; FM 9:61, 63 64. St kl 2012:211 214 re ects a direct link between music and ecstatic prophecy. But key readings are uite uncertain, and the immediate con unction of musicians and ecstatics in both texts must be someho signi cant. The instructions may be elliptical, not fully elaborating the stages of collaboration’ between musicians and ecstatics. U. Gabbay (communication, July 2012); cf. also iegler’s observations on the instrument in FM 9:60 (on i 8’), 62 (on iii, 12, 14, 18, 28). Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 4a, suggests that the instrument was indeed played an illogical element. See p41, 291 303. See p23 29. 85 Chapter Five under imri-Lim. For another Mari text, this time from the reign of asmahAddu, in referring to a group of instruments ready for royal audition,’ mentions the incomplete status of an ur a a tum whose name incorporates that of the king himself: Samsi- asmah-Addu, asmah-Addu is my Sun’.95 This must be a divini ed instrument. The name, to udge from the parallels, seems to place asmah-Addu in the position of a master-god who will be served by the ur aa tum 96 We encountered another such King of Kish instrument’ in the texts of Shulgi, and one appeared in a god-list as servant of Ninurta; the complex model of musical cognition’ this implies brings together king, past king, and the divine through the medium of royal music.97 To nd yet another ur a a tum in the service of Mari’s monarch, and even bearing his own name, raises interesting uestions about the intersection of musical ideology and the tradition that is, the handing down of royal power.98 It may even be that asmah-Addu’s ur aa tum is the very one which imri-Lim his successor from a ri al d nast caused to be adorned. Finally one must note a Babylonian royal inscription relating to the fortieth year of Hammurabi’s reign. The king marked his defeat of imri-Lim and the destruction of Mari by dedicating two musical instruments and a standard in the Emeslam, a temple of Nergal in Kutha (a day’s ride northeast of Babylon): Eternal seed of kingship, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of all the Amorite land, king of Sumer and Akkad, when he captured Mari and its villages, destroyed its wall, and turned the land into ru bble heaps (and) ru ins, he set up a BALA and a bron e kettledrum (for) holy songs, which please the heart, etc.99 We saw two earlier dedications of a BALA , one by Gudea of Lagash, the other by Ibbi-Sin, last of the Ur III emperors. These events were of su cient political importance to give their names to the year in uestion. These parallels underscore the gravity of Hammurabi’s action, and show this self-consciously Amorite king to be e ually a pious perpetuator of Mesopotamian cult practice 95 96 97 98 99 86 See FM 9:221 222 (no. 53.7 8), arguing against an alternative interpretation of this name as belonging to a musician. So too U. Gabbay (communication, March 2010): An ur a a tum instrument in Mari is called Samsi- asmah-Addu surely referring to the king of Mari of this name which again shows the connection of this instrument to kings. Cf. Heimpel, BalangGods, p627. Is the sun god also somehow invoked See p35 36. Cf. p134 141. Sollberger and Walker 1985; but I follow the text and translation of RIME 4 3.6.11, who read BALA in line 31 (the passage uoted here is lines 23 34). Mari and the Amorite Age ( king of all the Amorite land, king of Sumer and Akkad ).100 The context also permits reasonable guesses about the signi cance of the dedication. That this was considered the right gesture to punctuate the king’s nal triumph over imri-Lim is indicated, rst, by the text’s immediate uxtaposition of the two events. Furthermore, the god Nergal, to whom the instruments are devoted, has already been invoked as the terrifying king who goes at the head of the troops, who annihilates the enemy lands. With Mari’s defeat, Hammurabi’s long and careful expansionist career reached a successful climax, giving him unrivalled control over the Babylonian heartland and the eastern stretches of the Amorite cultural sphere.101 The instruments may therefore be seen as a gesture of thanksgiving to Nergal, on the one hand, and a symbol of Hammurabi’s New World Order on the other with the van uished enemy ushering in an age of peaceful, festive music, and the end of lamentation. Three key points remain uncertain. First, we cannot be sure that the BALA of this text means lyre’, for this is the period in which it seems to have made its transition to a kind of drum.102 It may also be that BALA functions merely as a determinative, ualifying the lilissu in some way.103 Nor can we be certain that this BALA was divini ed, although the dedicatory context makes this probable. Finally, it is possible that BALA may conceal some more properly Amorite instrument name, ust as it was glossed as innārum by the scribes of Ebla and in the ED Practical ocabulary.104 If one could infer such an e uation here, it might be that Hammurabi was expressing his triumph over a rival Amorite king with a gesture that was not only devout from a traditional Mesopotamian perspective, but also symbolically potent within the Amorite cultural continuum. Conclusion Amorite integration in Mesopotamia during the Ur III period and OB periods, combined with the continuing sense of Amorite identity across a wide geographical range, together provide a favorable environment for the emergence of a Divine Kinnaru.105 The Martu texts hint at the assimilation of Amorite 100 101 102 103 104 105 Hammurabi bears the title king of all the Amorite land’ again in RIME 4 3.6.10, 8. See generally Kuhrt 1995:95 109; van De Mieroop 2005:64 79. RIME 4:344, follows Stol in suggesting that Hammurabi had already assumed the title King of All the Amorite Land in his thirty-fourth regnal year. See p531, 573. See PHG:99, and above n78. See p54, 65 67, 79. Liverani 1971:61 writes of this period: l’omogeneit delle popola ioni stan iate in Mesopotamia e in Siria (gli Amorrei) e gli ampli rapporti politici e commerciali tra le due aree (come sono esemplarmente documentati dai testi di Mari) rendevano particolarmente agevole il trapasso di idiologie e di procedimenti politico-sociali e religiosi. 87 Chapter Five cult to Mesopotamian liturgical practices. Mari, where we can most clearly document Amorite traditions surrounded by ancient Mesopotamian cult practices including divini ed instruments should be considered a type-site in this respect too. The presence of an ecstatic prophet within the Ishtar/Ninigi ibara ritual above is a suggestive case of West-meets-East.106 So too the lexical e uation of innāru and annāru (probably of OB date, but certainly MB), where their de nition as Inanna-instrument’ surely implies some theological interpretation of the lyre for typically divine balangs re ected and embodied various facets of their master gods.107 It should be noted that Byblos, one traditional home of Kinyras, was within the cultural orbit of the Ur III emperors (Chapter 19). The practice of divini ing lyres and other cult-ob ects may have been generally adopted among the Amorites and other Syro-Levantine kings of the late third and early second millennium as part of a conscious emulation of the ideological and cultural models of contemporary Babylonia. The innāru’s importance in royal cult implicit at Ebla and Mari, and more clearly demonstrable elsewhere from the LBA onwards as the following chapters will show provides a plausible motivation, with the instrument’s deep anti uity being matched by that of the royal cults themselves. 106 107 88 Cf. FM 3:50: Cette intervention d’un proph te occidental au sein d’une grande liturgie sumérienne, pour déconcertante u’elle soit, montre bien uel degré de syncrétisme on en était arrivé dans la région d’Akkad. For the Amorite dimension of the Mari prophetic texts, see Lemaire 1996. See Heimpel, Balang-Gods, passim. 6 Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates T is c a ter resents a selecti e sur e of mainly LBA texts and iconography from cultural areas peripheral to, and closely engaged with, the Syro-Levantine linguistic and cultural sphere in which innāru was at home. From a vast body of more general evidence, I have assembled the material bearing most closely on the Kinnaru-Kinyras uestion. This investigation helps esh out a larger background for both Kinnaru of Ugarit and that city’s lyreculture (Chapter 7), and the Syro-Levantine lyric heritage of the Biblical world (Chapter 8). Beyond this, it provides compelling parallels for the di usion of the nr and associated ideas to Cyprus already in the second millennium (n.b.). It also clari es 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 We have seen that both innāru and annāru were de ned as Inanna-instrument’ ( a-anM , gi . aM ) by Mesopotamian scribes probably already in the OB period.1 An e uivalent expression, gi .dINANNA, is well-attested in Hittite sources. That this Inanna-instrument’ was normally (if not exclusively) a lyre in the Hittite world is established by several sets of overlapping evidence.2 First, gi .dINANNA is the most fre uently attested instrument in Hittite texts, while lyres are the most 1 2 See p77 79. For the following points, see Laroche 1955:72 73; S berg 1965:64 65; Gurney 1977:34; de Martino 1987 and RlA 8:483 488 ( Musik A III); Özgüç 1988:99; G terbock 1995:57; AMEL:87; Klinger 1996:229 234; DCPIL:58 59; Ivanov 1999:587 589; HKm:97 106, with further references in n193. 89 Chapter Six commonly represented in a rich iconographical record.3 Second, the common uali cation of the Inanna-instrument’ as large’ or small’ (gi .dINANNA.GAL and gi .dINANNA.TUR) may be correlated with the famous Inand k vase, which shows two si es of lyre (Figure 7, and below). Third, the same si e-distinction is re ected in the e uivalent Hattic-Hittite terms un inar and i i inar, where the linguistic kinship of inar to both innāru and annāru is obvious to the eye (though the precise historical-cultural explanation is debated).4 It is thus uite certain that gi .dINANNA typically means lyre’, and that un inar and i i inar, though themselves but lightly attested, are regular referents of the Sumerograms. Still we should not be too categorical.5 The Hittites embraced many regional cults, maintaining them with the appropriate liturgies. We hear of those who sang in Hittite, Hattic, Hurrian, Luwian, and Babylonian’ (that is, Akkadian); some festivals brought together musicians from di erent parts of the kingdom.6 Since Sumerograms can represent various languages, and since gi .dINANNA is often found in connection with foreign musicians and/or rites deriving from di erent ethnic spheres,7 the expression must sometimes have designated instruments not called inar. In rituals of Hurrian extraction, we shall see, the underlying word was, or at least would once have been, innāru This point bears especially on the position of harps (not lyres) in secondmillennium Anatolia, Syria, and the Levant, where they are represented much less fre uently 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 Mesopotamiani ing; and that in turn raises uestions about the retention and development of associated theological concepts as they passed beyond the two rivers. Representing Syria is a fteenthcentury cylinder-seal from Alalakh, showing a female harper performing with 3 4 5 6 7 90 See the recent catalogue of HKm with extensive bibliography for each piece. See especially Ivanov 1999:588 589, proposing a proto-Luwian adaptation behind the three forms, e.g. WS i proto-Luw. kui > i (whence Hatt./Hitt. inar) a (Akk./Sum. annāru, this last stage not being fully explicated by the author). The third-millennium date which these developments re uire 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 ( akubovich 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 uick to concede that not all forms in z- need go back to a single development (palatali ation of before front vowel is a common phenomenon). Note that Gurney’s re ection of a Luwian origin for Hatt./Hitt. inar (in DCPIL:59) is not in itself insurmountable, as Hattic pre xes could have been added secondarily (Klinger 1996:230n408). Cf. Klinger 1996:233 235, with di erent emphasis. Pecchioli Daddi 1982:339 343; Haas 1994:539 615; CANE:1991 (G. McMahon); de Martino 2002:624; HKm:9 14 et passim. Pecchioli Daddi 1982:329 336 passim; HKm:100 106 passim. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates Figure 7 Mu ca r te n four reg ter . nand a e, ca. 1 50 1550 nado u Meden yet er M e , n ara. Drawn from hoto n g d tt te . 1988. Chapter Six Figure 8 htar ay ng har efore a. Modern m re on of yro tt te ea from onya arah y , ca. 1 50. Drawn from 19 2 . 11, no. 22. a female drummer and dancer before an enthroned goddess; stylistic parallels corroborate an eastern origin or antecedents for the seal.8 The numerous angleharps 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 nal example, one of several Anatolian representations, returns us to the uestion of Hittite scribal usage. This is a SyroHittite-style seal of Hittite OK date, from the palace of Konya-Karah y k, which probably shows Ishtar playing a harp before Ea and his vi ier (Figure 8).10 If so, the instrument would clearly deserve the title Inanna-instrument’ as much as inar, innāru, or annāru. 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 8 9 10 92 Alalakh cylinder-seal (Antakya 7989): see Collon 1982:74 75 no. 47, dating it to the rst half of the fteenth century, and suggesting parallels for the harp and throne at Nu i and in Elam; cf. also Collon 1987 no. 664; Caubet 1996:30 g. 8; RlA 8:489 g. 2 (Collon, Musik I B). The two harps in the Nu i seal which Collon cites from Porada 1947:58, 116 no. 711 do provide a uite exact parallel; comparable forms are found in OB terracotta pla ues: MgB 2/2:80 85 g. 62 70. Hickmann 1954b:292; Green 1992:219; Manniche 2000:234; Manniche 2006. Alp 1972:120 121 and pl. 11.22; Esin 2002:514 515, 518 g. 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 fteenth century), 68 with pl. 10 g. 31 (terracotta gurine) and 32 (ceramic fragment with relief, thirteenth-twelfth century), 107 108. There are also two episodes in the Hurro-Hittite umar i cle where Ishtar-Shaushka plays music to seduce (and thus overthrow) monstrous o spring raised by Kumarbi to challenge the storm-god Teshup; one of the instruments, in the on of lli ummi, is rendered as BALA .DI, but its interpretation as lyre or harp is not secure, most preferring drum’: CTH 345 ( 35 37 in Ho ner and Beckman 1998:60 61). The parallel scene is in on of edammu: CTH 348; fr. 11 in Siegelov 1971, with Ho ner and Beckman 1998:54 and 77n14. See further HKm:112 115; Brison 2014:189 194. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates 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 Since un inar and i i inar contain Hattic pre xes, it is generally and rightly held that inar itself was borrowed into Hittite from Hattic.12 This must relate to the integration of Hattian mythology, festivals, cult, and ritual processes into Hittite life after Hattusili I (ca. 1650 1620) transferred his dynastic seat from Kanesh to Hattusha.13 The long-term impact of Hattic cult-lyric per se is indicated by the Hittite use of inar/ inir to mean music’ generally; thus, for the Hittites, as doubtless for the Hattians, ritual music was preeminently lyremusic, whatever other instruments may have complemented it. The early Hattian-Hittite use of large and small lyres is best illustrated by the Inand k 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. arious stages of action are presented across four registers involving priests, priestesses, o ering-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 ob ections and cautions raised by more recent critics have certainly done much to re ne 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 Inand k 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 e uivalent.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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 See p383 392. Wegner 1981:155 156; G terbock 1995:57; DCPIL:58 59; Ivanov 1999:587 588; HKm:97 106. See generally Klinger 1996, especially 229 234, 740 754. Ethnomusicologists might see in this an example of museum e ect (Nettl 1985:28), though temple e ect’ would be better here. Cf. g 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. See p37 40. Özgüç 1988:92 104 (suggesting the OA trading colony at Kanesh as the locus of transmission, 99); Wimber 2009:7. Alp 2000:19 20; Brison 2014:195 with references. 93 Chapter Six Greco-Roman mythology, and the church-fathers’ allegations of orgiastic sexual rites at Paphos.18 Hittite texts of the NK show that the inar and other cult-ob ects en oyed devotions similar to what is found in Sumerian sources.19 One example relates to the Festival of the Crocus (AN.TA . UM), a ma or Spring celebration for the Sun Goddess of Arinna and the Gods of the Hatti Land, during which king and ueen traveled to various temples to oversee a series of appropriate rites, involving at di erent unctures singers and incantation priests, including lamentations for several forms of Ishtar.20 The numerous o erings prescribed during the preliminaries at Hattusha itself include the following: Next they attend to the sc. holy places with liver, w ine : once for the Altar once for the Throne-God, once for the Window, once for the Inside Chamber, once behind the Hearth, once for the Lyre of the Divinity.21 Presumably, this initial o ering to the lyre helped ensure the e cacy of the lyre-performances that would transpire during several of the ceremonies. These included, among many drinking and o ering rituals for various gods, one at the e ti, a temple associated with the underworld goddess Lelwani and royal ancestor cult; and a ma or performance of massed lyres at the great assembly’.22 Similar procedures are found in other texts.23 O erings of sheep, cheese, bread, honey, groats, and libations of wine and beer, are attested for lyres alongside other cult-e uipment and temple-furniture.24 Another ritual, going back to the Hattic cult-stratum, calls for a soothsayer to anoint various utensils of the gods, including lyres, drums, and cymbals, alongside the god’s statue itself.25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 See p222 and n15. 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. See generally G terbock 1960; Haas 1994:772 826; HKm:12. KBo 4.13 KUB 10.82 rev. v.4 10; see Haas 1994:779; HKm:101n219. Haas 1994:780 781, 789 790, 794 795 (at the e ti, for which see generally 245; Singer 1983 1984 1:112 115; Bachvarova forthcoming, passim), 796, 800 (great assembly), 801 802, 807, 817 818. KBo 17.74 with o erings 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.TA . UM festival: Otten 1971:8 9. Cf. Popko 1978:23, 83 84. KBo 4.13 rev. iv.7 (sheep for the Lyre of the Divinity of the Father of the Sun God’): Badal 1991:80 no. 60; for translation see HKm:101. KUB 20.43, 3’: Popko 1978:83; m:101. 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. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates Hittite sources are e ually valuable for their comparatively detailed documentation of the cultic use of lyres. One tablet calls for lyre-music, accompanied by drums and cymbals, during a royal ritual connected with the Storm God of ippalanda.26 This ensemble predicts the pairing of lyre with frame-drum in several of the so-called Lyre-Player Group of Seals from eighth-century Cilicia (Chapter 21). Another drinking ritual has the royal couple sitting while a priestsinger plays the large lyre.27 In a third, cymbals are given to the royal couple while lyres and drums continue to play.28 Others again call for unaccompanied lyre-music.29 Several texts bring the lyre into connection with funerary and/or mortuary rituals.30 One deals with the decoration of a lyre with silver (perhaps sheeting) for such a use.31 Sometimes lamentation singers (l .me GALA) are speci ed as playing the instrument.32 One ritual calls for drinks for the soul of the dead, with lyre accompaniment.33 In other cases, however, lyre-music is speci cally prohibited.34 Thus, during a drinking ceremony for the soul of a deceased king or ueen, on the second day of the royal funerary rites after cremation and gathering of the bones, the lyre was re uired to be still.35 Nor were lyres to sound during a ritual for the death-goddess Lelwani (part of the AN.TA . UM festival).36 There was another such prohibition during the KI.LAM ( gatehouse’) festival, an autumnal event designed to display the unity of all parts of the core of the Hittite empire by bringing in regional performers and administrators to the Hittite capital, including male choruses and female choruses of maidens, each ceremonially presenting the results of their labor that sustained the kingdom. 37 Lyres variously large or small, with and without singing accompanied royal 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 KUB 20.19 51.87 rev. iv.12’ 14’: HKm:98. Lyre and drum speci ed together in what seems to be an entry-ritual: KBo 21.34 ii.9 10: HKm:100. KBo 20.85 rev. iv.1 5: HKm:98, cf. 102 103. KUB 56.46 ii.3’ 7’: HKm:99, cf. 102. HKm:99. HKm:103 104. KUB 30.25 KBo 34.68 KBo 39.4.25: Popko 1978:83; HKm:104. KBo 11.60 rev. 7’ 8’, 12’ 13’, 14’ 15’: HKm:102, cf. 161 162. HKm:103 104 with references. HKm:153 155. 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 speci ed for other funerary rituals, at least at certain unctures: see with references HKm:107. HKm:105, 155. uotation 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 H y k, for which see HKm:66 67 and pl. 9 10 nos. 29 30 ). 95 Chapter Six drinking ceremonies in honor of di erent gods at di erent unctures (including the great assembly’), as well as a procession of cult-ob ects. But on the second day of the festival there was to be no music at all.38 The yro-Hurrian phere Another ma or 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-ob ects, including lyres, and illuminate other phenomena relevant to the Kinnaru-Kinyras uestion. Hurrian is a non-Semitic, non-Indo-European language with debated a nities. Hurrian-speakers are attested already in the Old Akkadian period (ca. 2340 2159) around the Khabur river valley to the north of Mesopotamia. By the early second millennium, they were spreading westwards through North Syria and as far as the area later known as Cilicia in southern Anatolia.39 Key evidence comes from Alalakh (Tell Atchana), which in the early second millennium belonged to the kingdom of amhad, centered on Aleppo (where imri-Lim passed his youthful exile40). Although this city was largely Amorite at the time, its onomasticon indicates a ma or Hurrian cultural presence; within several centuries half the population bore such names.41 The city was then controlled by the substantially Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni, which emerged in the power vacuum following the Hittite sack of Babylon by Mursili I (ca. 1595). Mitanni came to dominate much of North Syria and southeast Anatolia in the fteenth and fourteenth centuries, and its cultural in uence in the larger region was considerable including on Cyprus, Ugarit, and Ki uwatna, an important Hurro-Luwian state that included the later Cilicia. The Hittite annexation of Ki uwatna occasioned a ma or Hurrian cultural and religious in ux in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries.42 Conse uently much of what we know about Hurrian culture comes, in this Syro-Hurrian form, from the Hittite archives. Already the texts of OB Mari, we saw, probably attest Hurrian musical engagement with Mesopotamia and the Amorite world.43 The same city has produced a collection of Hurrian incantations, which, along with later examples from 38 39 40 41 42 43 96 See Singer 1983 1984 1:74, 103 and n48, with cult-ob ect procession 89 97; Haas 1994:749, 757 758, 760, 762, 764 766; HKm:11, 100, 105, 154. See generally Wilhelm 1989. See p82. Dra korn (Kilmer) 1959; Dietrich and Loret 1966:188; Wilhelm 1989:13. Wilhelm 1989:71; Desideri and Jasink 1990:51 109 passim; KH:111 113 et passim. For the Ki uwatnan rituals, see Haas and Wilhelm 1974; Miller 2004; Strauss 2006. See p76. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates Ugarit and Hattusha, show that Hurrian incantatory craft extended from the Middle Euphrates through north Syria for over at least half a millennium. 44 Further evidence of Hurro-Mesopotamian musical interface comes from the songs of the umar i cle, as retold in Hittite, which integrate Mesopotamian gods and cosmological elements into an otherwise Hurrian armature.45 But the most spectacular evidence of Hurro-Mesopotamian musical hybridity comes from Ugarit the famous cult-hymns containing schematic representations of harmonic se uences based on the Akkadian terminology for musical intervals that goes back to the OB period or earlier. These terms were strongly Hurriani ed through several centuries of oral transmission.46 Although the hymns themselves were composed in Hurrian, the one complete specimen is addressed to Nikkal ( Ningal), an originally Sumerian moon goddess associated especially with Ur. These complex musical artifacts were more than learned curiosities, since they were archived according to the practical criterion of tuning, and therefore saw active liturgical use at Ugarit.47 This living tradition explains the not-infre uent appearance of Hurrian hymnic elements embedded in other Ugaritian ritual texts. There is an example of this in one of the tablets that record o erings for Kinnaru (alongside many other gods).48 So while Ugarit was apparently never a Mitannian vassal, Hurrian cultural in uence on the city was nevertheless uite extensive, with Hurrian hymnography vital to l’aspect lyri ue du culte whether or not, by the thirteenth century, the actual language was kept alive only by priests and other liturgists.49 The Hurrians may seem a world away from Greece. But the on of umar i’s startling and celebrated anticipation of the Hesiodic succession myth, including the castration of Ouranos, vividly illustrates the material’s potential relevance to Classicists.50 While estern Anatolia is likely to have been a productive 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Mayer 1996:208; cf. Wilhelm 1989:70 71. At Mari: Thureau-Dangin 1939. For Hurro-Hittite incantations, see below. At Ugarit, p119 120. G terbock 1948:132 133; Wilhelm 1989:59 60; EFH:105. The texts are conveniently collected and translated by Ho ner and Beckman 1998. That these were songs is shown by expressions like I sing (i ami i): see G terbock 1951:141; Ho ner 1988:143n1, 147; Beckman and Ho ner 1985:23. Hagel 2005:293n22. The recovered hymns, so far as we know, were all composed in the a l tu tuning. The same organi ing principle is seen in the MA song catalogue AT 10101 (Ebeling 1919 no. 158; Ebeling 1922; Kilmer 1965:267; Kilmer 1971:138). RS 24.643 KTU/CAT 1.148, 13 17 (see p120n51). Cf. Pardee 1996a:67, noting the hymnic classi cation of these verses by Laroche 1968:517 518. It is not certain, however, that this section of the text re ects an organic continuation of the earlier o ering rite: TR:789 and n47. Pardee 1996a:67, 75 76; contrast Mayer 1996:205 206, 209 210. Ugarit and Mitanni: HUS:619 21, 632 and n89 (Singer). CTH 344; Ho ner and Beckman 1998 no. 14, with further references on p95; ANET:120 121 ( in shi in ea en). Comparison with Hesiod: G terbock 1948; Walcot 1966:1 26; West 9 Chapter Six Ae ean interface, for Cyprus we should look rather to Cilicia/Ki uwatna and coastal North Syria, both before and after the EIA Aegean migrations. Cilicia is the setting, for instance, of eus’ battle against Typhon, which clearly echoes another early Anatolian myth, the ale of Illu an a.51 This Syro-Cilician theater is important for the Kinyras uestion, because several traditions trace his origin thence (Chapter 21). The innāru was certainly current among Syro-Ki uwatnan Hurrians. An administrative text from fteenth-century Alalakh records a PN beginning with in n ar (the rest is damaged) as a recipient or possessor of a royally owned vineyard.52 (Compare the use of Sum. bala as a name-forming element, including two cases of temple musicians.53) Although any ethnic a liations of this person are unknown, a roughly contemporary text from the same city puts down an individual’s profession as l innāru uli ( i in na ru u li). This is a hybrid linguistic formation using the productive Hurrian agent su x uli, and so means kinnarist’.54 The Hurro-Semitic fusion of this word, with its agentival force, echoes the active cultivation of Hurrian hymnography at nearby Ugarit. A second Hurro-Semitic agent form, l inirtalla , occurs in a Hittite lexical text. This must relate to the in ux of Hurrian ritual and cult in the NK, since Hittite, we saw, had its own word for lyre, inar. The meaning of l inirtalla is established by an ad acent entry, l NAR-a , where the Sumerogram NAR makes the e ective meaning innāru-singer’; similarly its counterpart in the Akkadian column, if correctly restored as a am ma- ru, is simply singer’.55 These correspondences show that lyric accompaniment was often a normal part of song; conversely, a kinnarist’ (l innāru uli, l inirtalla ) was not only a lyre-player, but a lyre sin er. This will be an illuminating parallel for the otherwise ambiguous singers’ of Ugarit, the Cypro-Greek form en rist s, and Kinyras’ himself.56 51 52 53 54 55 56 98 1966:18 31; EFH:279 283, with further literature at 103n120, 279n5; Bryce 2002:222 229; L pe Rui 2010:84 94. CTH 321; Ho ner and Beckman 1998 no. 1 (ANET:125 126); Apollodoros i rar 1.6.3, etc. Dietrich and Loret 1969a:48, no. 11 (Antakya 67), line 7: inar i? ; the amount of distribution cannot be read. Cf. Sivan 1984:237. Bala is well attested as a name-forming element from ED I through the N-S period: Hartmann 1960:165, 169, 182. Alalakh: AT 172.7: Dietrich and Loret 1966:192 (de ning as indische ither ) and 203n94; Laroche 1976 1977:148; Foxvog and Kilmer 1979 1988:440; von Soden 1988; DCPIL:58 with 61n29. For the su x, Wegner 2007:57 58, whose parallels make the translation innāru-maker’ sometimes given as an alternative seem less probable. Of course one and the same person might both make and play the instrument. KBo 1.52 obv. i.15 16. Hro ny 1917:52n1; Tischler et al. 1977:577 578; von Soden 1988; AMEL:87; Ivanov 1999:585; HKm:98 and n198. See p115 118, 210 211, 432 435. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates Two further Hurro-Hittite texts may bear on Syro-Hurrian innāruculture. One belongs to the It al i series, royal puri cation rites deriving from Ki uwatnan tradition, conducted by a divination/incantation-priest (A U). The text in uestion was a ritual for Ta mi ari, probably the Hurrian thronename of Tudhaliya III (ca. 1360 1344).57 Although largely damaged the moongod Ku u is mentioned for some reason one clause contains signs interpretable as the instrumental case i na ra a i ( with the lyre’); the next line, from an ad oining fragment, may contain the in unction hear ’ (Hurr. ha a i), though salve’ is also possible.58 A musical reading would accord well enough with the larger eneric context.59 The second is a liver-omen text from the citadel of Hattusha, again highly fragmentary (Aleppo is mentioned), whose apodosis ( then’ clause) contains the se uence i in na a ri.60 The divinatory context may make a musical interpretation seem unlikely.61 Still, not only was Kinyras himself considered a diviner, but the Kinyradai of Roman Paphos (and doubtless earlier) practiced divination by entrails (extispicy) an art which they believed came to them from ilicia.62 There are also signs that in third-millennium Mesopotamia extispicy was coordinated with the singing of Emesal prayers/laments.63 Even without these two highly suggestive texts, the Hurro-Semitic agentforms establish Ki uwatna and North Syria as loci of a Hurriani ed innāruculture. We may thus presume that, in the many Hittite ritual texts that call for the lyre, those of Hurrian extraction presuppose not Hatt./Hitt. inar, but innāru; or at least that this would have been true for the Hurrian archetypes from which they descend. In one sense, of course, the semantic distinction was slight, since Hittite scribes must have regarded innāru as basically synonymous with inar and annāru 64 But given the Hittite practice of maintaining adopted cults using the appropriate traditional idiom, signi cant contextual di erences probably remained. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Haas 1984:6. KUB 47.40 obv. 10 (Haas 1984:271 274 no. 50, exact nd-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 ad oining piece, KBo 629 KUB 45.45 (Trémouille 2005 no. 31), of which he writes: ha a i in line 2 in Bo-Orthographie als Imperativ h re ’ berset t werden kann. (Im Mit anni -Brief wird ha - nie plene geschrieben; in Bo Hattusha texts kann das erb a h ren’ mit gleichlautendem a - salben’ verwechselt werden, das oft plene geschrieben wird.) The sister series, It a i (also puri cation rituals), is characteri ed by hymn-like recitations : Wilhelm 1989:72 73. KBo 33.109 right col. line 6; de Martino 1992:82 83 no. 37. G. Wilhelm (communication, January 2, 2014), to whom I owe the reference. Tacitus istories 2.3. See p401. PHG:171 172. See p77 79, 89 90. 99 Chapter Six As a case-in-point, we may take the so-called Ritual and Pra er to Ishtar of ine eh, an invocational rite that also provides crucial evidence for Ishtarcult on LBA Cyprus (see Chapter 15). The deity in uestion, Ishtar of Nineveh, was a Mesopotamiani ed version of the Hurrian goddess Shaushka. She is invoked in many Hurro-Hittite magical texts against plague and curses, often containing Hurrian incantations and technical terms; and she herself bore the title woman of incantations’.65 These same texts show that singer-musicians were uite constant participants in her cult.66 Ishtar-Shaushka was also associated with a Hurrian genre of songs called in a u i a, named for a kind of bird (perhaps dove).67 In the Ritual and Pra er to Ishtar of ine eh, immediately after the damaged opening, singer-men’ (l .me NAR) are instructed to perform as the priest makes ritual preparations. When his incantation is nished, they play again, with the instruments now being speci ed as al alturi (cymbals ) and the lyre (gi .dINANNA).68 Given the Hittite lexical con unction of l NAR-a and l inirtalla , we may accept this text as evidence, if only palimpsestic, of SyroHurrian innāru-culture. The Hurro-Hittite texts are also important for having produced our most detailed evidence for the processes by which cults were transplanted from one place to another dividing’ a god so that it could take up residence in a new temple while simultaneously remaining in an earlier home. The key witness, recently dubbed sta lishin a e em le for the Goddess of the i ht, is vital for also attesting the concomitant transfer of cult-music.69 The Goddess of the Night was regarded as a form of Ishtar, although she e ually exhibits local (Hurro-Hittite) features distinct from her Mesopotamian counterpart (notably an infernal aspect).70 The exact occasion of the text in uestion is unknown, though some would connect it with Tudhaliya I/II (early fourteenth-century) and a division of the Goddess of the Night of Ki uwatna-city to establish a double in amu a.71 Later Hattusili III (ca. 1267 1237) cloned an Ishtar of amu a for a new cult at Urikina.72 While both cases were presumably driven by speci c geopolitical motivations, they 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 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. Wegner 1981:155 156; Beckman 1998:6n73. Beckman 1998:6 and n70. KUB 15.35 KBo 2.9, obv. i.16 18, rev. iv.29 30 (CS 1 no. 65, 3, 16). For the identi cation of the al alturi, HKm:124 128. CTH 481: Kronasser 1963 (section numbers used here); Miller 2004:272 312; trans. CS 1 no. 70 (B. J. Collins), .v. for further references, adding Beal 2002; Miller 2008; Pongrat -Leisten 2011:91 93. Beal 2002:201 202; Miller 2004:363 396, 438; Miller 2008:69 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 ( uotation). KUB 21.17 ii.5 8; Beal 2002:198; Miller 2004:360n514, 363 393; Miller 2008:69 70. 100 Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates must e ually represent more general and far-reaching procedures.73 Thus, while the present text derives from a real occasion, it also envisions other such endeavors in the future ( When someone settles the deit y separately, for her/ it th is is the ritual, 32).74 Composed by a priest of the goddess ( 1), the ritual prescribes in minute detail and at great length the preparation of a near-identical copy of the goddess’s statue and all necessary furniture, ewelry, clothing, vessels, and other accessories for her new home ( 2 8). There follows a series of rites, o erings, and sacri ces in ected with considerable seven-magic designed rst to draw the goddess into her old temple and propitiate her; and then persuade her to divide your divinity, come to these new temples, take an honored place ( 21). The goddess’s infernal aspect is shown by o erings in ritual pits, from which she herself is somehow drawn.75 Her international pro le and cultural ancestry, however, is e ually evident, fossili ed it seems in Hurrian ritual poetics: when invited to her new temple, the goddess is evoked (by seven roads and seven paths ) from ancient Mesopotamian and Elamite cult-centers (Akkad, Babylon, Kish/ ursagkalamma, Susa, 24). Crucially, the new goddess’s attributa include three beloved musical instruments ( 4): a set of A A A (probably an Akkadogram for Hitt. al alturi, cymbals); a set of u u al (drums lutes ); and an ar ammi (probably drum).76 While these instruments are not written with divine determinatives, they must have en oyed cult-devotions analogous to the divini ed instruments of Mesopotamia and Ugarit. For a number of Hittite ritual texts, deriving from both Hattic and Hurrian cult-practice,77 document o erings for instruments and anointings with oil.78 In one salving rite, a soothsayer anoints both the al alturi and ar ammi.79 Magical properties are attested for the u u al, with a remarkable parallel surely a survival in the later Phrygian mysteries of Kybele and 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Cf. Miller 2004:260. For the historical possibilities of the several attested expansions,’ see Miller 2004:350 439, leaving the occasion of the ritual text itself an open uestion (437), and seeing the text as the priest’s outline for a speci c upcoming ritual; but cf. 530 on the Ki uwatna rituals as guides for future performances. For the practice in comparative ANE perspective, see Ho ner 1967; Bachvarova forthcoming. For possible identi cations of these instruments, G terbock 1995; HKm:108 120, 124 128. This would seem to suggest that the veneration of lyres and other cult-ob ects 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-ob ects. See HKm:100 101 and above, p94 95. KBo 33.167, rev. iv.16’ 20’; HKm:101. 101 Chapter Six Attis.80 Whether or not the actual instruments dedicated to the Goddess of the Night were themselves ever played, rather than simply venerated, their placement in the new temple certainly indicates a parallel transposition of the appropriate cult-music. For when the goddess has come to her new temple, a number of o erings are made to the accompaniment of precisely the al alturi and ar ammi ( 26). We may reasonably deduce that such formal divisions of gods typically entailed parallel musical transplantations. The dividing ritual presents, mutatis mutandis, ust the context and combination of elements needed to explain the arrival to Cyprus of a Divine innāru beloved of Aphrodite’ recalling Kinyras’ intimate relationship with the goddess, and the Divine Balang Ninigi ibara’s treatment as Inanna’s counselor and husband.81 While no stringed-instrument is speci ed for the Goddess of the Night, other forms of Ishtar-cult must often have employed chordophone music, given the persistent description of lyres and perhaps harps as Inanna-instrument’.82 Indeed the gi .dINANNA is the instrument most fre uently attested in Hittite texts, by a wide margin, as the bene ciary of o ering and salving rituals. And the evidence for its use in ritual typically royal is abundant. This clearly privileged position of the gi .dINANNA among the Hittites may be compared with the evidently uni ue divini ation of the innāru at Ugarit. Also illuminating is the Hurrian veneration of cult-ob ects more generally, including thrones, footstools, incense-containers and -stands, model temples, and many other things still unidenti ed.83 One Hurrian text from Ugarit, which will be important later for its evidence about Alashiyan cult, is a list of gods receiving sacri ce. These include, besides the WS El, Kothar, and several Hurrian deities, two cult-ob ects used for the preparation and burning of incense.84 That they were regularly venerated in the Hurrian cult of Ki uwatna is shown by their recurring appearance in Hurro-Hittite texts relating to the divine-circles 80 81 82 83 84 The u u al is central to a ritual text of Luwian extraction which obscurely describes a procedure of lling the instrument with wine and beer (at di erent stages), ltering it into another u u al, with the resulting li uid consumed by the god or cult o ciants depending on the outcome: KUB 25.37 CTH 771; see G terbock 1995:63 71; HKm:111. Compare Clement of Alexandria hortation 2.15.3 ( κ τυμπάνου αγον ἐκ κυμ άλου πιον, I have eaten from the drum, I have drunk from the cymbal ); Firmicus Maternus n the rror of Profane Reli ions 18.1. See p184 and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2d and 23f. Cf. the new Astarte hymn from Ugarit (RIH 98/02), which calls for praise of the goddess by the sound of the n l : see p52n26. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:103 115, focusing on those involved with bird o erings/puri cation rituals. RS 24.274, 14, 16. Laroche 1968:504 507; SHC 2 no. 65; cf. AP:55. See further p373 374. 102 Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates ( aluti) of the storm-god Teshup, his consort Hepat, and Shaushka-Ishtar.85 Similarly an o ering-list for the cult of Hepat of Aleppo and Hatti and her circle prescribes bread-o erings for the lyre and other cult-ob ects.86 These texts present clear parallels to the pairing of Divine Censer and Divine Kinnaru in the Ugaritian pantheon texts.87 The Hurro-Hittite material, when combined with the importance of Hurrian hymnography at Ugarit, urges us to regard Kinnaru there as locally embodying the lyric dimension of a complex cultural amalgam prevailing in North Syria during and before the thirteenth-century. Finally, another Hurro-Hittite text arguably provides the most vivid example, outside of Sumerian sources, for the mythological treatment in song of a cultob ect. This is the on of il er, a damaged episode of the so-called umar i cle 88 It parallels the on of edammu and the on of lli ummi in that Silver is a son of Kumarbi who challenges the storm-god Teshup; evidently triumphing at rst, 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). . Haas is thus probably right that the song personi es and mythologi es silver; of various animated, magical metals and stones found in Hurro-Hittite ritual, silver was the cathartic material ar e cellence, used to ward o 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- gurines endowed the proceedings with a cosmogonic dimension, and that such procedures could e ectively generate or replay myths.92 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 See Laroche 1968:506 507; cf. Laroche 1948:116 (line 13) with note on 118, 122 (line 29). A aluti is a more or less canonical grouping of gods, following a de nite se uence and serving as a kind of template for o ering rituals: Wilhelm 1989:65. KBo 14.142 i.20 33: Haas 1994:555; HKm:101. See p5, 120n53, 121, 124, 283, 512n119. CTH 364, multiple fragments: see Ho ner 1988; Ho ner and Beckman 1998 no. 16. See the detailed comparison of James and van der Slui s 2012. Haas 1982:167 168, 177; cf. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:38 41; Strauss 2006:179 180. Control of the sun or moon characteri es magical ability in some Greco-Roman sources: Aristophanes louds 749 750 with Dover 1968:192; Hippokrates n the acred isease 1.69, 1.77 (I owe this reference to A. Hollmann). The darkening or disappearance of sun and moon also characteri es malevolent theophany in Mesopotamian Emesal prayers/laments, which were often performed at liminal moments (eclipse, sunrise): PHG:30, 175 180. See p25 26. 103 Chapter Six The Syro-Hurrian and Ki uwatnan material seems to present all essential conditions for linking the sacred lyres of ritual to Kinyras the cult-musician of myth, and for connecting this in turn to still older Mesopotamian cult-music practices.93 While the Hittite archives are valuable generally for their detailed information about lyre-cult in action, the constellation of elements ust considered has enhanced probative value, given Syro-Hurrian cultural in uence at Ugarit, and the proximity to Cyprus of Cilicia (Ki uwatna), which one set of traditions saw as Kinyras’ original home (see Chapter 21). Some form of Ishtarcult, uite possibly a speci cally Syro-Hurrian strain, provides one (n.b.) likely context for the importation to Alashiya of a Divine Knr as re ecting an essential performative dimension in the rites of the goddess, who was herself, in some forms, closely allied to the ideology of LBA kingship.94 ‘Asiatic’ Lyres in Bronze Age gypt Here I shall brie y sketch the history of musical contact between Egypt and Asia’ during the second millennium, especially the di usion 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 speci c 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 ust 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 un usti ed. 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. Plato caricatured Egypt as a musical Never-never Land where no innovation was ever permitted.95 But Egyptian interest in foreign music is attested from the earliest times. Already in the OK, while tomb-paintings establish curved-harps, end-blown utes, double (parallel) clarinets, and sistra as basic to the native 93 94 95 10 See further p280 291, 328 329, 380 383, 392 400 . See further p37 40, 375 383, 473 479. Plato a s 656e 657f. Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates tradition,96 we read of royal patronage of musicians and dancers imported from the south (Nubians and pygmies).97 As to musical exchange with the Levant, this goes back at least to the MK, when the Beni-Hassan tomb-painting rst depicts a lyre-player in an Asiatic’ troupe that con rms 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 fty cult-performers of Asiatic’ origin (the term could include not only the Levant, but Syria and Mesopotamia).98 The BeniHassan painting has prompted the suggestion99 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 pla ue (Figure 11 4.1p), for instance, would represent an Egyptiani ing fashion in the Levant during the period of NK control (with the Eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls following suit100). But the comparable, early lyres of the Inand k vase (Figure 7) make the SyroLevantine 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 The Hyksos period (ca. 1648 1540), when a still-mysterious Asiatic’ dynasty established itself in the eastern Nile Delta, must have marked a new stage of Egyptian-Levantine musical interaction.102 As matters stand, however, the great mass of evidence dates from the NK, making it impossible to ignore imperial expansion to the north, initiated in the Eighteenth Dynasty by Thutmosis III (1490 1436), as a ma or determining factor. The forceful ac uisition of Levantine musicians worthy of royal service is proven by a record of Amenhotep 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 HMI:89 95; AEMI:12 17, 36 62 (for the several varieties of curved-harp that developed over time); MMAE:24 37. von Lieven 2008:156. Schneider 2003:276 278; cf. MMAE:123, 125; von Lieven 2008:156, 158. Brown 1981:387 388. See p258 272. Cf. the female double-piper who plays before a local (Egyptian Canaanite ) imperial governor on a fourteenth-century Egyptiani ing ivory pla ue from Sharuhen, near Ga a (MAIP:95 96, g. III.15). The eleventh-century ( ) ale of Wen Amun represents the king of Byblos as maintaining an Egyptian songstress, Tentnau, who entertains the title character ( 1 no. 41; cf. Hickmann 1954b:286; MMAE:126). Hickmann 1961:33; MgB 2/1:16; GG 5:1042 (Kubik); Helck 1971:496 remains agnostic. 105 Chapter Six II (ca. 1438 1412), itemi ing many musiciennes among the captives of his rst campaign: Noblemen 550, their wives 240, Canaanites 640, sons of noblemen 232, daughters of noblemen 323, songstresses of the noblemen of all foreign countries 270 with their instruments of pleasure of silver and gold, together 2214.103 At nearly fteen percent of the total, songstresses’ were clearly desirable booty, deliberately gathered. Doubtless this text represents a more general pattern under other pharaohs. Asiatic’ musicians will also have attended the various foreign princesses wedded by the pharaohs, for instance those of Mitanni with whose marriages several Amarna letters are concerned.104 But NK ethno-musical diversity was not restricted to the royal sphere. Numerous paintings from elite contexts (tomb, domestic, and other) represent ban uets, many for the deceased and/or the Feast of the alley (a celebration of the dead),105 featuring mainly female musical ensembles that appear to be deliberately cosmopolitan. They play various combinations of Syro-Levantine instruments lyres, double-pipes, lutes, and Mesopotamian(i ing) angle-harps alongside a contemporary form of Egyptian curved-harp.106 Representative is a Theban tomb-painting, again from the reign of Amenhotep II (Figure 9).107 If Syro-Levantine lyres did not catch on in the MK, they clearly did so now; no fewer than six actual instruments, more or less intact, have been recovered, the earliest from sixteenth-century Thebes.108 As at OB Mari, imported musicians will have been pri ed for their ability to provide variety. One must therefore suppose that Syro-Levantine musical traditions were perpetuated within NK Egypt in some form.109 Accordingly foreign musicians can be indicated by non-Egyptian dress.110 This also explains the Egyptian retention of the Canaanite loanword represented as n n r which, though not attested before ca. 1200 (Pa rus Anastasi), must be centuries older.111 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 10 Helck 1955:1305; cf. Lawergren 1993:55; von Lieven 2008:158 (translation used here). Manniche 1989:26; Green 1992:219; Manniche 2000:234. Manniche 2000:234. 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 g. 2, 21, 26, 30 31, 52 54; Teeter 1993:83 ( g. 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. MgB 2/1:30 31 g. 8; cf. Teeter 1993:80. For the surviving lyres, see with further references AMEL:128 130. Helck 1971:496 498; von Lieven 2008:156, 159. Helck 1971:497; MMAE:91 92; von Lieven 2008:156. See p56. Another word current in the MK, d d t, is sometimes interpreted as lyre’; but this is uite uncertain (MMAE:125). Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates Figure 9 o mo o tan mu ca en em e w th at c yre. a a nt ng from om 3 , he an ecro o , re gn of menhote ca. 1 38 1 12 . Drawn from MgB 2/1 30 31 fig. 8. Several NK texts refer to performances by foreign musicians as part of Egyptian festivals.112 et the desire to hear exotic music clearly did not entail a complete segregation of foreign and Egyptian practice. In the period’s paintings it is often impossible to distinguish between Egyptian and foreign.113 What do we make of women who play lyres and other Levantine instruments, often alongside Egyptian harps, but wear Egyptian-style hair and traditional Egyptian sheathdresses, or a variety of other garments fashionable in the NK 114 Are they acculturated foreigners; natives who have embraced novel fashions; or a mixture of the two While lyres and angle-harps appear to be shown in mainly convivial scenes, lutes at least, played by men, were sometimes integrated in hieratic contexts, oining the traditional curved-harp.115 These trends persisted into the Amarna period, when, however, novel twists were induced by the revolutionary theology of Akhenaten (1364 1347), who proclaimed the Aten or Sun-Disk as sole god, established a new capital at 112 113 114 115 See with references von Lieven 2008:158. on Lieven 2008:159 160. MgB 2/1:68 71 (nos. 39 41), 78 79 (no. 61); MMAE g. 27; Teeter 1993 g. 4-6 8 (sic). MgB 2/1:28 29 (no. 7), 42 43 (no. 20), 82 83 (no. 51), 132 133 (nos. 101 102); MMAE g. 40. Cf. Manniche 1989:26. 10 Chapter Six Akhetaten (el-Amarna), and cultivated an innovative iconography in support. Of the huge number of reliefs originating in the palace and Aten temples (including those at Karnak and Luxor), and further images from o cials’ tombs, a startling proportion show musical scenes transpiring in temples and especially around the palace, where a variety of musical ensembles play before the royal family during ban uets and festivals.116 Given the period’s novel artistic conventions, and that this is our rst detailed view of Egyptian royal life, we often do not know how far iconography re ects musical innovation, even if this seems likely enough in general. This reservation applies for instance to unparalleled details of instrument morphology, and playing positions.117 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 re ecting a ma or aspect of female palace life (as at OB Mari), but e ually serving as conspicuous iconographic markers of ethnic diversity.119 Within six rooms one sees an Egyptian curved-harp, ve Syro-Levantine lyres, two Mesopotamian(i ing) angle-harps, six lutes, and a giant’ lyre apparently introduced in this period, and perhaps best paralleled by the instruments of the Inand k vase (Figure 7).120 Most have minor variations to enhance the impression of diversity. There is also signi cant di erentiation in their distribution. The women of the upper’ chamber have long curling hair; two wear three-tiered Levantine robes, and one plays a Mesopotamian(i ing) angle-harp; the giant lyre is found in their ad oining 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 con rmed 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. 116 117 118 119 120 See especially Manniche 1989; MMAE:84 96; Green 1992; Manniche 2000. Cf. MMAE:88 89. See the analysis of MMAE:85. Davies 1908, pl. I , cf. III (tomb of A ); MMAE:86, g. 50. The bull-lyres of Sumer were long vanished. Some posit an unattested Levantine analog (DCPIL: 60n5: cf. p51 above), though NK Hittite cultural in uence on North Syria, even before Suppiluliuma I (ca. 1344 1322), may be a su cient 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 oversi ed Minoan lyre on the Chania pyxis (Chania M 2308, Late Minoan III: SIAG:2, 16 and g. 2b), but it is hard to trust these proportions; MMAE:91 92; Green 1992:218 (Anatolian); AMEL:141 142. 108 Figure 10 wo harem a artment w th mu ca n trument . e ef from the om of , re gn of henaten, ca. 13 13 . Drawn from Da e 1908 . Chapter Six Similar diversity characteri es musical scenes set elsewhere in the palace, although now male groups are also found, both Egyptian and foreign. The latter wear conical headgear, long narrow sleeves, the same triple-tiered Levantine robes as women in the foreign harem, and again play (in pairs) the giant’ lyre.121 Female Egyptian groups continue the iconography of earlier tomb-paintings with their combination of Asiatic and Egyptian instruments.122 Some of these groups were probably drawn from the Egyptian harem’, which exhibits ust the same variety.123 Such female groups must also have been patroni ed by earlier pharaohs. But with Akhenaten as the terrestrial embodiment of the Sun-Disk, palace life took on a newly sacred dimension. This is vividly illustrated by the male palace musicians who are always depicted with blindfolds. This detail is clearly reminiscent of the traditional (MK) representation of temple-harpers as actually blind; the latter convention probably had some basis in reality, although it became stereotyped in iconography and literary sources.124 At Amarna, clearly, male musicians were actually blindfolded, as they are shown ithout blindfolds when not playing. The practice is best explained as symbolic blindness’ while performing in the presence of the god-king, whose splendor was perhaps overwhelming when hymned as a god.125 Female musicians, never blindfolded, were apparently better able to withstand his radiance. This clear collision of musical practice and religious meaning encourages further correlations of theology and music-iconography. Compare the sistra of this period, which lose their traditional Hathor-heads.126 The cosmopolitanism of Akhenaten’s court-music may echo the universalism of the Aten-hymns, which refer to the many languages embraced by the Sun-Disk’s domain, and to kings coming from Syria and Kush to venerate him ( Singers, musicians, shout with oy in all temples in Akhetaten ).127 While musical diversity must have been cultivated by other Great Kings of the time, Akhenaten evidently made the most of musical forces available from his imperial holdings and royal peers abroad. The foreign male musicians are especially diagnostic. Since the massive, 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 MMAE:90. Manniche 1989:26; MMAE:85. Although no foreign female groups are certainly identi ed 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 g. 53. MMAE:100 101. Manniche 1978; Manniche 1989:30 31; Green 1992:218. Male palace musicians are shown only on blocks from Karnak. MMAE:86. uotation: hort mn to the Aten, trans. Lichtheim 1973 2:91 (here following Schar 1922:68). Cf. MMAE:92; Manniche 2000:235. The Great mn is CS 1 no. 28. ersions of the hort mn: Davies 1908:25 35. 110 Peripherals, Hybrids, Cognates unwieldy giant lyres will have been cultic instruments in their native traditions (so in the Inand k vase, and like the later Ethiopian e ena), foreign religious lyric’ has evidently been repurposed for Aten-worship. This trend could also explain the increased appearance of Levantine lutes and the new appearance of lyres in the hands of men.128 Others see here a purposeful genderblurring, in accord with a larger unisex’ tendency in Amarna art, whereby Egyptian male ensembles now emulated the convivial female groups of earlier tomb-paintings.129 128 129 AEMI:91; Manniche 1971:156 g. 2, 161 g. 9; Manniche 1989:27. Distinguished only by the lack of double-pipes, which had erotic associations in Egyptian iconography: Manniche 1971:155 156 g. 1 2; Manniche 1989:26; MMAE:89. 111 7 Kinnaru of Ugarit H a in no sur e ed the lyre-culture of the wider Syro-Levantine sphere, we may now turn to Ugarit, home of the Divine Kinnaru itself. Since Kinnaru does not certainly appear in personi ed form in any of the city’s narrative texts although I shall suggest several possible cases1 we must approach him rst through the evidence for the innāru itself. Not only does Ugarit provide the richest such material for the LBA, the relevant texts provide di erent perspectives from what was seen at Ebla, Mari, Hattusha, and in Egypt. Whereas Ugarit’s economic documents are rather meager in musical matters, a number of ritual, mythological, and paramythological texts considerably illuminate the cultic role and associated symbolism of instruments and music, including the innāru.2 The King and His Musicians The king’s control of Ugarit’s economy, in the word’s broadest sense, is such that the city seems largely an extension of the royal household.3 This casts a shadow on the ritual texts too, where the king dominates the action4 while singers and other cultic actors are only rarely mentioned.5 This royal bias recalls the sole-o ciant pose struck by Gudea, Shulgi, and Ishme-Dagan, and vividly illustrates the religious potency of the king’s person. His ritual actions involved and 1 2 3 4 5 See p130 131, 139 140, 443 445. General studies of music at Ugarit: Tsumura 1973, 176 178; Caubet 1987b; Koitabashi 1992a; Caubet 1994; Caubet 1996; Koitabashi 1996; Koitabashi 1998; Caubet 1999; Caubet 2014. HUS:423 439 (Helt er), 467 475 ( ita). del Olmo Lete 1999 passim. This point is often and rightly stressed: ella 1979 1984:473; Pardee 2000:77 78; RCU:57. See RS 24.250 KTU/CAT 1.106.15 17 (Herdner 1978:26 30; RCU:53 56), with discussion of Koitabashi 1996:226 227; Koitabashi 1998:384. Also RS 2.002 KTU/CAT 1.23.15, 18, perhaps 21, RTU:324 335, with further literature on 324; a qdš-priest sings in RS 24.256 KTU/CAT 1.112.18 21 (RCU:36 38). Further evidence may be found in Clemens 1993:68n21; Koitabashi 1996. 113 Chapter Seven induced an occasional uasi-divini ation to bridge the ontological gap when he represented the nation before the gods in the cult. 6 As Pardee puts it: It was by this sacred role (or, perhaps, because his royal status already had a sacred aspect to it) that the living king participated in the divine; that is, on the ideological level at least, he served the divine meals in which he and the divinities participated, thus establishing their communion.7 et while the king’s real and extensive participation in liturgy is undoubted, the clergy’ were obviously indispensable for its detailed execution. It is rather in the economic documents that their vital presence, and that of court-musicians, is best attested.8 Palace lists record a Singer of Ugarit’ the only musician known by name suggesting a high o cial of some sort, comparable perhaps to the Chief Singer of Mari, with his extra-musical organi ational and diplomatic duties.9 Also attested is a singer or singers of Astarte’ ( r trt).10 While Astarte is somewhat elusive in Ugaritian m tholo ical texts, she is a de nite presence in rituals, including several that govern her entry into the royal palace.11 She appears to be a protective goddess to the kings of Ugarit, because of her power of breaking enemies. 12 Her singer’, appearing in a text recording distributions of cloth probably for the ritual investiture of a divine-statue suggests a master musician presiding over her cult (the new hymn to Astarte calls for the goddess to be celebrated by the sound of the n l’).13 One naturally thinks of the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wyatt 2007:63, 69. Pardee 2000:77 78. Such texts rarely make a cult context clear. But as singing is speci ed in Ugarit’s rituals, and there is much comparative evidence for cult-musicians in the ANE, it is generally assumed that singers listed in the city’s economic texts were indeed of this kind. See the balanced review of SURS:312 313, concluding that as n ml , their sphere of service as a group could include both temple and palace. Singer of Ugarit: RS 19.16 (KTU/CAT 4.609; PRU 5 no. 11), line 37 (mnn r u rt); cf. Caubet 1996:17 ( ui devait mar uer l’identité du clan ou de la ville au cours d’une liturgie sociale ); Caubet 1999:13 ( le titre semble indi uer le caract re o ciel, lié la capitale (ou au royaume) d’Ougarit ); SURS:448 451 ( may actually indicate a singer in the service of the city rather than of its temples, 450); Koitabashi 1998:365 366; McGeough and Smith 2011:331 335; Caubet 2014:182, comparing the Chief Singer of Mari. Singer of Astarte: KTU/CAT 4.168, 4 (RS 15.82): SURS:313 and n861, 346 348, with references, and 347n1019 for whether a singular or plural should be read; McGeough and Smith 2011:125 126; Koitabashi 2012 (Japanese, English abstract), addressing also the new hymn to Astarte (for a preliminary reading of which see Pardee 2007). For a current survey see Smith 2015. Koitabashi 2012:53 ( uotation). RIH 98/02: see p52n26, 102n82. 114 Kinnaru of Ugarit relationship between Aphrodite and Kinyras. Alternatively, if a plural reading is correct, one could look to the cult-musicians of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls who lead o ering-processions to an Astarte-type goddess. Such scenes would also provide a plausible parallel for the female singers (šrt) which some would see in two texts (but there remain contextual di culties with these readings).14 The typical designation of Ugaritian guilds was bn sons of ’ where actual heredity must sometimes have been operative, although a metaphorical sense was probably at least e ually common.15 The construction may be attested for singers ( n rm), although the reading is uncertain.16 In any case, groups of singers (šrm) and cymbalists (m lm) were certainly included, alongside priests ( hnm) and diviners (qdšm), among the king’s men’ ( n ml ).17 This term denoted o ciants supported by the palace, receiving land and other distributions in exchange for labor, services, and provisioning of goods. Such a corporate status for the singers is illustrated by a tax that they, along with the city’s other professional groups, had to pay in ful llment of a treaty between Ugarit and the Hittite kingdom. Similarly, the singers, like other groups, had to contribute an archer to the city’s guard.18 Some singers apparently and not surprisingly resided in the palace itself.19 That they provided a more secular range of entertainment, in addition to their liturgical duties, is probable,20 although the two spheres may not always have been sharply delimited. That cymbalists are distinguished in the economic texts makes us wonder about the other instruments necessary for ritual music. Lyres, double-pipes, frame-drums, and other percussion are variously attested in two paramythological’ and ritual texts connected with the cult of dead kings.21 Are these 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For the bowls, see Chapter 11. The texts in uestion are KTU/CAT 4.360 (RS 18.050) and KTU/ CAT 4.410 (RS 18.250A B): see PRU 5:105 106 (no. 80, line 12); SURS:438 439, 440 443 (noting for the second text that it is hard to envisage a scenario, lurid or otherwise, in which some 78 female singers would be allocated to or levied from so many citi ens, 442); McGeough and Smith 2011:246 (treating šrt as a TN in the rst text) and 276 278 ( archers in the second). Levine 1963a:211 212. RS 2.002 KTU/CAT 1.23, 2. See Tsumura 1973:24 25, 174 175; Koitabashi 1998:367. Twelve examples of singers (šrm) were known to Helt er 1982:137n28. For further discussion and sources, see Koitabashi 1998:365 368; HUS:433 436 (Helt er), 300 (Merlo/ ella); SURS:311 314, 370 and n1121 (re ecting the thesis that šrm were instrument-builders, 314 and n864). Note also KTU/CAT 4.399 (RS 18.138), an obscure text that mi ht deal with land distribution for singers: McGeough and Smith 2011:269n144. KTU/CAT 4.610 (RS 19.017): Helt er 1982:137; Koitabashi 1998:367; HUS:429 430 (Helt er); SURS:451. Caubet 2014:181 and n20. HUS:301 (Merlo/ ella). See p134 135, 443 444. 115 Chapter Seven other musician categories simply unattested as yet in the administrative texts This seems unlikely, given the do en or more occurrences of singer(s)’. Rather, singer’ must imply the use of various instruments much like Sum./Akk. nar/ n ru, with which Ugaritic šr was lexically e uated.22 There is a good parallel from the fourth-century temple of Astarte at Kition on Cyprus, where only singers’ (šrm) are listed among the personnel, despite the considerable musical variety implied by the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls.23 Similarly the various musical guilds’ whose establishment the Chronicler attributes to David are grouped under the general heading of singers’; they are to be e uipped with instruments of song’ (kel ir), which include the inn r, n el, and me ilta m (cymbals).24 The implications of this are con rmed, and extended, by the Septuagint, where the normal translation of singers’ is Gk. salt ido a word whose derivation from s llein, pluck’, clearly indicates the primacy of chordophones among the instruments of music’.25 It is uite certain, therefore, that the invisible innāru-players of Ugarit were reckoned as a subset of singers, and were indeed the singers ar e cellence.26 Recall the Hittite ritual texts, in which lyre-music is very often speci ed, with or without other instruments.27 Here lyre-playing can be described by the same verb used for singing, and in several case both seem to be implied simultaneously.28 Elsewhere the accompaniment of singing by lyre-music is explicit.29 Especially illuminating is the lexical e uation of Hurro-Hittite l inirtalla with l nar-a and Akk. a am ma- ru: that is, singer’ kinnarist’.30 One may conclude, therefore, that at Ugarit lyre-players were as vital to the cult as cymbalists (and pipers and other percussionists). But this e ually 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 For the e uation, Helt er 1982:137; SURS:312n856 with further references. Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1, A.6 with comments on 111 112 (superseding KAI 37). The proposal of van den Branden 1956:91 92, to see a payment to lyre-players’ (KNRM) at B7, has been abandoned: see p57n58. 1 Chronicles 15:16, 19 21. Noted by Koitabashi 1998:370, cf. 377, concluding that to sing’ which could express singing to the accompaniment of musical instruments, is e uivalent to the term music’ in modern times. For singers’ αλτ δοί, a few examples may su ce: 1 Chronicles 15:16 (David appoints το ς αλτ δο ς ἐν ργάνοις δ ν, νά λαις κα κινύραις κα κυμ άλοις ; 9:33, 13:8; 2 Chronicles 5:12 13; etc. But there is a counter-example at Psalms 68:25, where singers (šarîm) are distinguished from instrumentalists/chordophonists (n enîm) and drummers (t t): noted by Koitabashi 1996:223. HKm:97 106 passim. HKm:98, 99 100. Cf. Popko 1978:83; HKm:100 106 passim. KBo 1.52 obv. i.15 16: see p98. 116 Kinnaru of Ugarit con rms that the cymbalists, being separately speci ed, were a group apart.31 This may seem surprising, yet there is a striking Biblical parallel.32 The cymbalists Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, while they and their instruments are subordinated to the general categories of singers’ and instruments of song’, nevertheless occupy a lead position in the temple music described by the Chronicler: Asaph was the chief, and second to him echariah, Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with n ellyres and inn r-lyres; Asaph was to sound the cymbals.33 A similar hierarchy is elaborated at 15:16 22, where the singers Heman, Asaph, and Ethan were to sound bron e cymbals, 34 while the more numerous n el and inn r players are said to be kindred of the second order (18).35 Even if this material is secondary to the traditions about Davidic music in 2 Samuel,36 the very peculiarity of the arrangement makes it uite certain that the managerial prominence of cymbalists in I Chronicles perpetuates an ancient regional practice, one form of which was also current at Ugarit. This is con rmed by the archaeological record, with more than twenty actual instruments recovered not only from Ugarit itself, but other LBA sites in Syria, Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, and Cyprus (n.b.).37 It might be suggested that their bra en clash served as a call for attention, clearing the air’ for the sacred songs to follow; or that cymbals were endowed with extra-musical powers, serving as a link between 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Cymbals (m ltm) are mentioned in two texts: RS 2. 014 3.363 KTU/CAT 1.3 i.18 22; RS 24.252 KTU/CAT 1.108, 4. For general discussion of cymbalists, including the several pairs of instruments discovered at Ugarit itself (one in la maison du Grand Pr tre’), see Caubet 1987a; Caubet 1987b:734, 739 740; Koitabashi 1992b; Caubet 1994:131; Caubet 1996:10; Koitabashi 1998:375; Caubet 2014:175. Noted by Tsumura 1973:178; Koitabashi 1992b:4: Koitabashi 1996:222. 1 Chronicles 16:5. 1 Chronicles 15:19: ο αλτ δοί ιμαν, σα κα ιθαν ἐν κυμ άλοις χαλκο ς. For Biblical cymbalists, see also 2 Samuel 6:5, E ra 3:10, 1 Chronicles 13:8, 16:5, Psalms 150:4, etc. The role of Asaph in 1 Chronicles 16:5 could suggest that, in the construction of 15:16 22, Heman and Ethan would preside over similarly constituted but discrete orchestras’. This would make good sense in an environment like Ugarit, where multiple cults and locations had to be serviced; this seems to be the sense of 1 Chronicles 25:6 also. At E ra 3:10, however, it is suggested that Asaph’s clan’ was made up entirely of cymbalists. That the tradition is multiform, however, does not invalidate its individual elements for purposes of historical comparison. The Mishnaic tradition agrees that a single cymbalist played among a varying but much larger number of lyrists: see Ara in 10a, 13b BT 16:54, 72 74, specifying 2 6 n el-players, nine or more inn r-players, and 2 12 pipes ( alil), in varying contexts. For the massed lyres of Phoenician tradition, see Chapter 11. See Myers 1965:111 112. Archaeological evidence: Caubet 1987b; NG 3:527 528 (Braun); MAIP:107 112. 117 Chapter Seven the orchestra and non-musical ritual gestures.38 et the Chronicler himself describes them as accompanying song, and this is also found in an Ugaritian text to be discussed below. Therefore, whatever other properties cymbals may have possessed, they had a de nite musical function. The obvious practical explanation is that cymbals, with a more penetrating sound than the framedrum, would have provided a fundamental rhythm.39 As such, they would be appropriate to an orchestral leader, comparable to a conductor’s baton. And such a position of leadership would naturally go to a person of higher social status than the players under him.40 Whatever the exact explanation at Ugarit, it does seem clear that cymbalists en oyed a certain prominence within the practical machinery and social stratication of cult-music. And yet the very existence of Kinnaru indicates some key role for the instrument, which alone was dei ed so far as we know. How can this be reconciled with the idea of cymbalist-leaders First, we may draw once more on the Chronicler, noting that, while the cymbalists may have led the music, the music itself was made up, for the most part, of massed lyres (the two types presumably covering di erent ranges41). This was fundamentally lyre-music, therefore, and it is ultimately this that usti es the divini ation of Kinnaru. We have seen a comparable situation in U umgal-kalama, Ningirsu’s balang-god in the Gudea Cylinders, who is treated as a musical director for the full temple orchestra.42 The lyre-playing David is also crucial here. For despite his traditional appointment of Asaph, Heman, and Ethan to lead’ with cymbals, he himself was nevertheless the ultimate royal and musical leader’ of the overall corporation. Thus, the Chronicler says that Asaph and his sons prophesied under the direction of the king. 43 And while a king might naturally be expected to preside over his servants, David literally takes the musical lead in the procession of the ark (see Chapter 8). In what follows I shall further explore the intersection of innāru and royal ideology in the Ugaritian narrative and ritual texts. Kinnaru implies the cultural primacy of the ancestral lyre, with the tradition’s depth vividly indicated by the 38 39 40 41 42 43 Cf. Kleinig 1993:82 84; Koitabashi 1992b:4. For a good discussion of the extra-musical’ properties of percussion in ritual contexts, with special reference to Cyprus, see Kolotourou 2005. At Ugarit horns (one instrument is apparently engraved with an Astarte gure: Caubet 2014:178 180 with references) may have played a comparable role as signal instruments, as they did in Hittite and Jewish ritual: see generally Kleinig 1993:79 82; NG 3:529 530 (Braun); HKm:259. See references in Kleinig 1993:82n3. Compare the use of cymbals by king and ueen in the Hittite drinking ritual KUB 56.46 vii.3’ 7’: cf. HKm:99, and above, p95 and n28. See p52. See p28. 1 Chronicles 25:2. 118 Kinnaru of Ugarit evidence from Ebla. The signi cance of this emerges still more clearly when one considers that Ugarit, by the thirteenth century, presented a highly cosmopolitan environment. The city’s pantheon contained Hurrian and even Anatolian deities alongside WS and Mesopotamian gods,44 and the Ugaritian onomasticon indicates a Hurrian ethnic heritage for as much as a uarter of the city’s population.45 The musical dimension of this cultural mélange is vividly illustrated by the many Hurrian hymnic elements found in Ugaritian ritual texts, including the famous cult-songs with notation’, discussed above in connection with the currency of the innāru among the Hurrians of North Syria and Ki uwatna.46 This material shows that the music-culture of Ugarit, both within and without the state cult, must have been very rich and diverse, with multiple strands of tradition of considerable anti uity. It is this total complex, and not ust the innāru itself, which one should see as the domain of Kinnaru. This commanding role’ also helps explain how a Divine Lyre might mirror the king, as the ultimate authority over the state cult and its musicians. This suggestion is most clearly validated by David and Kinyras. But A. Caubet has attractively proposed that, at Ugarit itself, the mn to i al was composed by Ammurapi, the city’s last king, rather than a homonymous scribe (the name appears in the colophon).47 The hymn may therefore re ect the king’s direct involvement in the larger musical life of the palace, which was itself substantially structured around the royal cult.48 With this we may turn to the rich evidence of the Ugaritian texts for the role of the innāru in royal cult. More about Kinnaru We may begin by resuming the discussion in Chapter 1 of the tablets in which the Divine Kinnaru is attested.49 Another tablet mentioning Kinnaru was discovered 44 45 46 47 48 49 Del Olmo Lete 1992:62 65; Pardee 1996a:67 70; Mayer 1996:207; HUS:323 326 (del Olmo Lete). Pardee 2000:79 with chart in HUS:509. Names are of course not a guarantee of ethnicity: naming fashions are known to change due to various acculturative processes. Nevertheless, it remains e ually possible that names drawn from a given language re ect a person’s ancestry from the original speakers of that language. One may still reasonably wonder to what ethnicity one may best assign a person of Hurrian name who was otherwise completely assimilated to a local culture. et modern parallels (e.g. American) show that names (along with songs and dances) are one of the more stable ethnic indicators retained by many groups. See p97. Caubet 1999:11, 21; Caubet 2014:181. Caubet 1999:14: La musi ue est prati uée, par le roi et pour le roi, dans le cadre de manifestations ou de cérémonies dont certaines peuvent tre religieuses (chantre d’Astarté) ou sont l’expression d’une identité propre Ougarit (chantre d’Ougarit). See p4 5. 119 Chapter Seven in 1961 in one of the two archives of the so-called House of the Hurrian priest the Cella of Tablets’, containing texts both ritual and paramythological as well as thirty clay liver-models (and one lung-model) used for extispicy.50 The tablet in uestion (RS 24.643) is written in alphabetic cuneiform, and contains two independent texts, one on either side, each prescribing sacri ces to a slightly di erent se uence of gods.51 That on the obverse is somewhat more expansive, beginning with a Sacri ce for the gods of Mount a anu, followed by a list of divinities and the o erings received by each (1 12). Then comes a poorly understood Hurrian hymn (13 17) and an entry ritual’ for calling Astarte-ofthe-Steppe ( A tartu ad ) into the royal palace, where she is to be o ered sacred garments, wool, perfumed oil, gum, and honey (18 22). The precise relationship among the three sections is uncertain. The opening list of gods corresponds almost exactly, both in selection and order, to the pantheon’ texts already considered.52 The ritual speci es that Kinnaru receive a ram the same o ering assigned to most of the other gods.53 The practical connection between this ritual and the pantheon’ texts complicates the latter’s original interpretation by Nougayrol as a document of Ugarit’s o cial pantheon.54 Other sacri cial texts present di erent divine groupings, and further independent pantheon’ lists may be interpreted as liturgical outlines or abstractions of still other rituals.55 et because these are all o cial documents, and sometimes occur in multiple copies (or nearcopies) of prescriptive rituals, they do exhibit a canonical dimension. That is, the pantheon’ is an emergent property of the corpus, including further lost texts of the same type. 50 51 52 53 54 55 This house, along with nine others containing tablet archives, was evidently a private residence, although the ritual texts themselves relate to state functions. For the nd-spot, see HUS:48 51 (Pitard) with references. RS 24.643 KTU/CAT 1.148. Published irolleaud 1968:580 584 (no. 9). For detailed discussion see Pardee 1992; TR:779 806; RCU, text 12 (translation used here); RTU:427 429. The rst ritual (obverse) spans lines 1 22; the second (reverse) from 23 45: damage in 31 45 may be substantially restored from a new Akkadian parallel, RS 92.2004: see below. See p5. Cf. Nougayrol 1968:64. Only the big three’ who open the list (El, Dagan, and Baal in various hypostases) receive more both ram and bull. Note that this rst section of the text concludes with three unattributed sacrices, two bulls, two birds, and a cow (line 9). It is not clear whether these were destined for the gods as a whole; for Kinnaru himself (which would make him by far the greatest bene ciary of the rite, hence unlikely); or (most probably) for the Divini ed Kings, the Censer, and a third god ( alimu) who, though unnamed in the text, are expected based on the parallel pantheon’ texts. See Pardee 1988a:138 139; TR:784 785, 792 793; RCU:102 103n38 (inclining towards the third explanation). Nougayrol 1968:64. See Pardee 2000:61, 67 68; RCU:11 13. 120 Kinnaru of Ugarit The reverse of the tablet ust discussed (RS 24.643) contains a second prescriptive sacri ce for a di erent group of deities, labeled as The gods of the month iyy ru (23 45). Unfortunately, the text is damaged where we would expect to nd Kinnaru.56 et the known honorands correspond almost exactly to a further god-list (RS 92.2004) known since 1992, composed in Akkadian and exhibiting telltale check marks from the text’s use in a ritual performance.57 Here the Divine Lyre does appear, after the Divine Censer and this time written d.gi . a M .58 This sign-group and variants, we saw, meant Divine Inannainstrument’, and corresponded to both annāru and innāru in lexical traditions probably going back to the OB period, represented on the western periphery of Mesopotamia by tablets from Emar and Ugarit.59 It is therefore uite certain that d.gi . aM represents Kinnaru, and that he should also be restored in the parallel text RS 24.643. Thus, these texts (along with 26.14260) attest a further sacri cial god-grouping independent of the rst ritual discussed above (RS 24.643 obverse).61 Some scholars have called attention to Kinnaru’s lack of a distinct Mesopotamian e uivalent in the Akkadian pantheon’ text RS 20.024. Although innāru m could be identi ed with Sum. bala already a millennium earlier at Ebla,62 such a correspondence if it was still known may have been less satisfactory when it came to the innāru’s divine form in the West, as not providing a su ciently 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 The problem is discussed by TR:784 785, 805 (cf. RCU:24n12, 102n33), who tentatively suggests the restoration of Kinnaru here (line 43 of RS 24.643 rev. ) on the basis of RS 92.2004. RS 92.2004: Arnaud 2001:323 326 no. 22, with n2 for the checkmarks; cf. RCU:12 13. A preliminary transliteration was published in TR:795, cf. 789; RCU:17 18. RS 92.2004, line 37: Arnaud 2001:324. This is also found in RS 26.142, a damaged syllabic version of the same list discovered in 1963 and published by Nougayrol 1968:321 322 no. 170; re-edition with revised line-numbering by Arnaud 1994 (hence the Divine Lyre has moved from line 6 to line 19; cf. TR:795 806 passim. These earlier publications give dGI . A.M M (whence also in TR:311n121 and RCU:18, drawing on a pre-publication version of RS 92.2004 by Arnaud), but already del Olmo Lete 1992:52n65, read d. gi A.M ; M M is an alternative reading of the same sign, considered unsicher by Borger 2004:77 (no. 153). For clari cation of this point I thank S. Mirelman; for A as a phonetic indicator (pointing to annāru), see p78. See p77 79. Although most of Ugarit’s lexical texts remain unpublished (cf. p79n46), one may note RS 13.53, a section of HAR.ra hu ullu containing names of musical instruments: see eldhuis 1996:28 (I assume that this is what Caubet 1996:133 refers to, citing communication with D. Arnaud). While this small text fragment does not preserve innāru or annāru, its close parallels with lexical texts from Emar show that the Middle Babylonian Western lexical texts basically belong to one tradition ( eldhuis 1996:29; cf. eldhuis 1997:68 69n218 et passim). See p121n58. Note that Nougayrol 1968:321 322, in his edition of RS 26.142 (no. 170), rendered his line 6 as annaru’, while raising the uestion of its etymological relationship with innāru (see his note ad loc.). This was before the presence of innāru in the MB lexical texts from Emar and Assur was known (for which, see p77 79). See p54, 65 67. 121 Chapter Seven exact e uivalent.63 With the large number of divini ed balangs known from Mesopotamia, each bears its own name, and is in the service of a speci c master god.64 The innāru, by contrast, was apparently uni ue, the only instrument so dei ed at Ugarit. D. Pardee plausibly suggests that cult e uipment may have been sub ect to stricter rules when these pantheon e uations were being drawn, and that the scribe wanted to insist on the local character of Kinnaru that only this instrument could be divini ed for service in the Ugaritian cult.65 This seems right; but there may be more to it. The Ugaritian scribes would have known that innāru was a word/instrument of deep anti uity and broad distribution; we saw the same awareness in the Bible.66 The evidence of h and Diri shows that, by the thirteenth century and probably the OB period, innāru could be considered an Akkadian word, alongside annāru.67 Kinnaru’s appearance in the Akkadian god-list RS 20.024 may therefore be evidence not only that no satisfactory e uation was available, but that none was needed that the Divine Kinnaru was current beyond Ugarit, stretching eastward into Mesopotamia. This would be in keeping with my suggestion that the Amorite age was formative for the divini ation of the nr.68 One should note here that Greco-Roman sources sometimes distinguish a Cypriot Kinyras from one who is king of Assyria or Syria.69 In the cultic texts so far considered, there is nothing that distinguishes Kinnaru and the Divine Censer from other real’ gods. This was the same in Mesopotamia, where, in addition, cult-ob ects could be personi ed and take mythological action. I argued for the same combination in the Hurro-Hittite on of il er 70 At Ugarit, one may compare the magical weapons that Kothar makes for Baal’s battle against amm (Sea) in the aal cle. In an embedded incantation ritual, Kothar assigns each a proper name May he Drive’ and May He Expel All’ re ecting the task it must perform in the god’s hands.71 Recall the anthropomorphic talking weapons of Ninurta/Ningirsu, and that in Mesopotamia 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 See already Nougayrol 1968:59. See Heimpel, Balang-Gods. TR:311. See p43 46. See p77 79. See p83 88. See index s.v. Kinyras:(As)syria’. See p103. KTU/CAT 1.2 iv.11 27 (RS 3.367). The nature of this scene was identi ed by Obermann 1947, and has won uite general acceptance: cf. Clapham 1969:106; Baumgarten 1981:166; Smith 1984; KwH:409 410; Morris 1992:87 88; Smith 1994:341 343; Smith in Parker 1997 (translation of the names). 122 Kinnaru of Ugarit name-giving rituals were important for endowing divini ed ob ects with individual personality.72 It is a pity there is not more explicit evidence for the activity of personi ed cult-ob ects in Ugaritian poetry. For if Kinyras really originated in a Divine Lyre like Kinnaru, the rich mythological material about him would seem to re uire some comparable treatment on the mainland. Perhaps this was not especially developed at Ugarit, by comparison with, say, Byblos and/or Ki uwatna (Cilicia), where Kinyras is sometimes locali ed (Chapters 19 and 23). But note that a certain Theias ( Divine’) is a recurring doppelganger of Kinyras at Byblos.73 Could the doublet Theias-Kinyras re ect something like the Ugaritian formulation of divine determinative innāru Recurrent sub-groupings of gods in the Ugaritian sacri cial lists point to a living tradition of theological speculation. D. Pardee has noted a striking parallel between the rst ve recipients in the second sacri cial text discussed above, and a genealogical se uence in the fragments of Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician istor .74 Composed in the late rst or early second century CE, Philo’s work survives mainly in several extensive uotations and paraphrases by Eusebios (ca. 260 339), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who exploited it for Christian polemic. Philo claimed to possess the work of an ancient priest, Sankhuniathon, who supposedly lived around the time of the Tro an War according to Philo’s uite detailed discussion.75 While the dating and even existence of Sankhuniathon have been sub ected to serious doubt, Philo is likely enough to have had recourse to relatively early writings, not to mention living mythological traditions.76 It is certainly clear that Philo exercised considerable invention, combining parallel regional traditions to compose a continuous history’; and following the Hellenistic model of Euhemeros, he interpreted the Phoenician gods as cultureheroes, mapping the course of civili ation as he perceived it. Nevertheless, the Ugaritian texts have substantially refurbished the overall credibility of his raw 72 73 74 75 76 For the naming rituals, see p23n29, 25. The comparison of Baal’s weapons with those of Ninurta/ Ningirsu was made by Albright in Ginsberg 1935:328n22; cf. Smith 1994:343. See further p466 468. See RCU:23n2, on RS 24.643 (reverse), 23 26. The corresponding gods in Philo (FGH 790 F 2 15 16, 24 ) are Ug. l Gk.’ Elioun; r mm Epigeios Autokhthon ( later called Ouranos ) Ge; l Elos a.k.a. Kronos; rt Seven Titanides/Artemides; d n Dagon. The se uence is not strictly linear in Philo’s narrative: the Titanides/Artemides, who answer to the Kotharat goddesses in this position of RS 24.643, 25, are treated by Philo after the introduction of Dagon. For the pedigree of Sankhuniathon (FGH 790 F 1 20 22 Eusebios Pre aration for the Gos el 1.9.20 22), see generally, with earlier bibliography, Lokkegaard 1954; Barr 1974; Oden 1978; Baumgarten 1981:41 62 et passim; Attridge and Oden 1981:3 9; Cameron 2004:157 (comparing it with the Second Sophistic fashion for fabricating pre-Homeric authorities). See the balanced assessments of Lokkegaard 1954:51 53; Baumgarten 1981:261 268. 123 Chapter Seven material. While there are many inconsistencies with what we nd at Ugarit, these may be explained through EIA evolution77 and/or Philo’s synthesis of regional variants. So the structural agreement between his cosmogony’ and the aforementioned Ugaritian text should indeed re ect, as Pardee argues, a common theological tradition going back to the LBA at least. It follows that other con unctions of gods in the Ugaritian lists are potentially meaningful, and open to clari cation from other sources. Two possibilities relating to Kinnaru must be considered. First is his proximity to the Divine Kings (ml m), that is, the divini ed royal ancestors.78 We have seen a comparable combination with the BALA .DI of Ebla, and I shall argue below that the same pattern underlies the appearance of the innāru at the head of a musical ensemble in a text connected with Ugarit’s royal mortuary cult.79 The same elements come together in the Kinyradai, the royal dynasty of Paphos, which traced its descent from Kinyras (Chapter 16). Also remarkable is Kinnaru’s ad acency to the Divine Censer. This is not so surprising in itself, since both lyre and incense were obviously important liturgical tools, and are the only divini ed ob ects in the list.80 We saw from HurroHittite texts, deriving from Ki uwatna, that both lyre and censer received o erings within larger divine circles ( aluti).81 But the connection may be still more intimate. From Mesopotamia, for instance, we know of two balang-gods called Censer’ and Torch’, servants of the re-god Gibil; presumably the rst of these implies some close connection between music and incense-o erings.82 Aphrodite’s sanctuary at Paphos, over which the Kinyradai presided, was noteworthy for its avoidance of animal sacri ce in favor of incense o erings; and this probably underlies the th a ol a which is apparently attributed to a Kinyrad priest or priest-king in a fourth-century inscription from Paphos.83 Moreover, as W. F. Albright observed, the ad acency of Kinnaru and Censer is at least a striking coincidence given the famous myth of Kinyras and Myrrha the personi cation of myrrh to be discussed in Chapter 12.84 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 E.g. the association of Khousor with iron, versus Kothar and bron e: cf. p46. This connection was rightly emphasi ed by Grottanelli 1981:42. See p134 146. Cf. Ca uot 1979 col. 1404. See p102 103. See Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 54 II 343 344; cf. 27 for the balang cedar-resin’. See p412 414. For the myth is is the Ugaritian pantheon texts: GC:147n102 ( uotation); Gese et al. 1970:169; Ribichini 1981:49n50. Albright’s suggestion is strongly supported by Grottanelli 1984:42 and n35: il parallelo troppo preciso per non essere signi cativo ; it signi es il modus vivendi regale e divino nei suoi aspetti pi seducenti. For Grottanelli’s interpretation, see further p283. 124 Kinnaru of Ugarit Praising Baal The innāru is mentioned several times in Ugaritian mythological and paramythological texts. Some of these passages, like much of Ugaritian literature, are still imperfectly understood and have occasioned much debate. Their obscurity is due both to the fragmentary state of many texts and to the city’s laconic alphabetic script, where the omission of vowels occasions much ambiguity and hinders lexical analysis via cognates in other Semitic languages. The interpretations o ered here, largely dependent as they are on the philological work of others, are necessarily provisional. They are, however, informed by much comparative material. Three mythological vignettes evoke the use of the innāru in royal praise poetry, seemingly of a narrative nature. Together they attest a formulaic scene, the basic expression of which makes Baal the sub ect of song.85 A hymn to Baal depicts him seated in ma esty on Mount Sapan (Saphon), en oying peace after his defeat of amm: irgin Anat washed her hands She took her lyre ( nr) in her hand, She clasped the bull-shaped instrument86 to her breast. She sang of the loves of valiant Baal.87 Almost identical verses occur in two other poems concerning Baal and Anat, so that, although in each case the verse where innāru is expected has been 85 86 87 For type-scene and other aspects of oral-formulaic composition in Ugaritian narrative poetry, see with references Cross 1974:1 and n1; Cross 1998:139 141. The bull-shaped instrument’ (r imt) has been explained by reference to the well-known bullheaded lyres of Sumer: RTU:76n36; TPm:151 and n179; Krispi n in Koitabashi 1998:374 (for an alternative derivation, Watson 1996:78). Caubet 1987b:735 rightly cautions that a thousand years separate these from the Ugaritian text, and thinks rather of a innāru with outward-curved arms resembling the horns of a bull (Caubet 2014:177; cf. e.g. the Megiddo pla ue: Figure 11 4.1p). Smith and Pitard 2009:218 219 suggest that the age-gap with Sumerian bull-lyres does not preclude the use of a name for a lyre that no longer corresponds to the original form, and go on to make the interesting suggestion that the unusual word selection might be attributed to the alliteration that it forms with the following word, l irth. This latter term perhaps hints at a Mesopotamian genre of love-poetry known as irtum songs (this genre employed all seven canonical tunings of the Mesopotamian diatonic cycle: cf. e.g. RlA 8:475 Kilmer, Music A I ). Perhaps it is a case of poetic fossili ation, an ancient musical world removed to the realm of the gods, the epic distance’ of Homeric studies But note that an Egyptian lyre with bull-head is known from the Ptolemaic era (temple of Philae): MgB 2/1:34 35 g. 12; AEMI:89. RS 24.245 KTU/CAT 1.101.16 19: dh tlt nt u t h . mt l imm t i d nrh dh tt r imt l irth t r dd al i n l ah t. Text and supplements: TPm:119 152, with further literature). Translation is that of RTU:388 390 (hence alternative supplements, with earlier editions and studies noted on 388). 125 Chapter Seven destroyed, it may be con dently restored. There remains, however, some grammatical and textual uncertainty about whether it is Anat who sings in both cases, rather than a male minstrel.88 That the sub ect is Baal’s lo es may tend to support Anat as the more likely performer, being herself female and his lover (and sister). While a female singer praising a king’s deeds of ar might seem striking from a Greek perspective,89 the Bible attests a women’s tradition of greeting returning warriors, when victorious, with celebratory music scenes which relate to the pre-monarchic period.90 Most of the passages specify only frame-drum, which evidently serves as the principal marker of the women’s tradition;91 but those who greet the victory of Saul and David over the Philistines present some greater variety.92 Such an event may be portrayed on the famous ivory pla ue from Megiddo, dated by stylistic criteria to the thirteenth or early twelfth century BCE (Figure 11 4.1p),93 if the lyrist who provides a victory song to a seated king, as prisoners are led before him, is indeed female, as some believe (but this is hardly certain).94 The birds that ock about may represent the king’s own divine favor, and/or an epiphany evoked by the music. 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 The rst is RS 2. 014 3.363 KTU/CAT 1.3 iii.4 5 ( aal cle); the second is RS 5.180 5.198 KTU/CAT 1.7.22 24. See the discussions of RTU:76 77 n36 37, 149 150n4, 289n176, 390n17; cf. ARTU:8 9 and n39, 248; Smith in Parker 1997:109, 167n54; Smith and Pitard 2009:216 217, noting a vertical wedge in the damaged line 4 which would be consistent with the expected dh from KTU/CAT 1.101.17 (RS 24.245, in which nr actually is attested.) But note that the aoid s channels the voice of a female Muse. Exodus 15:20; Judges 5 (Song of Deborah) and 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6; Jeremiah 31:4. See Poethig 1985; Meyers 1991, especially 21 27, elucidating a Canaanite tradition of terracotta gurines of women frame-drum players; cf. Meyers 1993, especially 58 62; Fariselli 2007:26 34. The tradition is well-represented on Cyprus, from an isolated example in the late second millennium (LC III) down to abundant specimens in the IA: see especially Kolotourou 2005:188 195. Doubleday 1999 gives a good survey of ANE evidence (105 111) and the gradual and varied transformation of female musical practice with the advent of Islam (111 134). One should also note the t m anon, which is a regular attribute of the Anatolian goddess Kybele. Its presence in the iconography of Atargatis, the Syrian Goddess’ of Hierapolis, is due, according to OSG:19, 21, 29 30, 32, to the in uence of Kybele in her Helleni ed representation; but the ANE parallels indicate deeper indigenous strata. 1 Samuel 18:6, specifying frame-drums along with , a much-debated word variously interpreted as sistra, lutes, castanets, triangular harps, or cymbals: see MAIP:41 42 with further references. Jerusalem 38.780: Megiddo, stratum IIa. A terminus ante uem ca. 1150 is given by a cartouche of Ramses III; yet parallels with horse-representations in Egyptian NK art show that the pla ue could be as early as Ramses II, being preserved as an heirloom ob ect: Liebowit 1967. For further analysis of the scene, Loud 1939:13 no. 2 and plate 4 (gender unspeci ed); Mert enfeld 1954 no. 342, 1:88 and pl. I ; Frankfort 1970:270 271; Dothan 1982:152 (treats as male); Moscati 2001:38 39; MAIP:96 97 and g. III.16 (female; aristocratic status indicated by clothing). Burgh 2004:134, argues that clear gender indicators are lacking in this representation, noting that the lyrist is dressed like the woman ust before the throne (but for the latter’s polos); cf. Burgh 2006:89 90. This need not mean, of course, that the gure is intentionall ambiguous. One 126 Kinnaru of Ugarit Figure 11 ‘Kinyrist’ celebrating victorious king. Ivory plaque from Megiddo, ca. 1250–1200. Jerusalem, Iaa 38.780. Drawn from Mertzenfeld 1954 pl. XXIV–XXV. Chapter Seven In the so-called Baal Cycle, however, we encounter a praise-singer who is unambiguously male, and the sub ect is non-erotic praise. The scene is a feast following a victory by Baal, probably over amm (Sea), although this is still disputed.95 He arose, intoned and sang, Cymbals in the Gracious Minstrel’s (n m) hands; Sweet of voice the hero sang About (before 96) Baal on the summit of Sapan.97 The word n m, variously rendered handsome’, pleasant’, gracious’, or good’, is often applied to gods or heroes.98 The present passage, however, is one of several where it seems to have a special musical application. Such an interpretation is made probable here by the evident parallelism of n m with ( the youth, good of voice’), and corroborated by the respective verbal phrases d r ( intoned and sang’ sang’). (It most naturally follows that there is only one singer, who simultaneously accompanies himself with cymbals: see below.)99 m may be applied to another youth of good voice’ who apparently executes some seven-fold cultic song-act in the enigmatic Gracious Gods, a paramythological text of obscure ritual application that many scholars have connected with hierogamy.100 We shall see n m used of a praise-singer of Baal in the ale of A hat, where it is again the sub ect of the phrase d r ( intoned 95 96 97 98 99 100 may note here the hypothesis of Jirku 1960:69, that there existed a Kinaratu’ (sic) alongside Kinnaru. He wished to see this Kinaratu as the origin of the TN Kinneret (Numbers 34:11; Josh. 13:27): cf. Jirku 1963:211; GC:144n91. See the rightful cautions of Frit 1978:43 and n35, noting that another TN once derived from nr (Gordon 1965a:421 no. 1274) is no longer viable. G rg 1981:9, refers to Jirku’s idea in reading the King’s daughter’ seal (Avigad 1978) as an apotropaic emblem; but this famous piece is probably a forgery: MAIP:161 164. See Smith and Pitard 2009:101 102. For the ambiguity of the preposition, see Smith and Pitard 2009:115. RS 2. 014 3.363 KTU/CAT 1.3 i.18 22: m d r m ltm d n m r r t l l l rrt n Text and translation: Smith and Pitard 2009:91 96, changing virtuoso’ to Gracious Minstrel’ for consistency with the parallel passages, as translated below. Cf. ARTU:4 ( gracious lad’); RTU:71 ( minstrel’); Smith in Parker 1997:106 ( singer’). For the identi cation of the gure as a praise-singer in a royal court, versus competing interpretations, see Koitabashi 1996:222 223. TPm:171; Schmidt 1994:68 69 with references; DUL:613 614, s.v. Tsumura 1973:177; Koitabashi 1992b:2; Koitabashi 1996:233 234; Koitabashi 1998:370 and n30; B. uckerman in Smith and Pitard 2009:113 114. In fact, Koitabashi considers it possible, despite the parallelism, that two di erent people are involved. RS 2.002 KTU/CAT 1.23: a musical interpretation of n m at 17 is made plausible by the phrase at 14 (Watson 1994:5 6, interprets as a singular; others take as plural); singers (šrm) are possibly speci ed at line 22, apparently in the context of liturgical instructions’. See with further literature D. Pardee in CS 1 no. 87, especially p278n24; RTU:324, 328 and n19, 23. For a skeptical assessment of the case for a hierogamic cult-drama, and review of the various scholarly positions, see Smith 2008. 128 Kinnaru of Ugarit and sang’), thus further supporting the idea of a praise-singing type-scene (although in A hat the innāru is not speci ed).101 It appears, therefore, that n m had a speciali ed application to court- and/or cult-music, approaching the force of a title. This semantic development is often explained by supposing in Ugaritic a convergence of the roots n m and n m, the latter productive of musical words in Arabic.102 This argument was rst made by U. Cassuto, who observed the same phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew,103 and elegantly explained the resulting semantic duality: n m was an epithet of something or someone who made pleasant or sweet the songs, one who composed them with sweetness. 104 The most outstanding example, we shall see, is the description of David himself as n m, where the Ugaritian examples ust discussed provide compelling parallels for understanding him as praise-singer of ahweh.105 In accord with this semantic duality, I have translated n m as Gracious Minstrel’, and shall do so consistently below.106 It is somewhat surprising, in view of the episode in which Anat celebrates Baal to the lyre, and the two parallel scenes in which innāru is generally restored, that the Gracious Minstrel in the present passage is said to use cymbals. We have seen that cymbalists probably functioned as conductors’ of larger cult ensembles. It may well be, therefore, that the cymbal-playing n m in the present scene stands for a more complex musical texture. Note that in the parallel passage of A hat, despite the kindred diction, cymbals do not appear.107 Are they assumed there too, or is the addition of cymbals in the present text an expansion of a more basic episode Evidently the type-scene permitted of some variety not surprising given the diversity of musical life at Ugarit itself.108 In the present case it may be that the stress falls on the activities o ered to 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 A hat RS 2. 004 KTU/CAT 1.17 vi.32: see further p131. For example na mat, melody’. Ugaritic typically distinguishes between a in ( ) and hain ( ), but the correspondences are not absolute, and the latter converged with the former in some cases: thus the proposed collapse of n m and n m is an unusual but by no means rare e uation : Cross 1998:140, with Emerton 1982; cf. Smith 1994:65n126 and more positively Smith and Pitard 2009:114, It is possible (though irregular) that the two roots had already coalesced in Ugaritic, in which case perhaps the word’s range included both senses ; Smith in Parker 1997:166n36. The phonetic development of > occurred unconditionally in Hebrew: ICGSL:44 45. Cassuto 1961 1:236, 238; cf. Cassuto 1971:111 112; his Biblical comparanda are 2 Samuel 23:1; Psalms 81:2, 135:3, 147:1, and the gure of Naamah in Genesis 4:21 (see further p44, 46); also Sirach 45:9: Sarna 1993:213n8. Cf. Koitabashi 1996:223 224; cf. Tsumura 1973:189 190. 2 Samuel 23:1. See further p149, 175 178. Cf. Smith and Pitard 2009:114, whose virtuoso’ is an attempt to retain the etymological sense of Arabic n m and B iblical H ebrew n m operative in the word- eld pertaining to music suggested by Arabic n m. See p131. For RS 24.252, in which pipes and drums appear together with the innāru, see p141 146. 129 Chapter Seven the pleasure of Baal and not the gure involved in his service. 109 That is, the details of the music-making are intentionally left somewhat indeterminate, and we are to think broadly of a celebratory ensemble of which only a single detail is provided. In any event, the Anat scene and its restored parallels show that the innāru played an important role in praise-singing and festive music generally. Given this, it is a reasonable guess that Kinnaru himself could play the role of n m before Baal, for instance in the passage of A hat where cymbals are not mentioned.110 Certainly Baal’s praise-singer must be divine, and although Baal’s servants and attendants are generally not named either in fragments of the Cycle or in other texts,111 many scholars have attempted to divine the identity of Baal’s singer. U. Cassuto, writing before the pantheon’ texts had been fully apprehended and dismissing a variety of earlier con ectures, saw in the present passage one of the gods who was famed as a musician and a singer. 112 M. H. Pope suggested in 1965 that it could be the versatile craftsman-god Kothar, but confessed the lack of unambiguous Ugaritian parallels for his musical nature.113 While Kothar’s putative musicality remains controversial,114 his status as a magical inventor god and patron of craftsmen might give him a logical claim to the art, and derive some support from the R p’iu text (discussed below).115 Pope did note the attribution of musical abilities to Phoenician Khousor by Philo of Byblos, and this has remained the main support for a musical Kothar.116 I shall argue, however, that that passage actually derives from an ancient brotherly’ association between Kothar and the Divine Lyre, perhaps especially at Byblos.117 If one is to identify Baal’s praise-singer at all, why should he not be Kinnaru himself the only known musical god attested for the city This explanation works very well for the scenes featuring the innāru It is admittedly awkward in the aforementioned passage with cymbals. But since the type-scene was apparently exible as to its musical details, we need not expect innāru and Kinnaru in 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Smith and Pitard 2009:113. See p131 132. Smith 2001:56 58; Smith and Pitard 2009:50 51. Cassuto 1943 (Hebrew: idi ); Cassuto 1961 1:236 ( uotation), 238, noting proposals by irolleaud (Mot), Dussaud (Dan’el), and de aux (Baal). Pope and R llig 1965:296; the identi cation was approved by Dahood 1963:531. Proposed musical associations of Kothar: Gaster 1961:161n I ; Dahood 1963; Pope and R llig 1965:276; Brown 1965; de Moor 1969:177; Parker 1970:244; TPm:99n105; Clemens 1993:74 and n68. For arguments against, see KwH:441 445, followed by Morris 1992:87 88. Cf. Parker 1970:244n9; ARTU:188n4; Clemens 1993:74 and n68. Pope and R llig 1965:275. See p445 452 and Chapter 20. 130 Kinnaru of Ugarit every instance. Moreover, if Kinnaru symboli ed the totality of Ugaritian musicmaking, he himself might have been treated somewhat exibly when anthropomorphi ed into the realm of mythological narrative, when he might leave’ the lyre and become simply a Gracious Minstrel. Bow and Lyre in the Tale of Aqhat The motif of the royal praise-singer is cleverly developed in the ale of A hat. The poem’s crisis revolves around the hero’s wonderful bow, built by Kothar; he apparently receives it as a coming-of-age gift, representing his arrival to the peak of life and strength a tting symbol in this age of chariot-warfare.118 This weapon is apparently bestowed at a feast, attended by Kothar himself and other gods. Anat is present, and lusts for the bow on rst sight. Trying to coax it away, she o ers A hat the world: Ask for life, O valiant hero A hat: Ask for life and I shall give (it) you, Immortality and I shall bestow it on you Like Baal when he is revived, he is served, (When) he is revived, one serves and gives him drink, Chants and sings before him A Gracious Minstrel (n m or n m n119) who is his servant ( ).120 Although a lacuna frustrates exact interpretation of the nal line uoted,121 the parallels of diction with the second Baal-celebration scene discussed above 118 119 120 121 Margalit 1989:75; RTU:266n70. The royal potency of archery is not limited to this poem, but re ects a more widespread symbolism in the ANE, going back at least to Naram-Sin. The most vivid depictions from the LBA, the Golden Age of chariot warfare, are found in Egyptian reliefs representing the pharaoh as warrior and hunter; cf. the Egyptiani ing, enthroned archer on a cylinder seal from Ugarit (RS 3.041, from perhaps the fourteenth century: Schae er 1983:12 13). Archer/chariot scenes are also known from LBA Cyprus: As ects:61 66, g. 46 53. This background illuminates the bow’s Excalibur-like narratological function in the Odyssey. The archerking motif is developed extensively in the N-A reliefs, the bow representing long reach and deadly accuracy (see e.g. Winter 1997). The lacuna makes it uncertain whether to read n mn or simply n m; but these ad ectives are e ectively synonymous (DUL s.v.), and in any event will be used substantively as the sentence sub ect (rather than with pleasant tune’, Parker 1997:61): see below. RS 2. 004 KTU/CAT 1.17 vi.26 32: ir m la ht r ir m atn lmt a l ... ... l r. r. nh d r lh n m . . . n nn. Translation after RTU:273 and Smith 1994:65 with observations in n125 (changing Wyatt’s minstrel’ and Smith’s Gracious One’ to Gracious Minstrel’ for consistency with the parallel passages discussed above). Cf. Smith 1994:65n127, any suggestion remains most tentative. Some representative variations are Pope 1981:162, One sings and chants before him / Sweetly and they respond ; Parker 131 Chapter Seven strongly support those who see in n m a reference to the singer rather than the music.122 The present passage, therefore, should be considered yet another instance of the type-scene in which Baal is the sub ect of praise-singing.123 One must then ask why the A hat-poet has deployed the scene in this secondary context.124 Without denying other possible levels of meaning,125 I believe that the present passage and other examples of the type-scene must be treated synoptically as a formulaic system; this will reveal speci c emphases developed in each case. In the rst passage discussed above, Anat lavishes musical attentions on Baal; in the second and third, it is a Gracious Minstrel (n m). It is not certain that one arrangement should be preferred as more basic than the other. The ma ority rule would suggest that it was a Gracious Minstrel, rather than Anat, who was normal. et in the third instance (our A hat passage), it is Anat herself who con ures the image of minstrelsy. Moreover, details in the se uel seem to implicate Anat once again in music-making. In the goddess’s seductive vision, A hat will not merely be li e Baal. He will occupy the god’s immortal position, en oying his eternal feasts of music. But A hat condemns Anat’s deceit, knowing that, unlike Baal, all men must die. He refuses to yield the bow unwisely adding a chauvinistic insult that enrages the deadly goddess.126 A hat may or may not recogni e the ultimate irony of Anat’s proposal. Since the only immortality that mortal kings can en oy is memoriali ation in song, her o er of making him eternally sung is tantamount to a promise of death.127 And that much Anat can deliver. The goddess, infuriated, seeks and wins El’s approval to kill the hero.128 She causes a raptor (the transformed mercenary atipan) to strike and slay A hat 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 1997:61, As Baal revives, then invites / Invites the revived to drink / Trills and sings over him, / With pleasant tune they respond ; RTU:273, Like Baal he shall live indeed / Alive he shall be feasted, / he shall be feasted and given to drink. / The minstrel shall intone and sing concerning him. See also Herdner 1963:83; Di kstra and de Moor 1975:187 188; Smith and Pitard 2009:122. Rightly stressed by Di kstra and de Moor 1975:187 188 ( absolutely certain ); Pardee in 1:347n42 ( di cult to avoid ); Smith 1994:65; RTU:273; Smith and Pitard 2009:122 ( the correspondences are unmistakable ). There is indeed some dispute as to whether it is A hat or Baal himself who is celebrated at feast here (for Baal, see Clemens 1993:68n19 with further references; A hat, RTU:273n110; ARTU:238 239). But that distinction does not a ect my argument, for either way Baal-like honors are evoked for A hat himself. Cf. Smith and Pitard 2009:122: The primary issue is the uestion of the signi cance of the correspondence. See the review of opinions in Smith and Pitard 2009:122. KTU/CAT 1.17 vi.34 38. Cf. RTU:273n111: The hero’s name will live on in the lays of the poets. Anat is con uring up a picture of him being alive to hear them. KTU/CAT 1.17 vi.45 1.18 i.19. 132 Kinnaru of Ugarit as he feasts.129 Apparently Anat is struck by sudden and deep remorse all the more powerful for its unexpectedness.130 Unfortunately the se uel is obscure, between an exceptionally damaged text and unusual language that hinders restorations based on parallels; conse uently wildly varying interpretations have been proposed.131 It does seem clear that A hat’s bow is broken, whether from falling, snapped by Anat in a rage, or for some other reason.132 This would to continue the earlier symbolism: the hero’s death is inevitably re ected by the broken weapon, which previously marked A hat’s attainment of life’s full powers. The goddess loses her pri e. Several scholars detect in this section a simile involving a singer, a singer’s hands, and a innāru.133 Perhaps the slain hero’s hands are like those of a singer.134 Or Anat picks up the broken bow, as a singer would his lyre delicately, fastidiously, lovingly. 135 However it was developed, the uxtaposition of lyre and bow would be uite striking. The two instruments’ are historically akin, although which came rst, if either, is unknown. A poetic symbiosis of bow and lyre is abundantly attested in early Greek poetry, and was already traditional for Homer; it probably re ects the relationship between epic singer and royal patron, and the singer’s ability to pro ect winged words’.136 The current passage, however, would be the earliest such example, a precedent for the Homeric trope. I suggest that we read the simile in A hat against Anat’s earlier allusion to the musical celebration of Baal. On Anat’s o er, bow was to be traded for praise-singing. Upon A hat’s death, he becomes a sub ect for lamentation and memoriali ation; the rea in of the bow, symboli ing the end of Life, makes such performances necessary. It would be strikingly appropriate, therefore, if Anat is likened to a singer as she ee s. The setting is, as originally promised, a feast. But what a feast According to some scholars, Anat dismembers A hat’s 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 KTU/CAT 1.18 iv.14, 19, 30; a feasting context is accepted by RTU, canvassing alternative interpretations in 283n147. KTU/CAT 1.18 iv.39; cf. Ca uot 1985:94. See, with further literature, ARTU:247n149; Pardee in CS 1:350n81 ( uotation); RTU:287n166; Wright 2001:140 and n1. KTU/CAT 1.19 i.5; cf. Ca uot 1985:96 (Anat breaks the bow out of spite at not being able to string it); RTU:288 and n170 (breaks by falling to the ground). See del Olmo Lete 1984:125 131 (especially 128n289) with review of debate to date. Some would also see a reference to the innāru, perhaps another comparison with the bow, slightly earlier at 1.19 i.4: ARTU:247; Wright 2001:141. Note also RTU:266n70, is is the disputed interpretation of 1.17 v.2. ARTU:246. RTU:290 and n177, following Cooper 1988:22; cf. Gordon 1965a:421 no. 1274. Franklin 2002b:1 5 and p254 255 below for other con ations warrior and poet. 133 Chapter Seven corpse and either eats it herself or feeds it to her birds. Anat may even force A hat’s mouth open and stu it with food.137 On my view, the goddess’s revenge is presented both as an inversion of her original proposal to A hat, and its ironic ful llment. The poetic manipulation of the praise-singing topos would thus be brought full circle. In retrieving the bow-become-lyre, Anat would replay her position as innāru-singer (clearly seen in the rst instance of the type-scene above); she would indeed sing’ of A hat, by lamenting him. et the hero, as he foresaw, would not attain Baal’s immortality except in song, the poem’s own function being to immortali e A hat. This reading, though obviously very speculative, is no more so than others’ all based on such an uncertain text. It has the advantage of establishing mutual coherence between two critical passages of the poem. R u and the Eternal Power of Music In the last Ugaritian text that mentions the innāru (RS 24.252), celebratory music and royal immortality are again uxtaposed. It begins with an invocation of R p’iu, king of eternity’, who is invited to drink amidst festive music-making (1 5): Now may R p’iu, king of eternity, drink, May he drink, the god mighty and noble Who sings138 and makes music ( mr) With lyre ( nr) and double-pipe,139 With drum and cymbals, 137 138 139 Cooper 1988:21 23; RTU:291 292n185. This would accord with a larger pattern of infelicitous feasting which has been detected in the poem: Wright 2001:99 138. This construction is debated: see below. The tl is identi ed as a kind of pipe on the basis of Akkadian (de Moor 1969:177; TPm:98; Caubet 1996:15). This is supported by general considerations, double-pipes accompanying lyres in the Cypro-Phoenician bowls and the North Syrian ivory box from Nimrud (see p248). These iconographic sources, augmented by a second Megiddo pla ue (MAIP:95, g. III.16), a statuette from Ugarit itself (Caubet 1996:15, 31 g. 11) and gurines and pla ues from the Levant and Cyprus (Levant: MAIP:133 145 with gures; Cyprus: Meerschaert 1991:190 191; Flourent os 1992), o er strong support for the suggestion of Koitabashi 1998:375, that tl m in RS 24.257 (see p141) be interpreted as dual (cf. RCU:208n33). The absence of a comparable form in the present text is not necessarily problematic: the Greek double-pipes, conceived as a single instrument, were always designated by the singular α λός. 134 Kinnaru of Ugarit With ivory clappers140 With the goodly companions141 of Kothar.142 The text goes on to invoke Anat under several names ( Lady of kingship, / Lady of sovereignty’, etc.) along with other gods, mainly obscure (6 13). A damaged middle section seems to have contained a prayer to R p’iu by the king of Ugarit (14 18).143 The concluding section refers to some such petition, and states that R p’iu will exercise his power’ ( mr, 22), might’, paternal care’, and divine splendor’ to ensure that the king will long possess and en oy these self-same attributes (18 27, with mr repeated at 25). An attractive con ecture, with some basis in the damaged text, is that R p’iu is to accomplish this by interceding with Baal on the king’s behalf.144 et by a curious sleight-of-hand, the actual delivery of these blessings is entrusted to a group called the Rapa’ ma. erbatim repetition of the list of royal advantages shows that R p’iu and Rapa’ ma are essentially e uivalent somehow. Evidently, both serve to link the worlds of men and gods. After considerable debate about the identity of R p’iu, he seems most likely to be a hypostasis of the underworld god Milku ( ml , king’), in his guise as eponymous leader of the Rapa’ ma.145 Etymologically, R p’iu would be the 140 141 142 143 144 145 This line has been interpreted by some as referring to cult-dancers: irolleaud 1968:553; KwH:438 441; ARTU:18 8; Good 1991:159 160; cf. Clemens 1993:73n57. But I am persuaded that a passage in A hat (RS 3.322 KTU/CAT 1.19 iv.22 31) is, despite heavy damage (KwH:440 441), su ciently parallel to clarify the present text. Dancers are thus excluded in favor of a further instrument, made of ivory (šn) with clackers/clappers (rather than castanets) the most promising option, as such instruments have been found at Ugarit: see Ca uot et al. 1974:455n t’ (sic); Ca uot 1976:300; Margalit 1984:166 167; Caubet 1987; TPm:98 99 (tentatively); Margalit 1989:447 448; Caubet 1996:12; del Olmo Lete 1999:187n60; Caubet 1999:15 16; RTU:396; Caubet 2014:175. Or the goodly ones enchanted by Kothar’: Margalit 1989:438, following KwH:406 410, 443 445, who proposes for r Heb. and Akk. cognates relating to wi ardry and binding’: see further p444 445 (noting, however, the reservations of Clemens 1993:74n66). The traditional interpretation of r as companions’ goes back to irolleaud 1968:553; cf. Ca uot 1976:299 300; KwH:441 with references. Clemens 1993:73 74, rightly re ects the proposal of Good 1991:156 157, to interpret r r m as relating to a further instrument akin to Greek κιθάρα/κίθαρις (hence with the beautiful cords of the cithar’). RS 24.252 KTU/CAT 1.108, 1 5: hl n . t . r u . ml lm t il r r. . . . . . d r mr nr l t m ltm m r dm d n r r m. Text, supplements, and colometry of TPm:75 118 ( irolleaud 1968:551 557 no. 2). Translation after RCU:193 194, with minor adaptations as noted. TPm:118. For this interpretation of line 18, see TPm:112 113; RCU:192 193, 206 n14 15. For R p’iu, see inter al Jirku 1965; irolleaud 1968:551 557; Parker 1970; Parker 1972; KwH:419 445, 385 396; TPm:84 94; Dietrich and Loret 1989; Brown 1998:139 141; RCU:204 205n6. The main interpretations are 1) R p’iu is the high god El seated in state, with Astarte at his side, and hymned by Baal/Haddu who performs upon the innāru (an idea developed by Cross 1973:20 22, 185, as David sang to old Saul, 21); 2) Baal in the chthonic phase of his cycle; 3) Resheph; 4) 135 Chapter Seven Healthy’ or the Health-giving’ the Healer’ or Savior’ ( r ’, heal’).146 Most scholars believe that the Rapa’ ma themselves are the shades of deceased kings, whose immortality or divini ation is achieved through the rites of royal mortuary cult.147 They are thus to be e uated with the Divine Kings (ml m) who appear in the pantheon’ texts (next to Kinnaru).148 R p’iu would then be the archetypal ancestor, embodying all dead kings from the beginning of time to the last lord buried. This will explain why both R p’iu and the Rapa’ ma possess the same royal ualities, and why his actions result in their bestowing these powers on the living king. The text does not contain enough directives to ualify as prescriptive ritual; but it does seem to re ect such a rite at some remove.149 It bears witness to a reciprocal relationship between the living king and his defunct ancestors. The king perpetuated their memory through rites that ensured that his forebears’ royalty, now transmuted to the netherworld, was maintained. In return, the king would en oy the same status while he lived, and be received in their company upon his death.150 A rather similar idea is found half a millennium later in an eighth-century Aramaic royal inscription from Sam’al ( incirli); Panammuwas I envisions one of his sons on the throne, maintaining the royal mortuary cult and praying to Hadad: May the soul of Panammuwas dine with you, may his soul drink with you. 151 This is an important regional parallel for the survival of LBA Cypriot royal ideology via mortuary cult into the IA, notably at Paphos.152 The R p’iu text has several points of interest for the innāru. The instrument’s seeming association with Kothar will be considered later in connection with the coalescence of that god and the Divine Kinnaru (Chapter 18). Crucial 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 eponym of the Rapa’ ma (no further identi cation with Milku). As Pardee argues, Milku’s dwellings, known from other texts, are the same as those given here for R p’iu; while the latter’s description as king of eternity’ (ml lm) is a roundabout allusion to Milku himself and the atemporality of the afterlife (RCU:204 205n6). See various entries in DUL:742 743. RTU:315 323 provides convenient translations of the R um texts (KTU 1.20 22). For the main interpretive issues, and enormous bibliography, one may usefully begin from KwH:377 396; Pitard 1992; Schmidt 1994:71 100; HUS:259 269 (Pitard); concise summary in Wright 2001:77 78n27. For connections with the Biblical Rephaim, see review in Shipp 2002:114 126. For the identi cation, see p5n24. Cf. Healey 1978:91: r um is simply a special epithet of ml m, the two being not identical in meaning but probably used of exclusively the same group of people. TPm:118; cf. RCU:193: In any case, the form of this text is, strictly speaking, neither that of the hymn, nor that of the prayer; rather the text would be that of a rite by which the transfer of these powers is e ected. Cf. RCU:206n14. KAI 214.15 22: See Green eld 1973; Smith 1994:99n194. See Chapter 16. 136 Kinnaru of Ugarit here, I feel, is the involvement of the innāru itself in the royal mortuary cult. The opening verses, given above, present a picture of R p’iu in a festive royal setting, where ubilant music portrays the royal lot in the netherworld as a happy one. 153 The general idea is well paralleled by Egyptian tomb paintings and mortuary steles especially of the MK and NK, where harpers and (in the NK) mixed cosmopolitan ensembles as well as the song-texts that sometimes accompany them con ure up the happiness of the life after death by picturing it in terms of earthly oys. 154 But there are several uncertainties. First, who is singing Morphology supports three interpretations, all agreeing that R p’iu is antecedent to the relative particle (d , who’ or whom’, line 3), but diverging on the precise construction.155 The relative can be the sub ect of an active verb, so that R p’iu himself is singing to, or with, the instruments (this view is re ected in the translation above).156 Or the verb can be passive, so that R p’iu is sung’ hymned or celebrated by the instruments (with the players merely implied). Finally, it may be active but impersonal, with R p’iu as the ob ect, that is, whom one sings’ with the various instruments. For some scholars, R p’iu as a musician seems undigni ed, as though he were a mere court entertainer ; the scenes of Baal being celebrated by his minstrel, discussed above, are o ered as the normal arrangement a god receiving musical o erings, not giving them.157 The uestion is complicated, however, by a wordplay whose importance has been well emphasi ed by Pardee.158 In the translation above, where R p’iu is said to sing ( r) and make music ( mr)’, a musical sense to mr is re uired by its parallel placement with r, known to mean sing’. Conse uently scholars derive the word from P-S mr, which produced cognates related to singing in Akkadian, Hebrew, and Arabic.159 (Although the inherited sound z- normally 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 RCU:205n8. But there are many permutations of these ideas, and a complex development: see Lichtheim 1945 ( uotation, 183); MMAE Chapter Seven. Note also that gurines of musicians were placed in tombs as servant statues intended to entertain the deceased in the underworld : see Leibovitch 1960 ( uotation 53), with examples from OK late NK. See inter al ARTU:188 (active); TPm:81 (active); Good 1991 (passive); Clemens 1993:68 72 (impersonal, with parallels); Koitabashi 1998:371 (uncertain); RCU:205n8 (active but acknowledges other possibilities); RTU:396 and n9 (impersonal); DUL s.v. nr (passive). Cf. Caubet 1999, 15; DDD col. 914 (Pardee), musician and diviner ; RCU:205n8; cf. Smith 2001:268n196 (R p’iu leads the musical entertainment ). Good 1991:158; Clemens 1993:65 66 ( uotation); RTU:396 and n9. For the following philological points, see TPm:97 98 (with earlier literature in n88 89), 118; Sivan 2001:21 22; RCU:205n8 ( one of the principal wordplays in this text ). DUL:287; Botterweck and Ringgren 1997 2006:91 98. For P-S z Ug. z, ICGSL:34 8.31, 44 8.60; Pardee 2008:292. Note for instance the ammār , cultic singers of nearby Emar (cf. p171). For musical derivatives of mr in Hebrew, see also Jones 1992:934a (mi m r 57 times in psalms, probably a label indicating music associated with liturgy and the guilds ); MAIP:35. 137 Chapter Seven continued as such in Ugaritic, other examples of a phonetic confusion’ with are now known.160) In the text’s climax, however, when we twice nd mr among the bene ts the Rapa’ ma will bestow upon the king (22, 24), the parallel constructions dictate that it now have a sense like power’ or protection’.161 This must derive from an historically distinct root (P-S mr), with various derivatives in Arabic and several other cognate languages; these include imri’, attested among the Amorite PNs of Mari (for instance imri-Lim), the Canaanite governors of the Amarna texts, and as a royal PN in the Bible.162 At Ugarit the two roots had evidently become su ciently homophonous to enable the wordplay in the present text, whose opening and closing sections are thereby closely bound.163 This was clearly no gratuitous pun, but a prominent structuring element even a magical assonance. It establishes an essential e uation between song’ and power’. I suggest the following interpretation. Milku, as R p’iu, embodies the power’ that is a property of the Rapa’ ma; he is the agent who bestows it, or e ects its transfer, to the living king. This active relationship with power’, by its homonymous e uation with song’, supports the view that R p’iu himself is the singer in the rst part of the text. His song is power, power pro ected precisely through song: the royal line will maintain its position for as long as Milku sings. This would accord, rst, with Pardee’s idea that festive music is a primary marker of the eternal, blissful condition. Other nuances emerge, however, from the perspective of ritual performance. The text’s opening attempts to secure R p’iu’s good will through an o ering of libations; this is expressed paramythologically as an invitation to a ritual symposium that is supposed to mirror the situation at Milku’s own palace.164 It is this o ering that, by the principle of reci160 161 162 163 164 For the apparent confusion of / / i.e. and /z/, see Pardee 2008:292, who compares n r/ n r ( vow’) and r / r ( seed/arm’). These parallels rule out the idea that mr in the present text is merely a scribal error (so Blau and Green eld 1970:12). They also make it unnecessary to suppose complicated borrowings from other Semitic languages. Lowenstamm 1969:465 466, for instance, argued that Ug. mr and Heb./Arab./Akk. mr derived from a single P-S root mr already containing within itself the dual notions of song’ and power’. This involves dismissing Arabic and Syriac mr, which are normally used to establish a P-S root mr (Blau and Green eld 1970:12), as loanwords from Canaanite (similarly Blau 1977:82 83, suggested that the Hebrew and Aramaic forms were loanwords from Akkadian, with Arabic mr borrowed in turn from Aramaic). So already de Moor 1969:179. Ugaritic mr: DUL:287 288. imri- names at Mari: Hu mon 1965:187 188, cf. Buccellati 1966:227; RCU:205n8. Amarna tablets: see index to Moran 1992 ( mayors’ of Sidon and Laki a). imri in Hebrew: Numbers 25:14; 1 Kings 16:9 20. TPm:118; Lewis 1989:51 52. This is not to insist that the mar i u was a subspecies of mortuary cult, only that its festive form to which drinking and music were basic, as seen both here and in the famous polemic of Amos against those who lie on beds of ivory who sing idle songs to the sound of the inn r 138 Kinnaru of Ugarit procity, will secure the god’s bene cent actions at the end of the text. The corresponding ritual in real life would have involved an actual musical celebration of the god, itself an o ering, and this is doubtless echoed by the description of music in the opening scene. That is, whatever Milku may be ima ined as doing, one must envision cult-musicians in their usual liturgical roles. et this too accords with the e uation of song’ and power’. If the cult-honors for Milku and the royal ancestors are continuously maintained, they will maintain the royal line in power. Cult-songs thus e ress Milku’s power, both literally and guratively. The position of Milku, which oscillates between his giving and receiving song, mirrors that of the living king the notional executant of all royal ritual, yet sub ect of praise-singing by his own minstrel. (The syntax of line 3 may be intentionally ambiguous for ust this reason.) We may now consider the innāru itself. It is uite possible that it and the other instruments are imagined here in personi ed form, so that we are actually dealing with Kinnaru and a band of musical colleagues. I will discuss this possibility further when examining the phrase goodly companions of Kothar’ against other evidence for the syncretism of Kothar and Kinnaru/ Kinyras’.165 In any event, it is signi cant that the innāru is the rst instrument listed. This must re ect its preeminent status within the Ugaritian cult, an idea supported both indirectly by the instrument’s prominence in the comparative material, and by the innāru’s uni uely divini ed status in the Ugaritian pantheon’ texts. Indeed, the uxtaposition there of Kinnaru alongside the Divine Kings (ml m) doubtless has theological signi cance, re ecting some special connection between lyre and royal cult, and perhaps especially its mortuary aspect.166 This could accord, for instance, with the instrument’s use 165 166 who drink wine from bowls (6:4 7, cf. 5:21 23; Isaiah 5:11 12) lent itself well to securing divine goodwill. See Pardee 1996b:277 279; cf. RCU:184 185n2. For the mar i u/mar ea generally see inter al Green eld 1974; Pope 1979 1980; Friedman 1980; King 1989; McLaughlin 1991; McLaughlin 2001; del Olmo Lete in Johnston 2004:315 316. See p443 445. For the reasoning, see p123 124. Unfortunately, that Kinnaru and the Divine Kings might receive sacri ces on the same occasion is not con rmed by the two rituals of RS 24.643 (1 12 and 23 45) which correspond to the pantheon’ texts; for while Kinnaru is honored in one or both, the Divine Kings (ml m) are not listed although one of the three apparently unassigned o erings of line 9 may indeed have been intended for them (TR:792 793; cf. p120n53). But this still would not corroborate a special relevance to the pairing of Kinnaru and ml m, since they would be but two recipients in a much larger divine group. Note that o erings to the ml m are in any case attested by two other ritual texts: oil-libations in RS 24.266, 25’ (KTU/CAT 1.119), and check-marks in RS 94.2518 which indicate the text’s use in a sacri cial ritual (TR:680; RCU:102 103n38, 104n52, 200). These have suggested that the omission of Divine Kings from RS 24.643 was intentional after all, the mortuary cult not being relevant to the two occasions comprised by RS 24.643 (TR:303n59). It would then follow that Kinnaru’s importance was not limited to the mortuary cult (as one would hardly expect anyway). 139 Chapter Seven for epic and other poetry in which the dead were memoriali ed the practice that lay behind Anat’s deceptive o er to A hat. Now if R p’iu can be imagined as singing, it seems uite possible that he himself was conceived as playing the innāru.167 This could symboli e his, and indeed all past kings’, ongoing memoriali ation in the terrestrial cult, and conse uently his power’ to bless the living king through the medium of his song’. There would be a striking parallel in Cypriot Kinyras as archetypal, in ra-playing royal ancestor to the historical kings of Paphos (Chapter 16). There is also the Sumerian chthonic god Nina u ( Lord Healer’), best attested for the Ur III and OB periods, who was associated especially with the cult of deceased kings at Ur, and with the sites of Enegi and Eshnunna.168 According to the Enegi temple-hymn, dating to the Amorite Age (OB period): our prince (is) the seed of the great lord, the pure one of the great earth’, borne by Ere kigalla, He who with a loud voice plays the an(n)aru-instrument, sweet (as) the voice of a calf, Nina u, (who hears) the word(s) of prayer.169 Nina u’s other characteristics, which varied considerably with time and place, include associations with lamentation-singing, dying-and-rising gods like Dumu i, and perhaps healing.170 It is also worth noting N. Wyatt’s intriguing suggestion of an etymological relationship between R p’iu and Orpheus,171 both apparently lyre-players and health-givers, both connected with the Underworld and resurrection of the dead.172 One thinks especially of traditions, associated with Lesbos, that the lyre 167 168 169 170 171 172 A further ob ection to seeing R p’iu as a court entertainer has been that he cannot play all of the instruments simultaneously: Good 1991:158; Clemens 1993:66. But this reading is overly literal. I have already o ered arguments in support of R p’iu’s at least notional performance. If he is leader of the song, he could also play the instrument by which the orchestra’ is led, ust as David leads his own musicians. See generally Cohen 1993:465 470, especially 469 470. em le mns 14.182 184; trans. S berg and Bergmann 1969:27 28, with discussion at 8 9 and 88 89. See with sources RlA 9:329 335, especially 332 333 (Wiggermann, Nin-a u). As son of Ereshkigal, Nina u could be steward and seal-keeper of the underworld; he is called lord of prayers and supplications’ ( hul i X, 105 106) and is once lamented alongside Dumu i and other deceased kings (In the esert the arl Grass, Jacobsen 1987:59 60). For further connections with lamentation-singing, see PHG:76 and n129. His associations with healing are somewhat elusive. RTU:395n2. His consistent mythological connection with Thrace, however, is problematic. Among the innumerable sources for Orpheus, note especially Kern 1922:21 22 (underworld), 25 (magician and healer). 140 Kinnaru of Ugarit and/or head of Orpheus survived his death, threnodi ing of its own accord and carrying on his tradition.173 His attempt to revive Eurydike recalls the creation of the gala-priest to rescue Inanna from the netherworld.174 From much farther a eld comes a colorful and illuminating analogy. The remains of lyres have been found in many Anglo-Saxon elite burials, most recently the so-called Prittlewell Prince’.175 Clearly symbolic of the deceased’s achievement of memorable deeds, these lyres were also among the possessions a warrior was thought to need in the next world. Here there is no clear line between singer and sung. After all, how many princes and kings could really play the lyre even if Homer presents ust this image in Achilles, cheering his heart by singing the famous deeds of men’ as he ponders whether or not to die young at Troy and achieve imperishable fame’.176 Silence of Kinnaru The hypothesis that the innāru en oyed a special position in the royal mortuary cult and the ideology of the Rapa’ ma, and that R p’iu himself may have been represented as a innāru-player, must confront the musical details of another Ugaritian text the maddeningly elusive yet highly suggestive RS 24.257. Though badly damaged, the tablet probably contained a rite connected with the cult of dead kings, since a list of them originally from thirty-two to fty-two names, accompanied by divine determinatives appears on the reverse.177 The obverse contains repetitions of the following formula:178 and high is his drum peoples, for the Gracious One (n m). and high is the double-pipe PR, for the Gracious One (n m).179 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 For the post-mortem life of Orpheus’ lyre and head, see p140 141 and cf. Power 2010:390 391. See p29. The Prittlewell Prince’ lyre has not been published yet, but other specimens are discussed by Lawson 2004:66 67; Lawson 2006:5 6; Lawson 2008:391 392. Homer Iliad 9.185 189. RS 24.257 KTU/CAT 1.113: irolleaud 1968:561 562 (no. 5); TPm:165 178; RCU:195 210 (text 56A). A parallel king list is RS 94.2518: Arnaud 1998; RCU:203 204 (text 56B). A connection between the tablet’s reverse and obverse is supported by Smith 1994:100; Lewis 1989:51 52; RCU:195 201, 203; RTU:399 403, with further references. The music is mentioned in lines 2, 4, 6, 9 10. ... rm t h . . . l umm l n m . . . rm tl m . . . r l n m. Text: TPm:165 178. Translation RCU:201 202, changing Good One’ to Gracious One’ for consistency with my larger interpretive arguments about the term n m. 141 Chapter Seven Pardee, assuming a connection between these mysterious actions and the king list, posits that the text was a rite characteri ed by music in favor of the departed kings. One function of each entry, then, would be to state that the king in uestion had oined the Rapa’ ma and become a god. 180 A principal uncertainty is the identity of the Gracious One’ (n m). Given the context, and the word’s normal application to gods or heroes like Keret and A hat, the most obvious referent should be a king (whether the reigning monarch, or each of his divini ed ancestors, remains an interpretive conundrum).181 And yet, as T. Lewis has stressed, the weakness of such a view is that it does not ustify why l n m occurs repeatedly among musical instrumentation. 182 This makes it very reasonable to look to the special musical sense of n m, discussed above, so that Gracious One’ becomes rather Gracious Minstrel’.183 et this need not mean that the text refers only to various musical instruments which are dedicated to the chief musician. 184 The two positions may be well harmoni ed by supposing that the king(s) himself is depicted here as a singer/musician. Hence, Pardee attractively suggested that R p’iu/Milku, whom he sees as a musician in RS 24.252, is in fact the Gracious One’ of the present text.185 On the other hand, Pardee was e ually drawn to Wyatt’s suggestion that the formula was repeated once for each of the divini ed kings in the list of the reverse.186 Once again the two interpretations need not be mutually exclusive. Each divini ed monarch, invoked as Gracious One’, may be seen as occupying one stage of an eternal royal continuum whose totality is represented by R p’iu/Milku. Each king, by virtue of being n m, is invoked as an instantiation of the eternal musician-king which (on the hypothesis) R p’iu/Milku is represented as being in RS 24.252. It must be signi cant that on the one occasion when David is described as n m a Heb. cognate to n m the inn r-playing king is on his deathbed, laying out the legacy of his reign.187 But if Pardee is right to develop a relationship between the present ritual and the portrait of R p’iu/Milku as an underworld musician-king, one must 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 RCU:200, with his most recent, and convincing, arguments that divini ed kings are in uestion here; cf. Pardee 1996b:276. For a representative sample of interpretations, see Kitchen 1977:133 134, 137 (the reigning king); TPm:169 (R p’iu ); Schmidt 1994:68 69 (a god, but does not identify); RTU:400n7, with further, dissenting literature ( the reference is unclear ), and suggesting that the Gracious One’ may have referred, in each of its presumed repetitions, to a di erent deceased king. Lewis 1989:52. So F. M. Cross in Lewis 1989:52; Smith 1994:100; RCU:201. For n m, see p128 129. So Lewis 1989:52. TPm:171; RCU:201; the idea is given some credence by Smith 2001:268n196. RCU:201. See further p148 149, 175 178. 142 Kinnaru of Ugarit s uarely face an organological discrepancy between the two texts.188 Whereas in RS 24.252 the innāru appears to occupy a leading position, it is not mentioned in RS 24.257; but its companions pipes and drums play a well-de ned role, whatever other actions the fragmentary rite may have entailed. Even so, the proposed centrality of the innāru to royal funerary and/or mortuary ritual is not thereby compromised; the instrument’s absence here could be very deliberate, a further case of emphatic treatment. That is, RS 24.257 may present an opposite, but complementary, perspective to the material considered above. The following thoughts may be useful in stimulating argument. First, one might imagine that each n m, as Gracious Minstrel, is in fact conceived of as a innāru-player mirroring R p’iu/Milku as underworld musician ar e cellence to whom pipes and drums pay tribute, ust as Kinnaru himself stands out as the only divini ed instrument known at Ugarit. Each repetition could thus summon an image of the divini ed king enthroned, R p’iu-like, and as a lyrist leading the ensemble of instruments that is more fully enumerated in RS 24.252.189 One may note here the plausible suggestion of S. Ribichini, on the basis of Kinyras’ connections with the verb in resthai ( lament’), that Kinnaru aveva probabilmente un ruolo speci co nella lamenta ione funebre di Baal ed in uella dei sovrani defunti. 190 Alternatively, one could suppose that the vision of RS 24.257 encompasses not only the blissful enthronement of the divini ed kings, but also concisely replays’ the funerary ritual by which each ancestor originally oined the Rapa’ ma. Such a rite is elaborated in RS 34.126, a funerary text in poetic form, which accompanied the burial rites and sacri ces for Ni maddu III, the penultimate king of Ugarit.191 This text invokes the Ra a ma (2 10), with two former kings mentioned by name (11 12); calls for mourning of the king’s throne, footstool, and table (13 17); invokes the sun-god ap u (18 19), who bids the deceased descend into the earth lower yourself into the dust (19 22), there to oin his ancestors among the Ra a ma (23 26); stipulates a seven-fold 188 189 190 191 The appearance of pipes and drum in both texts was noted by irolleaud 1968:561 and Kitchen 1977:140. By itself, however, this parallel is rather too general to be signi cant (so rightly Lewis 1989:51); and in any case the correspondence is only partial. Thus to support the mutual relevance of the texts on the basis of their musical details, one must (ideally) oth nd further speci c performative and/or conceptual parallels, and account for the apparent absence of the innāru On this interpretation the drum’ of RS 24.257 might comprise the lesser percussion instruments named in RS 24.252; so too the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls show predominantly, but not exclusively, frame-drums for percussion (see p265). Ribichini 1982:498. RS 34.126 KTU/CAT 1.161: Bordreuil and Pardee 1982; Bordreuil/Pardee in Bordreuil 1991:151 163 no. 90; KTU:150 151. See also Levine and de Tarragon 1984; Pardee 1996b:274; RCU:85 88 no. 24 ( uotation 87); RTU:430 441; Shipp 2002:53 61. 143 Chapter Seven sacri ce to accompany the king’s descent (27 30); and orders a nal bird-sacri ce to secure good fortune for the new king ( Ammurapi) and the city of Ugarit (30 34). Now if it is right to suppose an intimate link between king and innāru in the ideology of a blissful afterlife, it would be uite appropriate for the lyre not to be heard during a ritual marking the king’s descent into the dust’. Its silence would echo the king’s death, a royal ob ect to be mourned, like his throne. After arriving in the underworld and being accepted by his deceased forebears, the king would again take his throne, resuming a oyous existence modeled on that which he had pursued in life. The pipe-drum music of RS 24.257 might thus recall an immemorial se uence of royal funerary rites-of-passage, each having issued in a revival of the oyous innāru, whereupon pipes and percussion reverted to the secondary and tertiary positions they occupy in the R p’iu text. The innāru would thus symboli e the deceased’s attainment of eternal kingship: he assumes a new form of power, which, as with R p’iu, is envisioned as a life-giving song. A possible parallel comes from the ale of A hat. After mourning his son for seven years, Danel banishes lamenters from his house, and o ers a meal and incense to the gods. The next three verses are heavily damaged, but one probably mentioned cymbals and ivory clappers in the same order they appear in the R p’iu text.192 Whatever else may have transpired here, it seems clear that the end of Danel’s mourning is marked by a resumption of music. That his actions are relevant to royal mortuary cult, and to be connected with the R p’iu text and the rite ust discussed, was plausibly suggested by M. Di kstra.193 The foregoing arguments are inevitably tenuous. But the following comparative points should be borne in mind. First there is the topos of grief stilling the sound of music, found already in Sumerian sources.194 We saw that several Hittite ritual texts prohibit singing and/or lyre-music, including a drinking ceremony to the soul of a deceased king or ueen.195 Conversely, pipe-music played a special role in funerary rituals in many parts of the ANE and Aegean.196 In the N-A version of the escent of Ishtar, for example, a pipe of lapis-la uli’ is mentioned as part of the annual rites for Dumu i.197 Osiris was also connected 192 193 194 195 196 197 KTU/CAT 1.19 iv.22 31 RS 3.322 . See above, n140. Di kstra 1979:209 210; cf. Di kstra and de Moor 1975:211. For instance in the eath of r ammu ( r ammu A, ETCSL 2.4.1.1), 187 188: My ti i, ada , ute and am am songs have been turned into laments because of me. The instruments of the house of music have been propped against the wall. See p95. For the Aegean, see Chapter 12. This was noted as a possible parallel to RS 24.257 by Di kstra 1979:210; TPm:98 ( l’usage du mot l a peut- tre bien servi donner le ton une cérémonie pour les morts ). As translated by E. A. 144 Kinnaru of Ugarit with ute-music and funeral rites, and was mourned by Isis.198 Greek representations of the Ad ni a funereal celebration of Adonis observed by many women in the Classical period and deriving at some remove from the Phoenician sphere, show the use of double-pipes and sometimes frame-drums and clappers ( r tala); this contrasts with the depiction of Adonis, while alive and in company with Aphrodite, as playing the lyre.199 Then there are the n ras (or n ros) pipes reported by Athenaios, drawing on late Classical and Hellenistic authorities, as used by the Phoenicians in lamenting Adonis,200 and an alternative name for Adonis himself; an etymological connection with Kinyras, proposed by W. H. Engel, may be signaled here.201 On the other hand, there is e ually good evidence from the Aegean and the Syro-Levantine sphere for the use of lyres in more styli ed threnodic contexts (Chapter 12). I have already argued for such an interpretation of evidence from Ebla (Chapter 4), and will present more when discussing the Greek’ word in resthai, threnodi e’, which must be cognate with both nr and Kinyras (Chapter 12). Period cult-lyric threnodies may also be intended in the CyproPhoenician symposium bowls, with their temple orchestras’ of nr, pipes, and frame-drum, if these are to be connected with Astarte/ Adonis’ cult as many believe.202 One must also note what the Greeks called Linos-song a threnodic form for which Herodotos alleges close parallels in Cyprus, Phoenicia, and 198 199 200 201 202 Speiser (ANET:109): Wash him with pure water, anoint him with sweet oil; / Clothe him with a red garment, let him la on a ute of lapis or let the lapis la uli pipe play’: S. Dalley in CS 1 no. 108, here p. 383 . / Let courtesans turn his mood (rev. 48 50) (Ishtar speaking) On the day when Tammu comes up to me, / When with him the lapis ute (and) the carnelian ring come up to me, / When with him the wailing men and the wailing women come up to me, / May the dead rise and smell the incense’ (55 58). Of course the ute’ here aptly re ects Dumu i’s role as shepherd (a very early association illustrated by an OAkk. cylinder-seal showing a seated single-pipe player among herd animals: Collon 1987 no. 675; for another pastoral piper, MgB 2/2:62 63, g. 40). But for this very reason the instrument is a most appropriate symbol for Dumu i’s fall and rise. There is an ominous scene in a Sumerian version of the myth. When the enraged goddess returns from the underworld and confronts the heedless lover on his throne, her demon assistants would not let the shepherd play the pipe and ute before her (Inanna s escent to the ether orld ETCSL 1.4.1 , 353). Egyptian sources: Hickmann 1954a:50 52. Also Juba FGH 275 F 16. Pipes at the Ad ni : LIMC s.v. Adonis no. 48, 48b. Adonis with lyre: LIMC s.v. Adonis no. 8 (Attic), 10( , Attic), 19 (Etruscan mirror), s.v. Myrrha no. 2 (Apulian) Aphrodite no. 1555. Cf. ServaisSoye 1984:63, 68. Athenaios 174f; other sources collected in AGM:92 n56 57; see also GMW 1:262 263. Apparently these instruments en oyed some novelty value in the Greek symposium and perhaps the theatre, to udge from the comic sources cited by Athenaios. See further p190n19, 202 204, 299n117. Some would also connect the name A as, by which Adonis was known at Perga in Pamphylia (Hesykhios s.v. ας), with Semitic words for pipes like Syr. a a and Akk. em u (Movers 1841 1856 1:243; SOM 2:389; AOM:251 Farmer ; see also p55n44 and 538). But A as belongs rather with other sources which o er ῷος ( el sim ) as titles of Adonis, via Gk. ἀ( ς/ ( ς, dawn’. See Lightfoot 1999:184 and further p502 and n46. Fariselli 2007:20. See further p262, 293, 486. 145 Chapter Seven Egypt. For Linos is a lyrist whose unseasonable death was lamented by lyreplayers, who thereby reenacted, and thus e ectively resurrected, the ob ect of their lament.203 RS 24.257 is not decisively illuminated by any one of these parallels, which do not themselves conform to a single underlying template. But their collective diversity is useful and suggestive, demonstrating purposeful articulations in the use of cult instruments to create musical environments appropriate to speci c ritual contexts. Any explanation of RS 24.257 should bear this material in mind. Isaiah and the Lyres of the Rephaim That the innāru may have been brought down’ by or with the king during his ritual descent to the underworld and/or in the paramythological representation of that rite recalls a passage of Isaiah, one of many places in the Bible that mention Rephaim’. The precise relationship of the Rephaim to the Rapa’ ma of Ugarit remains controversial, but here especially their essential kinship is clear. The Rephaim are described as all who were leaders of the earth all who were kings of the nations (14:9).204 Isaiah predicts the downfall of the king of Babylon (in fact probably an Assyrian emperor) and con ures an image of his arrival in the underworld.205 There the royal shades will be raised from their thrones to greet him thus: ou too have become as weak as we ou have become like us our pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the sound of your lyres; Maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.206 Isaiah was clearly familiar with the details of royal ideology going back to the BA in the region: his Rephaim’ are correctly placed in the underworld, their royal status is ongoing, and they are enthroned.207 The larger passage parodies a royal dirge both in form and content,208 and o ers a number of parallels to the funerary ritual for Ni maddu III discussed above. Common elements include the weeping over, or of, inanimate ob ects; the rousing of the Rephaim’ to greet 203 204 205 206 207 208 See further p308 310. For other passages, and their link to the Ugaritian Rapa’ ma, see references in p136n147. For the authenticity of the attribution to Isaiah here, and the identi cation of the king of Babylon with an Assyrian king, perhaps Sargon II, see Shipp 2002:158 162. But the following arguments do not depend on Isaiah’s own authorship. Isaiah 14:10 11. In attributing all of these lines to the Rephaim’s speech, I follow the argument of Shipp 2002:129 132, 155 156. Compare 1 Kings 18, which exhibits detailed familiarity with the ritual procedures and narratives of Baal cult: Ackerman 2001:86 88. Shipp 2002. 146 Kinnaru of Ugarit the newly deceased; the king’s at asis; propitiatory sacri ces; and proclamation of the new king. Isaiah systematically perverts this agenda: cedar trees celebrate the hated tyrant’s death; the Rephaim themselves disempowered do not welcome him to their company, but meet him with cold disdain; instead of hailing a successor, his sons are to be slaughtered and the royal line eradicated.209 Whereas the Rephaim lie in glory, each in his tomb (14:18), the king of Babylon will not en oy a proper burial, nor go to a royal resting-place but to the lowest pit (14:15 20): you are cast out, away from your grave / like a corpse trampled underfoot (14:19).210 Given the prophet’s informed engagement with the ideology of SyroLevantine royal mortuary cult, his inclusion of the inn r is surely no accident. Elsewhere in the Bible, and in other ANE literature, oyful music marks a prosperous and orderly realm; its silencing, the opposite.211 In Isaiah himself, ahweh’s vengeance on Judah’s enemies stills the song of the ruthless (25:5), and the noise of the ubilant who drink to the music of lyre and drum (24:8). The present passage certainly adheres to this pattern. But there seems to be more at work. That the inn r is the one speci c example used to typify royal pomp supports two hypotheses developed above, both generally and in connection with the R p’iu text. First, that the lyre occupied a leading position in the musical life of the city and its cult: if one instrument is to represent its totality, the innāru/ inn r is the most e ective choice. The second position is a derivative of the rst: the innāru played a special role in the symbolism of the royal mortuary cult. We should therefore take Isaiah’s details uite exactly, and see in the bringing down of your pomp and the sound of your lyres not only an image of the fallen mighty, but an allusion to the actions and imagery of the same kind of royal funerary rite whose details he has otherwise systematically perverted. This would t very well with the proposed interpretation of RS 24.257, developed on independent grounds. Conclusion Ugaritian texts are notoriously di cult, and this chapter has called for more speculation than elsewhere. But my interpretations have been constrained by the reasonable assumption that the innāru material is consistent both within itself and with other evidence for cult-music in the city, which o ers the most abundant textual evidence for the instrument outside of the Bible. Thus, while 209 210 211 Shipp 2002:60 61, 129 163, et passim; cf. also Lewis 1989:40 46. See Shipp 2002:155 157 for the contrast between burial of the Rephaim and the Babylonian king’. See index s.v. order, symboli ed by music’; silence, ritual’; lyres:silence of ’. 147 Chapter Seven the Divine Kinnaru itself has remained rather elusive, we have gained some idea of the sacred musical life that he epitomi ed. 148 8 David and the Divine Lyre T e im ortance of t e in early Jewish tradition, and royal ideology speci cally, is most fully embodied by David. The Bible and Josephus o er detailed descriptions of musical organi ation under David (ca. 1005 965) and Solomon (ca. 965 930).1 Some consider these to be retro ections of the Second Temple’s sophisticated musical arrangements back into an imagined Golden Age of the First Temple.2 Certainly 1 Kings, Chronicles, and Josephus incorporate legendary details, and the Chronicler does rely on the musical organi ation of his own time to understand the past. et the comparative material so far considered strongly suggests that traditions about organi ed guildic’ music under David and in the First Temple are built upon an historical core.3 This would accord with much other material in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings, deriving from sources and traditions often propagandistic going back to the times of David and Solomon themselves.4 In this chapter I shall argue that the First Temple’s sacred musical groups should be understood as imitating and perpetuating royally supported musical guilds of the kind known at Ugarit. The Ugaritic word n‘m, which we saw applied several times to royal and/or cultic singers, reappears of David himself an appropriate designation both for Saul’s lyre-playing favorite, and David’s later role, when king, of praise-singer for ahweh himself. The Bible preserves extremely rich evidence for understanding the early theology of the lyre, and for the reworking, within the evolving cult of ahweh, of older SyroLevantine ideas about the instrument’s powers. I shall argue, indeed, that David 1 2 3 4 1 Chronicles 6:1 32, 15:16 24, 25:1 31; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 8.94, 176. See generally Engel 1870:277 365; Behn 1954:53 62; AOM:282 312 (Kraeling and Mowry); Wegner 1950:38 44; North 1964; Sendrey 1969; Sendrey 1974:98 103; Polin 1974:49 76 passim. AOM:291 (Kraeling and Mowry); references in North 1964:373n3; Weit man 1997:101 102; MAIP:107 108, 115 116. PIW 2:79 81; de aux 1961:382; Myers 1965:111 112. For compelling arguments against Biblical minimalists and archaeological skeptics, see Halpern 2004, especially 57 72, 208 226. 149 Chapter Eight and Solomon inherited concepts that in Ugarit would have been associated precisely with the Divine Kinnaru. David in particular is our most vivid analogy for Kinyras and his involvement with Cypriot monarchy in the LBA. David, Solomon, and the Ideals of Great Kingship The Ugaritian material has already prompted enough Biblical parallels to ustify the view that the United Monarchy’s musical apparatus grew organically out of a larger cultural matrix, anchored in the palace-temple complexes of the LBA.5 It is at ust this time that Jewish society at least the higher tier conspicuous in the Biblical narrative most closely resembles that of other ANE states. The matter is put expressly thus when the Israelites are portrayed as importuning Samuel for a king, that we also may be like other nations. 6 A king who aspired to be a respected player on the international scene re uired a royal apparatus e ual to his rivals, complete with palace, temple, and all the speciali ed artisans and functionaries needed to build and sta them. Nebuchadne ar’s sack of Jerusalem in 586 meant dismantling these same institutions.7 The cosmopolitan standards of royal ideology and cultural attainment that David, Solomon, and their successors strove to emulate can be traced back in part ultimately to the last centuries of the third millennium, when the dynasties of Akkad and Ur III established perennial models of kingship and empire. It is symptomatic that the Hebrew words for palace/temple, throne, and scribe are all ultimately Sumerian in origin.8 Solomon especially appears as a Great King in the LBA mold. The wide array of precious gifts he gave and received evokes the erstwhile Club of Powers as known from the Amarna letters.9 It was largely through such exchanges that he built the First Temple in Jerusalem.10 Hiram of Tyre gave both materials and labor for the time-consuming pro ect, which lasted seven years a conventional cosmic’ number.11 In return, Solomon sent annual consignments of grain and 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 See p116 119, 129, 146 147. For this view, see especially Albright 1956:125 129; GC:249 253; cf. de aux 1961:382 383; Levine 1963a:211 212; Tsumura 1973:176 178. 1 Samuel 8:20, cf. 5. 2 Kings 24:13 25:21. See Ellenbogen 1962:67, 78 79, 89; Stieglit 1990:89n52, proposing Ebla as the intermediary for the passage of such terms to the west; Met ger and Coogan 1993 s.v. Temple; Dalley et al. 1998:61. 1 Kings 10:11 25. For the dynamics of royal gift-exchange, see generally Liverani 1990. For the controversies surrounding the nature and stature of the First Temple, see Mierse 2012:249 254, 262 267, who convincingly situates Solomon’s building program between LBA traditions and the novel political conditions of the EIA. Fisher 1963:40 41, compares the seven days re uired for the building of Baal’s palace, also from Lebanese cedar: KTU/CAT 1.4 vi.16 33 ( RS 2. 008 ). 150 David and the Divine Lyre oil, payment for the workers, and twenty cities in the land of Galilee. 12 The use of Lebanese cedar must have been de rigueur, its ac uisition by con uest or exchange almost a royal rite-of-passage.13 Clearly the temple was a cosmopolitan construction to rival other states’ cult centers a royal vehicle to communicate to the widest possible audience the authoritative presence of the ruler who had built it. 14 Solomon’s splendid ualities are e ectively a completed checklist in the application for Great Kingship.15 A roster of subordinate kings and princes, with their lavish diplomatic gifts, demonstrates his status as a Great King,16 while his occupation of a new imperial center is established by the claim that all the world’s kings and the ueen of Sheba came to hear his wisdom, which excelled that of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt :17 He was wiser than anyone else, wiser than Ethan the E rahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, children of Mahol He composed three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and ve. He would speak of trees, from the cedar that is in the Lebanon to the hyssop that grows in the wall; he would speak of animals, and birds, and reptiles, and sh. People came from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.18 It is clear from the pairing of the east country with Egypt that this Solomonic portrait asserts a new cultural eminence in the Levant, formerly caught between empires. et the range of learning sketched here echoes mainstream Babylonian texts studied by scribes in Mesopotamia and beyond. 19 Solomon’s combined achievements, while conceivable perhaps for a single man of leisure, become incredible given the demands of kingship. This portrait is therefore best taken to symboli e the cultural e orescence claimed for Solomon’s reign. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 Kings 6:37 38, 9:11. 1 Kings 5, with cedars at 6 10, 18 (ac uired through gift-exchange), 6:15 16, 7:2, 9:10 14, cf. 2 Samuel 7:7, 1 Chronicles 17:6, 22:4 (David’s provision for cedar logs without number ac uired from the Sidonians and Tyrians). Cedars in the palace of David: 2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Chronicles 17:1; palace of Solomon: 1 Kings 7:2 3, 11 12. Cedars from Lebanon, paid for by Cyrus the Great, were also used for the Second Temple: E ra 3:7, 6:4. Mierse 2012:265. 1 Kings 4. The huge menu re uired for Solomon’s men (1 Kings 4:22 28; cf. de aux 1961:122) calls to mind the Old/Middle Assyrian text about the retainers of Sargon the Great: Foster 2005:71 75 ( I.6). For gift-giving, note also 10:23 25. 1 Kings 4:30, cf. 10:23 25; ueen of Sheba: 1 Kings 10:1 3. 1 Kings 4:31 34. Dalley et al. 1998:74. 151 Chapter Eight This is remarkably close to Shulgi’s self-presentation in his royal praisehymns.20 Solomon and Shulgi will be important parallels for the comparably broad portfolio credited to Kinyras. Note especially that Solomon’s dossier, like Shulgi’s, contains an important musical component. With more than a thousand songs to his credit, Solomon here rivals David himself. This aspect of his wisdom is re ected in the traditional attribution of some Psalms to him, along with David (see below), as well the Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Odes of Solomon.21 The inn r is close to hand in some of these attributions. Moreover, all four wisemen bested by Solomon in the passage above have primarily musical associations. Ethan and Heman appear elsewhere as leaders of two Davidic musical guilds (see below), so that here Solomon, like Shulgi, outshines his own court’s leading lights. Heman, Calcol, and Darda are called Sons of Mahol ; yet ma l, as W. F. Albright argued, can e ually be taken as a common noun relating to choral activity, making these gures archetypal members of a guild of dancers or singers probably combining both. 22 The description of Ethan as an E rahite is applied elsewhere to Heman, Calcol, and Darda; the designation evidently means native/autochthonous’, leading Albright to see the four sages as representing an older background of Canaanite music and wisdom traditions.23 The artistic and intellectual activity credited to Solomon is predicated on an abundance of peace and prosperity, so that the underlying message is an assertion of power. We have seen similar uses of music in Shulgi’s cosmopolitan virtuosity, Hammurabi’s dedication of a (presumably divine) BALA following his defeat of Mari, and the divine singer who praises Baal after (probably) his 20 21 22 23 See above, p33 35. For a detailed comparison, Kramer 1991. Psalms of Solomon: PIW 2:118 120. Odes of Solomon: e.g. Fran mann 1991:5 7. Albright 1956:127 and 210n96 ( members of the orchestral guild, deriving ma l from l, to circle’); followed by de aux 1961:382 ( sons of the choir ); GC:251 252 ( uotation); for root and other derivatives, see with further references MAIP:39 40; Ma ar 2003:126. One may note here the possible appearance of Baal as a dancing god: Baal Mar od, attested in a third-century BCE inscription, and derived from WS rqd, skip/dance’ (Sendrey 1969:441; Tubb 2003:12l; Ma ar 2003:126). But this interpretation has been well challenged by DDUPP:115 116. Albright 1956:14, 126 129; PIW 2:80 81, 95 97 GC:250 253. Cf. Cogan 2000:222, The context suggests that they were non-Israelites. In the heading of Psalms 88, Heman is made an E rahite; at 1 Chronicles 2:6 imri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Dara i.e. Darda are the Sons of erah, hence all interpreted as E rahites’ by Albright 1956:127 and 210n95 (noting especially Numbers 9:14 and the Septuagint’s regular translation of e ra as α τόχθ ν); cf. Cogan 2000:222. Albright ( GC:250 and n125) connected Ethan’ with several instances of the Ugaritic name ’Atyn, which he vocali ed as Attuyana and considered of Hurrian origin; cf. Albright 1956:127. Note also ’Attanu, the Chief Priest the adept (lmd . ’atn rb khnm), named alongside king and scribe in the colophon of CTA 6.6.54 55, and evidently the master singer who dictated to the scribe : see Cross 1974:1n1; Cross 1998:139 140. 152 David and the Divine Lyre Figure 12 Lyre-playing lion king with animal subjects. Ninth-century orthostat relief from Guzana (Tell Halaf). Drawn from Moortgat 1955 pl. 100–101. defeat of amm, the Sea. Just such a se uence of events is connected by Josephus with David and his inn r: And now, after David had been freed from campaigns and dangers, and en oying thenceforth universal peace, he composed his odes and hymns to God.24 That this vision is no mere deduction by Josephus, but a traditional SyroLevantine image, is shown by several monuments from the Aramaean sphere. First are two ninth-century orthostat reliefs from Gu ana (Tell Halaf), capital of Bit Bachiani during the reign of Kapara, before it came under Assyrian control (by the eighth century).25 Each shows a slightly di erent group of animals dancing and playing instruments before a lion, who sits upon a rock evidently enthroned and plays a tall rectangular lyre (Figure 12 Figure 5.1v).26 This is an image of political stability and lyric control. The same idea is 24 25 26 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.12.3: πηλλαγμένος δ δη πολέμ ν αυίδης κα κινδύν ν κα αθείας ἀπολαύ ν τ λοιπ ν ε ρήνης δ ς ε ς τ ν θε ν κα μνους συνετά ατο. See RlA 4:54 (Hrouda, alaf, Tell) with further references. Moortgat 1955:95 98 and pl. 100 101; HKm:72 with pl. 14 no. 42 and further references. 153 Chapter Eight found, in negative form, in the eighth-century Se re steles, to be examined in Chapter 12.27 That David and Solomon alike maintained both male and female singers and musicians in the royal household is asserted and implied by the Bible.28 There is no reason to doubt this. The evidence from Mari, Nu i, Amarna, and elsewhere con rms that such collections’ were actively developed.29 We also have independent documentary evidence from Assyrian sources for the palace musicians, both male and female, maintained by He ekiah (715 687), who delivered them up as tribute to Sennacherib after the campaign of 701.30 Presumably, many of Solomon’s female musicians were ranked among the three hundred concubines who, with seven hundred wives, made up the royal harem.31 Although these gures are probably swollen, their reported origins Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and Hatti are a realistic re ection of Solomon’s political reach: extensive, but not unlimited. The Mari texts and Amarna reliefs showed that the harem was an important locus of cosmopolitan musicality. The cultural in uence of royal women also extended to the religious sphere when they imported native deities to a new home through interdynastic marriage.32 One may compare the Hittite kings’ wholesale adoption of Hurrian and other gods, both from foreign wives and con uered peoples.33 Solomon is said to have built cult-places for all ( ) his wives’ gods, famously including the Astarte (Ashtoreth) of Sidon.34 This phenomenon too is musically relevant, since such transferred deities, we have seen, could be accompanied by the appropriate cult personnel and ritual repertoire.35 It is uite remarkable, therefore, to nd the following legend in the Talmud: 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 See p300. David: 1 Samuel 19:36; Solomon: Ecclesiastes 2:8, re ecting a traditional view of Solomon, to whom the work was attributed: cf. de aux 1961:121 122. For the ideology, see especially iegler 1999. ARAB 2:143 312; CS 2:119B. These can be connected with the captive lyrists shown in the emperor’s reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish (BM 124947): see inter al. PIW 2:80 (interpreting as temple-singers); Rimmer 1969:34; MgB 2/2:122 and pl. 142; Oded 1979:101 and n179; DCPIL:49 ( uestioning the identi cation as Judaean); Cheng 2001:74 75; my Figure 5.8f. Hebrew accounts of the events: 2 Kings 18:13 37, Isaiah 36:1 2; cf. Herodotos 2.141. 1 Kings 11:1 3. See generally de aux 1961:115 117. Liverani 1990:221, 224 225, 274 282. See e.g. Bryce 2002:135 136 et passim. 1 Kings 11:4 8. This datum has been important (e.g. Kramer 1963; Kramer 1969:85 106) to the tradition of interpreting the Song of Songs as deriving at some remove from hierogamic ritual e.g. borrowed during the time of Solomon from Canaanite royal practice, itself more or less in uenced by Sumerian/Babylonian archetypes. For this long-contested issue, see recently Lapinkivi 2004:91 98 (developing further parallels with Mesopotamian love-poetry), and especially Nissinen 2008, tracing the history of debate. See p100 102. 154 David and the Divine Lyre When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, she brought him a thousand musical instruments and said to him, Thus we play lit. do’ in honour of that idol, thus in honour of that idol yet he did not forbid her.36 According to Rabbinic tradition, Solomon’s marriage transpired on the very day the temple was consecrated, which was thereby overshadowed: the delights of Pharaoh’s daughter caused Solomon to oversleep, so that the morning sacri ce could not be carried out. From that day forward, it was said, God determined to overthrow Jerusalem. The tale must be related to the Rabbinic re ection of instrumental music following the city’s destruction in 70 CE, with an original musical sin’ traced back to the very founding of the First Temple.37 Nevertheless, given the evidence from Mari, the legend is doubtless encrusted upon some genuine reminiscence of purposeful musical diversity in the monarchic period, very probably going back to Solomon himself. Musical Management in the First Temple A ma or state needed a system for the training and management of musicians. Traditionally the sacred musical groups were inaugurated by David to accompany the Ark’s removal to Jerusalem, and were perpetuated in service before the Tabernacle at its new home.38 The singers’ were divided into families’ by speci c instruments: the ma or groups were strings ( inn r, n el), cymbals (me ilta m), and trumpets (shofar).39 Recall the designation of Ugaritian guilds, including perhaps the singers, as bn ( sons of ’), and the Bible’s representation of Jubal as an ultimate musical ancestor of lyre- and pipes-players.40 The Bible’s implication of existing musical resources on which David could draw is 36 37 38 39 40 Shabbath 56b BT 2:264. Cf. LJ 4:128 129, 6:280 281 n12 13 with further references; SOM 1:553 571 (including the more moderate stance of Maimonides). 2 Samuel 6:5, 15; 1 Chronicles 6:1 32, 15:16 24, 28, 25:1 31; 2 Chronicles 7:6; cf. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 8.94, 176; onaras Epitome historiarum 1.116.3. The whole matter is well discussed by Kleinig 1993. David’s original organi ation is also invoked by the Chronicler in the context of He ekiah’s reign, as well as E ra and Nehemiah in describing the restoration of music in the Second Temple: 2 Chronicles 29:25; Nehemiah 12:27 47; cf. E ra 2:41, 64, 3:10 13. For the n el, see p52n26. The use of signal trumpets, for instance, is sure to be very ancient. For the silver instruments of Moses, Numbers 10:1 10; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 3.12. Note that a disbursement of silver to decorate musical horns is found at Ebla: Tonietti 2010:80 81. There are also Egyptian representations from the NK (Myers 1965:113), and actual specimens have been found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (Manniche 1976) and in the Uluburun wreck (ca. 1300: Pulak 1998:205); cf. MAIP:14 16. Note too the Talmudic tradition that there had been in the temple a pipe and cymbals from the time of Moses: ‘Arakin 10b BT 16:58. See p43 44, 115. 155 Chapter Eight corroborated by the extensive parallelism of the earliest specimens of Hebrew poetry, clearly akin to Ugaritian practice.41 Such songs are evidently relics of an ancient epic cycle, cultivated at various league sanctuaries.42 Some form of family’ musical groups may already have served such sacred sites, and were simply repurposed by David. At such an early date, however, there is no reliable means of distinguishing Israelite’ music from a Canaanite background’. And with Solomon’s monumental new temple, it is not improbable that the music of ahweh’s cult would have been renovated’ in conformity with standards and practices of ma or Canaanite sanctuaries.43 We have already seen that two of the musical leaders traditionally appointed by David Heman and Ethan probably represent Canaanite traditions of music, wisdom, and dance.44 They are provided with complete Levitical genealogies by the Chronicler, but these will be later constructions.45 Even if these gures are entirely legendary, and their founding position in the Chronicler represents an anachronistic insertion comparable to the traditional attribution of psalms to David and Solomon they do indicate that Hebrew temple-music as such might be recogni ed as going back to early, pre-Israelite, sources. 46 A deeper pre-Davidic musical background is also assumed in Saul’s performance with the musical prophets. Samuel foretells that the young king-elect will have a remarkable encounter at Gibeath-elohim ( Hill of God’): 41 42 43 44 45 46 E.g. the Song of Miriam’ (Exodus 15), the Song of Deborah’ (Judges 5), the Oracles of Balaam’ (Numbers 23 24), the Song of Moses’ (Deuteronomy 32), etc. Relative dating schemes for these and other songs have been attempted: see inter al. GC:1 28, 42 52; Freedman 1976. While their methodology might be re ned by the development of further criteria, Albright’s basic principle remains valid: the Ugaritian texts show that extensive parallelism is an archaic feature of Hebrew poetry. Pardee 1988b, Appendix I (168 192) provides a good overview of trends in research to that date; note especially the call for situating Ugaritian and Hebrew parallelism in a larger, hence more ancient, Semitic context, which should include Aramaic, Akkadian, and other evidence (174 175). Cross 1973, especially 79 144. Cf. de aux 1961:382, It is not too bold to think that the rst choir of singers for the Temple at Jerusalem was recruited from among non-Israelites. One should recall here the controversial Jebusite hypothesis: the high priest adok was retained from a priestly family that had long presided at Jerusalem, and was only later out tted with an Aaronid genealogy. This idea, elaborated by Rowley 1939, has won, despite vigorous challenges (Cross 1973:207 215, et al.), increasing support (with various modi cations): see with further references Jones 1990:25, 40 42, 131 135, 151n35, 154n44; Albert 1994:129, 295n7 8, with references. See p152 and n22. Cf. Cogan 2000:222: by the time of the Chronicler i.e. 1 Chronicles 2:6 they were given Israelite ancestry, as grandsons of Judah, taking the E rahite’ to refer to erah son of Judah and Tamar. Albright 1956:128 stressing, however, that this does not itself prove that David organi ed the rst religious music of Israel. Some of the extant psalms are also ascribed to them: Asaph (12), Heman (1), Ethan (1), and Jeduthun (3). Cf. de aux 1961:382; GC:250. 156 David and the Divine Lyre ou will meet a band of prophets coming down from the shrine with n el, frame-drum (tof), pipes ( alil),47 and inn r playing in front of them; they will be in a prophetic fren y. Then the spirit of the Lord will possess you, and you will be in a prophetic fren y along with them and be turned into a di erent person.48 The phenomenon of musical prophecy will be discussed below.49 Here I would emphasi e that the ensemble’s make-up is not dissimilar to what David’s musical families’ will o er, and which one must posit for Ugarit.50 This array has been called a Canaanite (temple) orchestra’,51 although the Ugaritian texts and north Syrian ivories show that Syro-Levantine’ would be the better term.52 The famous cult-stand with musicians from Ashdod is a happy parallel here, given the Bible’s statement that there was a Philistine garrison at Gibeathelohim.53 The stand’s players match 1 Samuel closely: lyre, double-pipes, framedrum, and perhaps cymbals. (But note that the lyre is round-based, probably re ecting the Philistines’ Aegean background.54) Similar ensembles are often represented, with minor variations, in the corpus of Cypro-Phoenician bowls (phiálai), ranging from the tenth century to the sixth (see further Chapter 11). David’s full musical establishment is said to have been under the management of a certain Chenaniah who was to direct the music, for he understood it. 55 The exact interpretation of his position vis-à-vis the Levitical guilds remains controversial; but some de nite musical function is likely given the Septuagint’s Leader of the Singers. 56 While it is elsewhere stated that he and his sons were o cials and udges outside the Temple,57 this actually resembles the Chief 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 For this instrument, see NG 3:525 and MGG 1:1514 (both Braun). It may be signi cant, as noted by Sellers 1941:41, that this its rst Biblical attestation. 1 Samuel 10:5 6. See p161 165. See p115 118. It is the same ensemble which Isaiah 5:11 12 attributes to the drinking parties of Jerusalem’s dissolute inhabitants those wild grapes (5:2, 4) who do not regard the deeds of the Lord (5:12). The prophet has apparently redeployed the orchestra’ appropriate for sacred performances into a profane context, parallel to his larger criti ue. The passage was understood along similar lines at umran, where Isaiah’s target was interpreted as the Essenes’ sectarian rivals in Jerusalem, the congregation of Sco ers (4 162.6 10: DJD 5:15 16; ermes 2011:499, with comments on 54, 61). Bayer 1982:32; Poethig 1985:19, 23 27. See p134-135, 267 268. 1 Samuel 10.5. For the cult-stand, see Dothan 1970; Dothan 1982:249 251; Bayer 1982:32; Poethig 1985:23 27; MAIP:166 174; SAM:156 157 (no. 121). See p250 251. 1 Chronicles 15:22, cf. 27. L : ρχ ν τ ν δ ν. A musical function is accepted by the NRS . For the controversy, see recently with further literature Kleinig 1993:44 51; Leithart 2003:59 62. 1 Chronicles 26:29. 157 Chapter Eight Singer of such OB states as Mari, whose duties were not exclusively musical, but comprised important civic functions. David himself, in the court of Saul (ca. 1025 1005), had occupied a comparable position. There was not yet an elaborate musical bureaucracy for him to preside over, but he was evidently a royal singer and con dant of the king at least initially. His catharses of Saul’s evil spirit suggest something not unlike the puri cation-priests of Mesopotamian tradition.58 David was also remembered as building instruments and instructing the Levites in their use.59 One recalls the royal order for instruments, including the innāru, at Mari.60 Solomon too is called an instrument-builder. Josephus preserves an extra-Biblical tradition in his vivid portrait of forty thousand lyres (knr and nbl) made of precious woods, stones, and electrum, commissioned for the Levites to sing the Lord’s praises.61 Summing up, although David is treated in the Biblical narratives as a musical pioneer, his actions make best sense against an older Canaanite tradition of temple music. There is plenty of comparative material to show that the musical organi ation credited to the First Temple by tradition is inherently plausible, even if the precise numbers and divisions are open to uestion. Given the royal ambitions of David and Solomon, it is hard to believe that ahweh would have lacked the sophisticated honors paid to Baal and other gods in the temples of their peers.62 The Kinn r and the Divine Lyre Against this backdrop we may consider the Biblical inn r and its divine overtones. The Divine Lyre cannot be seen directly. Already in the Davidic period Jewish culture had begun to distinguish itself sharply from its neighbors, despite a shared religious heritage. And the narratives relating to the United Monarchy were shaped by the concerns of later theologians who reworked traditional materials into the forms we now possess. Most familiar perhaps is the antimonarchic bias of the post-exile period, when the earlier defeat of Israel and Judah, and the destruction of the First Temple, had to be explained; this had a ma or impact on the recension and canoni ation of traditional materials.63 Even 58 59 60 61 62 63 1 Samuel 16:23. 1 Chronicles 23:5; 2 Chronicles 7:6; 29:26; Nehemiah 12:36; Amos 6:5; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.305; Psalms 151:3 L . See p76 77. Antiquities of the Jews 8.94, 176, cf. 7.305; also 1 Kings 10:12, Solomon’s lyres from the exotic, stillunidenti ed almug wood (cf. Burgh 2006:24). Cf. PIW 2:80 81. An accessible introduction is Friedman 1987. 158 David and the Divine Lyre so, there are many cases where an older Levantine theological environment is more or less evident.64 It is perfectly conceivable therefore that beliefs and practices that in the LBA would have been connected to the cult of a Divine Lyre should have found their way into the Bible, albeit in altered form and contexts. Soon after Kinnaru was discovered at Ugarit, A. Jirku hypothesi ed that the various magical e ects attributed to the inn r for example David’s puri cation of Saul’s evil spirit would once have been seen as the Einwirkung des Gottes Kinaru (sic).65 A. Cooper cautioned that the case for relating the use of the lyre to any purported function of Kinnaru is tenuous. 66 More recently, however, N. Wyatt has given some credence to the idea that the prophetic and exorcistic uses of the Biblical inn r may faintly echo the old theology, albeit long reinterpreted. 67 Since the Biblical portrait of Solomon’s wisdom and musicality was evidently formulated in dialogue with Canaanite ideals, we may begin with a remarkable piece of iconographic evidence that is earlier than David himself (as conventionally dated). This is the so-called Orpheus Jug’, an eleventh-century vase-painting from Megiddo, which brilliantly illustrates the older musical background, giving it a speci cally lyrical’ slant and containing a magical element that accords very well with the idea of a Divine Lyre (Figure 13).68 This late Philistine production, combining thematic elements deriving from both subMycenaean (IIIC:1b) and local Levantine tradition, shows a lyrist with animals in three registers lion, ga elle, horse, sh, dog, bird, crab, and scorpion all apparently proceeding towards a schemati ed palm tree, very probably of cultic signi cance (see below). The iconography of lyrist and animals has been predictably explained by appeal to Orpheus that is, as an Aegean intrusion due to Philistine settlement in the region during the twelfth century.69 et such an interpretation could at best tell only half of the story. In a careful reassessment, A. asur-Landau has noted that while strainerugs do belong to the repertoire of Aegean symposium vessels, and traces of 64 65 66 67 68 69 See inter al. GC; Smith 1990. Jirku 1963. Cooper 1981:385. DDD col. 912. IAA 13.1921, strainer-spout ug, Megiddo stratum IA, ca. 1100: Loud 1936:1110, g. 9, 11 12; Rutten 1939:442 443 and g. 11; Dothan 1982:150 153 and g. 21.1 (pl. 61); SAM:111 (no. 71). Note the ribbons or bands that hang from the musician’s waist and legs, presumably ceremonial and recalling the betasseled lyrist on the roughly contemporary Kouklia kalathos from near Paphos, and a swordsman on a shard from Lefkandi (LH IIIC): Deger-Jalkot y 1994:21 and 18 g. 4.3; cf. p255. et further non-musicians are so adorned on another Megiddo pot (level IIA), so that perhaps this element merely re ects local iconographic tradition (Dothan 1982:150). So already Loud 1936:1110, g. 9: suggestive of Orpheus, but from a site more associated with David ; Dothan 1982:150 153. 159 Chapter Eight Figure 13 Lyrist with animals and tree (‘Orpheus jug’). Philistine strainerspout jug, Megiddo, ca. 1100. Jerusalem, IAA 13.1921. Drawn from Dothan 1982 fig. 21.1 . 1 . Philistine and Cypriot stylistic elements can be detected in the present example, its narrative imagery and composition nd better parallels in LBA Canaan, for instance the motif of palm-tree and ibex.70 And while the lyrist is preeminent within the animal procession, the composition as a whole is focused on what is generally taken as a Sacred Tree or Tree of Life itself a Near Eastern motif of deep anti uity and associations with a goddess gure, whence it functions as a symbol of fertility.71 What has not been su ciently stressed in past discussions is the Levantine morphology of the instrument itself.72 And we have seen that the motif of lyrist with animals goes back to the third millennium in North Syria (it is further attested by two southern Anatolian seals of the early second).73 In later Jewish and Arabic folklore, too, David and Solomon were often credited with power 70 71 72 73 asur-Landau 2008: The subtle message of the vase is conveyed by referring the owner and his drinking guests to a well-known ANE mythological theme, celebrated for centuries in Canaanite Megiddo: the peaceful demonstration of the power of the goddess, represented by the sacred tree, the unity between man and nature, and music (225). So for this piece Dothan 1982:152; Keel 1998:39 40; asur-Landau 2008:224 225. For the Sacred Tree motif generally, see Danthine 1937 (fertility, 152 153, 157); Keel 1998; Keel and Uehlinger 1998, 232 236 et pass.; Giovino 2007 (doxographical review with emphasis on Assyrian iconography). For the motif ’s reception on LBA Cyprus, see p386. But note Bayer 1982:22 23. See p153 154, 517 518. Cf. DCPIL:53. 160 David and the Divine Lyre over, and the ability to communicate with, the animal kingdom persistent traditions that can hardly be fully explained by Philistine or later Hellenistic in uence.74 Given these data, the comparison with Orpheus is super cial at best. The Bible’s wise and musical Solomon provides a more immediate parallel,75 and of course the lyre-playing David. Without denying the possibility of Aegean musical in uence at this time,76 the great contribution of the Orpheus ug, being somewhat older than the United Monarchy, is to establish the deep anti uity and indigenous nature of ideas in the Biblical narratives. Like David and Solomon themselves, it is an ideali ed portrait of the lyrist as Master of Wisdom, whose knowledge and powers included, but were not limited to, the music itself ’. A further power shared by the inn r and the Divine Kinnaru may be inferred by way of the Mesopotamian comparanda: the ability to enable communication between the spiritual and natural worlds. 77 The Biblical prophets were regarded as couriers relaying the decrees of ahweh and the divine assembly. Comparison with the Ugaritian texts shows that this role was formerly executed by lesser, messenger’ deities.78 Kinnaru himself is not directly attested in that role. et music and prophecy are fre uently linked in the Bible, especially in connection with the inn r. The Psalms, many of which were traditionally regarded as the prophetic productions of David, o er several striking expressions of this relationship. The opening verses of Psalm 49 preserve a crucial rst-person, professional perspective: Hear this, all you peoples; give ear, all inhabitants of the world, both low and high, rich and poor together. 74 75 76 77 78 See p181 184. So rightly Ma ar 1974:174 182 (Hebrew, non vidi), cited by Dothan 1982:152; also approved by MAIP:147. This may explain the prescription of gittith’ for the music of three Biblical psalms (Psalms 8, 81, and 84), which C. H. Gordon interpreted as the instrument of Gath (in the Philistine pentapolis). One of these psalms is attributed to David himself, and while this is probably anachronistic, it may well suggest that later generations of psalmodists were prepared to recogni e a musical dimension to David’s fteen-month so ourn among the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:1 6). See Gordon 1965b:225; cf. MAIP:39, suggesting style of Gath as an alternative. If an openness to Philistine music-culture seems unlikely in view of the Bible’s generally hostile stance, one could see this as a case of appropriating the musical symbols of a defeated people, comparing the situation in Shulgi’s Ur or NK Egypt: see p36 37, 105 111. DDD col. 912 (Wyatt). See Mullen 1980:209 226, 279, 283. 161 Chapter Eight My mouth shall speak wisdom and the care of my heart understanding. I shall incline my ears to a parable (mā āl); and in/on the lyre I shall disclose my dark saying ( dāh).79 The psalmist goes on to deliver a universali ing meditation on the fragility of life and inevitability of death. But the prelude is readily detached: it is an introductory formula, like the many exhortations to song in other psalms, or the psalmists’ repeated invocations of ahweh to incline to their song and so lend them his voice.80 Psalm 49, however, strikes an unusual note as a singer’s glancing self-portrait. He trumpets his public role and ability to command universal attention, before turning inwards to describe his prophetic process through the lyre. What exactly is involved is clari ed by a cognate passage in Psalm 78, which, after an almost identical beginning, carries on: I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings/riddles from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our ancestors have told us.81 Even if Psalm 49 is relatively late, perhaps post-monarchic,82 the parallel formulae in Psalm 78 indicate that the lyre-singer is assuming a traditional stance as custodian of an ancient lyric art of prophecy. He both reproduces the often obscure lore of his predecessors, and recasts it in his own terms. While he presents interpretations of the dark sayings, he e ually re-riddles what he has received to disclose admonitory pu les of his own. A key component of the psalmodists’ enigmatic pronouncements was the inherited techni ue of parallelism, which permitted both singer and audience to construct multi-directional and semantically productive correspondences between verse cola. Psalm 49:3 4 itself appropriately exempli es the techni ue, schemati ing, as A. N. Palmer nicely puts it, 79 80 81 82 Psalms 49:1 4, with translation in 3 4 following the L : disclose’ re ects ἀνοί ω and the literal open’ of the Hebrew ( t ), cf. NRS solve’, Palmer 1993:377, utter’. For this and the other key Hebrew words, notably the range of mā āl and dāh, see van der Ploeg 1963:145; Richards 1985:508. The potential relevance of these verses to Kinnaru was noted by Wyatt (DDD col. 912). While most of the Psalms implicitly ful ll one or both of these functions, the following are notably explicit. Musical exhortations: Psalms 33:1 3, 47:1, 61:1 2, 66:1 2, 81:1 2, 95:1 2, 96:1 2, 98:1 2, 105:1 2, 147:1, 149:1, 150:1 6. Epicletic formulas: 4:1, 5:1 2, 34:1, 77:1, 80:1, 83:1, 86:1, 88:1 2, 89:1, 92:1 3, 101:1, 102:1 2, 116:1 2, 120:1, 130:1 2, 141:1, 142:1 2, 143:1. Psalms 78:2 3. So van der Ploeg 1963:138 139. 162 David and the Divine Lyre the contrast between speech and thought, listening and singing, at the same time as it suggests that what is spoken and thought of, listened to and sung, is something which binds together the four words: wisdom, meaning, parable, riddles These comparisons encourage the reader to go further and nd analogies between the mouth and the lyre, between the heart and the ears The psalmist describes not himself, but his mouth, as uttering wisdom which the general tenor of his poetry suggests is the wisdom of God the reader is led to consider that the I of the last phrase is that of the source of the Psalmist’s inspiration, God.83 In support of Palmer’s view that as the invocation progresses the psalmodist’s voice becomes that of ahweh, note that it is normally the latter to whom the expression incline the ears is applied in the Psalms.84 If this is right, it places the phrase in the lyre in a rather more startling light. The emphasis would be less on the psalmodist using the lyre and its music to communicate with ahweh, than on ahweh placing his message into the lyre, from which the singer must attempt to extract it. In doing so, however, ahweh himself becomes a kind of lyrist, so that the human lyre-prophet is attempting to replicate the song and message that God has devised for him. We are reminded of the balang-god of Ningirsu, visuali ed as a singer, with his communication to the human realm enabled precisely by the instrument of which he is the spirit. While parallelistic composition is well known from Ugaritian poetry and early songs embedded in the Bible itself, the aforementioned Psalm verses are uni uely precious for vouchsa ng a connection with professional lyric, and explicitly acknowledging the deep anti uity of the tradition. Again we must thank the Orpheus ug for linking the Biblical psalmists with this older cultural milieu. Given this ancient background, one must be struck by the direct invocation of the lyre in Psalm 108 (1 3): I will sing and make melody. Awake, my soul Awake, O inn r and n el I will awake the dawn. I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations. 83 84 Palmer 1993:377 378, with additional analysis, followed by application to the poetics of St. Ephraim, for whom cf. p61 above. Cf. van der Ploeg 1963:144. 163 Chapter Eight Wyatt is surely right to suggest that these lyre-invocations (the formula is repeated in Psalm 57:8 9) echo an older usage when minor gods of the pantheon were called upon to glorify their overlord. 85 He uickly concedes that they might also be explained as simple poetic apostrophes. But even if the latter view is correct from a sixth-century or later Jewish perspective, the traditional nature of the verses salvages some heuristic value with respect to the ancient lyric art from which the Psalms descend. And given that a Divine Lyre is known to have existed, within an institutional framework that predicts many features of the First Temple, how can one really distinguish between simply poetic’ if such an idea is even valid for the earlier period and a more potent ritualpoetic’, of which the Psalms present so much other clear evidence Insofar as the lyrist serves as the mouthpiece of ahweh, we have a form of divine communication very similar to what we saw of divine instruments in Mesopotamia. Some of the Davidic musical groups are said to have been appointed expressly to prophesy to the music of inn r, n el, cymbals, and trumpets an instrumental range closely comparable to Saul’s band of prophets.86 et other passages show that it was the inn r that was the prophetic instrument par excellence. I Chronicles (25:3) attributes to David the appointment of the sons of Jeduthun, who prophesied with the inn r in thanksgiving and praise to the Lord. Here prophesy seems to cover a broader musical range than the English word might imply, including praise poetry and perhaps the interpretation of sacred songs. These functions are not sharply separated in the Old Testament, where it is precisely praise songs, properly executed, which bring about miraculous results. Two notable illustrations will su ce. Jehoshaphat, the fourth King of Judah in the ninth century, having received the Lord’s word via the prophet Jaha iel that he would be victorious against the Moabites and Ammonites, appointed those who were to sing to the Lord As they began to sing and praise, the Lord set an ambush against the Ammonites, Moab, and Mount Seir. 87 Here apparently praise-singing was needed to cause a prophesied event to come to fruition. 85 86 87 DDD col. 912 (Wyatt), adducing the R p’iu text as a parallel (for which see p134 135). 1 Samuel 19:20 24; 1 Chronicles 25:1 ( David and the o cers of the army also set apart for the service the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with inn r, n el and with cymbals ), with 1 Chronicles 15:16 24 (David’s appointment of musicians from the Levites) and 25:3 6; 2 Chronicles 5:12, 20:21 23. Musical prophecy may be implicit at 1 Samuel 19:20 24; Psalms 49:2 5, with the lyre: see below; E ekiel 40:44 46. For earlier times cf. Exodus 15:20 21; Deuteronomy 31:19 22 (of Moses). See generally Sendrey 1969:481 489, 507 515; Shiloah 1993:58 59. 2 Chronicles 20:22 23. 164 David and the Divine Lyre From the next generation comes a striking example of prophecy-inperformance during the campaign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, against the Moabites, when the united army of Israel, Judah, and Edom was stranded in the wilderness without water.88 This was seen as a divine ordinance, and the prophet Elisha was summoned to en uire the Lord’s purpose. But get me a musician,’ Elisha ordered. And then, while the musician was playing the inn r is clearly implied89 the power of the Lord came on him; and he said, Thus says the Lord, I will make this wadi full of pools.’ Here music returns order to a disordered natural world. A sort of sympathetic magic proceeding from harmonic and rhythmic structure is probably implied. But the result was apparently accomplished through channeling divine will. These passages are remarkable for their relatively precise practical descriptions of the arts of musical prophecy and catharsis. Music is transformative, purifying, but only by evoking through performance the spirit of the Lord on behalf of whom the inn r-singer not only speaks (the literal sense of prophet’), but acts. While the Psalms provide evidence of lyric communication with the divine, their collection into a psalter, as we have it, tends to obscure their original connections with actual ritual practice.90 Readers may thus be inclined to regard their lyre imagery as conventional, governed by internal poetics of genre with no real’ connection to the outside world. The narrative snapshots ust considered are a crucial corrective, broadening our conception of the traditional lyrist in action’. They provide a further link to the Orpheus ug; its animal-charming scene, though not unparalleled in the Psalms by images of nature echoing the praise of God,91 clearly emphasi es the practical, e cacious nature of the musician’s art. With this we come one step closer to what must have been the purview of Kinnaru in the rich ritual life of Ugarit. King, Kinn r, and the “Spirit of God” We have prepared the ground for understanding the inn r-playing David, not only as a potent symbolic gure in later tradition, but as a royal performer in his own historical drama. I shall now argue that his priestly role and ritual actions, and the legends that developed therefrom, provided a refuge in which 88 89 90 91 2 Kings 3:13 20. This was seen by St. Ephraim: non quodcumque, sed habens harmoniam in chordis designat; ut ex Hebraeo verti posset, cinnaram (Latin translation: Assemani 1732 1746 1:524 A). Cf. DDD col. 912 (Wyatt). PIW o ered a seminal corrective. See p178 179. 165 Chapter Eight ancient ideas about divini ed lyres were able to shelter, and so partially weather the ongoing expulsion of Canaanite cultic elements from Jewish life and the Biblical sources.92 Besides David’s traditional association with the Psalms, to be discussed below, the most important evidence is the use of the inn r as a structuring device in the Samuel narratives about David’s rise to kingship and his takeover of ahweh’s cult. The Saul episode, we saw, attests the practice of musical prophecy by (soonto-be) royalty. This ability, apparently in an ecstatic state, is taken as a sign of divine favor, a power given to a rightful king, who is possessed by the spirit of the Lord. Importantly, however, this is carried out in con unction with a musical ensemble, apparently necessary for establishing the appropriate mental conditions. One may compare the situation at Hattusha and Ugarit, where ritual performances were executed by kings (and ueens) together with cult o cials.93 As Saul falls from grace, his increasing a iction by an evil spirit is balanced by the passage of the spirit of the Lord to David, whose ascent to kingship becomes inevitable.94 This transfer of divine favor is mediated precisely by the inn r. Because Saul su ers from the evil spirit having lost God’s favor he summons a inn r-player. Because David plays the inn r so well, he is summoned.95 Note that the advice to Saul is generic: Let our lord now command the servants who attend you to look for someone who is skillful in playing the lyre: and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will feel better. 96 On one narratological level, David has already been chosen by God. But from Saul’s perspective it is merely a professional t e that is needed. Evidently, the desired cathartic power was made possible by the inn r itself, a kind of potential energy that would be released by a skillful player. 97 David is so uali ed, 92 93 94 95 96 97 Albright 1940:296 297 and n45 seems to have inferred something very similar even before the recognition of Kinnaru. After noting that Kinyras had absorbed aspects of Kothar (see further Chapter 18), and tersely asserting the accuracy of his name’s connection with kinýra, Albright wrote: There are many striking con rmations and illustrations of this derivation, with which I hope to deal later. One of the most remarkable parallels, hitherto unrecogni ed, comes from Hebrew tradition A great deal more can be said on this sub ect, but it must be reserved for a more suitable occasion. I do not know that he ever presented his ideas in more than desultory remarks (cf. Albright 1964:171n47; GC:144n91, 147 and n102). See p93 94. Cf. 1 Samuel 16:14: Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. 1 Samuel 16:14 23. 1 Samuel 16:16. Lyre catharses are well-attested in Greek tradition with Orpheus, Pythagoras, etc.: cf. Franklin 2006a:59 60; Power 2010:279 280, 381 385 et pass.; Proven a 2014. 166 David and the Divine Lyre because, as Saul is advised, the Lord is with him. 98 To us, the phrase clearly implies the transfer of ahweh’s favor to David; to Saul, however, it means only that here was an inspired inn r-healer. This brilliant ambiguity may go beyond its narratological appeal. For the two planes of meaning neatly intersect, if being an inspired kinyrist’ was considered a royal virtue an idea well paralleled by Shulgi, and vital for the uestion of Kinyras.99 The episode of David’s selection clearly presents the idea that a ritual lyrist is only e ective when divinely empowered. The Bible of course recogni es a single legitimate god. But one may reverse the terms of the relationship: a lyrist is e ective only when empowered by his god, which in the old theology would have been the patron deity of his own professional duties.100 One should note here a remarkable Ethiopian legend relayed by a traditional musician, Melaku Gelaw, to A. Kebede: God Himself made the begena box-lyre and gave it to Dawit. Use this instrument to adorn and praise My name, God said. God tuned the ten strings to the ten forces of goodness and virtue that governed the universe. The inspired Dawit composed his psalms, sang to the greatness and glory of God, and accompanied himself with the begena.101 Mutatis mutandis, the conception of an inspired performer activating the powers of the inn r in service to ahweh strongly recalls the Sumerian material, discussed above, notably the divini ed balang, servant to the master-god Ningirsu, whose epiphany is e ected through performances conducted symbolically, and perhaps literally, by the king. In the Biblical narrative, playing the inn r is a kingly virtue. But whereas Saul merely prophesies among the musicians, David himself wields the lyre, as though this puts him in closer touch’ with God. And of course David himself was traditionally prophetic, his medium being precisely the inn r-accompanied psalm (see further below). Performing the Divine Lyre We are now in a better position to appreciate the most magni cent knrperformance on record. David astutely expressed his establishment of a new 98 99 100 101 1 Samuel 16:18. See p33 37. Compare especially the Ugaritian PN rml Kothar-is-king’, born by a silversmith (RS 19.16 PRU 5 no. 11 , line 32, appearing in the Akkadiani ed form rml ; cf. KwH:62 and 131n71). For Kothar and Kinyras, see Chapter 18. Kebede 1977:380 381; cf. MGG 5:1032 G. Kubik ). Note that in Ethiopic tradition the krar ( kenar) is exclusively secular, the devil’s instrument : see p58n65. 167 Chapter Eight capital, and his centrali ation of political and religious control, through the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem a brilliant maneuver that e ectively galvani ed the loose confederation of Israelite tribes into a monarchical state. 102 To be epoch-making, this needed to be a stunning public event, a massive display of solidarity unifying the divided tribes behind a new king. The main accounts are 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, and Josephus.103 While the L version of 2 Samuel contains material not to be found in the MT, this is not all secondary expansion; for 2 Samuel, especially, the MT is a poor text, marked by extensive haplography and corruption, with fragments from umran showing that the L preserves many details omitted by the MT.104 It is on this older tradition that Josephus also draws.105 And as it happens, the L and Josephus preserve several crucial details about David and his inn r. The shared narrative structure for all three is as follows. After David consulted with the country’s leading men,106 and drew up the new musical groups of string-players, cymbalists, frame-drummers, and trumpeters, the whole people some seventy thousand in the L came together as they 107 had planned. The expression suggests a staged crowd as much as a spontaneous popular movement. The Ark was borne out on a river of sound. et not all was clockwork: there was a three-month delay en route after a driver tried to stabili e the Ark but was struck dead for his vigilance. After the Lord’s anger seemed to abate, David o ered appropriate sacri ces, and the whole troupe, now reassembled, set out again with the same pomp. There follows the curious 102 103 104 105 106 107 Seow 1989:1. 2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15 16; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.78 89. For the probable allusion in Psalms 132, see Seow 1989:145 203. Cross 1998:212 ( uotation). See DJD 17:25 27: The sc. umran fragments con rm most emphatically the usefulness of the Old Greek for the establishment of a more nearly original Hebrew text. Cross 1998:205 212, gives a good review of the Old Greek’ text’s value, especially as a witness to Samuel; cf. also GC:34 35. Further speculation about the earlier stages and interrelationships of the various textual traditions is best avoided here. For these complex problems, including the theory of the proto-Lucianic recension (whereby the Old Greek’ text was revised, with corrections and additions provided to make it conform to the 4 Sam text tradition in contemporary Palestine, Ulrich 1978:258), see e.g. the recent overview of Kauhanen 2012:13 23, with extensive bibliography. Ulrich 1989:93 holds that Josephus did not use 1 Chronicles; material which they share can be explained by assuming that the Chronicler too used a version of 2 Samuel closer to the 4 Sama/ L versions than to the MT. Begg 1997, examining David’s transfer of the Ark speci cally, argues for Josephus’ knowledge of the L Chronicler, but not the MT. Avio 2015 now corroborates the historian’s use of both L and MT (or better MT forerunner): see especially 195 201, with previous literature on the debate (which will no doubt continue). Of course Josephus had his own voice in all this; for his larger exegetical concerns and methods, see inter al. the aforementioned studies of Begg and Avio . Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.78. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.79: συνελθόντος ο ν τοῦ λαοῦ παντός, καθ ς ἐ ουλεύσαντο. 168 David and the Divine Lyre incident of Saul’s daughter Michal, David’ wife, who saw the king leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. 108 The ritual closed with sacri ces once the Ark was positioned in the Tabernacle, where David’s musical groups would continue to observe the cult.109 When Michal confronted David for his nudity before his maidservants, and the general indignity of his musical performance, she was a icted with barrenness conveniently enough. The narrative of David’s divine favor, which structures our accounts, was probably already being formulated on the ground.110 It has been well argued, for instance, that the Bible’s discontiguous Ark episodes, including its loss to and recovery from the Philistines, once formed a uni ed narrative produced within the Davidic court to provide theological usti cation for the new cult-center at Jerusalem.111 The massive musical procession, with its ubilant atmosphere, is clearly a sort of victory march. S. Mowinckel and others have seen it as modeled on a Canaanite New ear ritual.112 Similarly, C. L. Seow reads it as a ritual drama with David enacting ahweh as the triumphant divine warrior; the basic structure re ects (he argues) the in uence of Baal mythology on that of ahweh.113 Propaganda aside, David’s elaborate ritual display seems e ually an apotropaic gesture to forestall divine wrath at this intervention in the cultic status uo. David and his advisors probably felt a very real sense of apprehension.114 The traditions about the musical nature of the ritual are of considerable interest. The three accounts basically agree on its guildic nature, with massed players of inn r, n el, frame-drummers, and other instruments.115 Apparently the song and dance is executed by these same performers (at least those whose mouths were free). The Chronicler asserts the involvement of Chenaniah, the Chief Singer’.116 Of David’s own participation Josephus paints a most vivid picture: 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 2 Samuel 6:16 ( uotation), 20 23; 1 Chronicles 15:29; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.85 89. 2 Samuel 6:13 17. Cf. Seow 1989:97 104, who also detects a blatantly clear propagandistic intent (102); Halpern 2004:333 340. Campbell 1975, especially 193 210. PIW 1:125 130, with Chapter for the related enthronement psalms’; Porter 1954. Seow 1989, especially 207 209, with review of earlier interpretations on 2 8, arguing that Baal’s cult made its impression while the Ark was housed at iryat- e arim for about twenty years. The incident of the driver, however, is suspicious: it seems designed to demonstrate ahweh’s presence at the dangerous and enormous undertaking, and ultimately, when no further disaster befalls, to con rm the divine approval of David’s actions. Seow 1989:97 104 connects ahweh’s wrath and the killing of U ah with a dramati ation of mythological combat, comparing reenactments of cosmogonic battles in state-sponsored rituals in Mesopotamia (99). There are variants in the tradition: L includes double-pipes (ἐν α λοῖς, 2 Samuel 6:5) and trumpet (μετ φωνῆς σάλπιγγος, 6:15); the MT (6:5) has mena an m, interpreted as κύμ αλα in the L , sistra in the ulgate, and variously by modern scholars: see MAIP:19. 1 Chronicles 15:27. See p157. 169 Chapter Eight The king led the way, and with him was the whole multitude, hymning God, and singing every kind of local song, and leading the Ark into Jerusalem with a complex din of instrumental playing and dances and psalms and even of trumpets and cymbals.117 More interesting still is his account of the parade’s resumption: He brought the Ark to his own house, with the priests carrying it, and seven choruses which the king had drawn up leading the way, and himself playing on the kinýra.118 These details are not purely Josephus’ own invention. He is clearly interpreting the Septuagint version, on which he mainly relied, and which here certainly preserves an old form of the tradition.119 The L also has seven choruses, 120 carrying the Ark. The statement that David struck up (anekroúeto) the music was rightly interpreted by Josephus to mean that he led the procession with his ‘kinýra,’ for the verb clearly implies a stringed-instrument.121 The idea is further supported by the king’s position among harmoni ed/tuned-up instruments (en or nois h rmosm nois), an expression that foregrounds the ensemble’s chordophones.122 Eusebios espouses the same interpretation, and draws attention to David’s position as musical leader of his own musical leaders.123 The seven choruses are a striking example of seven-magic in a practical musical context. Indeed, the whole event is buttressed by sevens. A sacri ce of seven bulls and seven rams, mentioned by the Chronicler, corresponds to the 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.80 81: προῆγε δ ασιλε ς κα π ν σ ν α τ τ πλῆθος μνοῦντες τ ν θε ν κα δοντες π ν ε δος μέλους ἐπιχ ριον σύν τε χ ποικίλ κρουσμάτ ν τε κα ρχήσε ν κα αλμ ν τι δ σάλπιγγος κα κυμ άλ ν κατάγοντες τ ν κι τ ν ε ς εροσόλυμα 2 Samuel 6:5 states only that David played, but is more speci c as to guildic instrumentation. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.85: τ ν κι τ ν πρ ς α τ ν μετακομίζει, τ ν μ ν ερέ ν ασταζόντ ν α τήν, πτ δ χορ ν ο ς διεκόσμησεν ασιλε ς προαγόντ ν, α τοῦ δ ἐν κινύρ παίζοντος (closely followed by Constantine Porphyrogenitos On Virtues and Vices 1 55.16 22, B ttner-Wobst/Roos ). Josephus and the L agree against not only the MT, but the umran text, the latter according rather with 1 Chronicles 15:26 (Ulrich 1978:182, 223 259, especially 235 236, 241; Ulrich 1989:88; Kauhanen 2012:34 35). Wellhausen 1871:169 already saw that the seven χοροί must go back to an early Hebrew text. 2 Samuel 6:13 14 L : κα σαν μετ α τ ν α ροντες τ ν κι τ ν πτ χοροί κα αυιδ ἀνεκρούετο ἐν ργάνοις ρμοσμένοις ἐν πιον κυρίου κτλ. For ἀνακρού and stringed instruments, see LSJ s.v. κρού (5), κροῦμα (2), etc. Note also ἀνακρουόμενον at 6:16. For the special relevance of ρμονία and related words (like ρμοσμένοις) to stringed-instruments, see Franklin 2003:301, 303 304. Eusebios Commentaries on the Psalms, PG 23:73A: αυ δ, α τ ς ρχ ν ἀρχόντ ν δ ν, κρατ ν ἐπ χε ρας τ αλτήριον. 170 David and the Divine Lyre oxen and fatlings, which, according to 2 Samuel, David o ers before taking his seventh step after resuming the procession.124 Such numbers may seem like so much storytelling color, but a detailed prescriptive ritual from LBA Emar in North Syria urges us to give them some credence. This text governs the enthronement’ of the high priestess of Baal, and contains many heptadic gestures.125 It is e ually important for assigning speci c ritual actions to a group of liturgical singers ( ammār ), notably heading processions every time the scene of action had to change.126 Musical procession must have been a regular function of templesingers in many parts of the ANE. Several types of Emesal prayers/laments were used in various processions and circumambulation rites at di erent periods in Mesopotamia.127 In Babylonia, a musical corps participated in processional rites during the Akitu-festival.128 Many musical processions are found in N-A reliefs as well.129 They are also attested in the Hittite world.130 As argued above for Mesopotamian material, seven numerology takes on a special interest in musical contexts, especially those involving stringedinstruments.131 It is especially suggestive beyond the two rivers, where it furthers the likelihood that the heptatonic-diatonic tone-system was locally known as indeed it was at Ugarit. Many marginal examples are best not 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 2 Samuel 6:13; 1 Chronicles 15:26. Text of the Installation of Baal’s High Priestess: Arnaud 1986 no. 369, superseded by Fleming 1992 (with new lineation); CS 1 no. 122. While other numbers, signi cant’ and otherwise, are present in the ritual, the intentional concentration of sevens is obvious. There is an o ering of one ox and six sheep (11, 36 37); seven dinner-loaves, seven dried cakes (11); seven and seven am a u-men eating (12 13); an unknown action lasts seven days (26); seven-fold wine and beer o erings (and some other non-seven o erings) are to be consumed by the seven ida u and ussu-men (27 28, 38); the priestess is given a seven-shekel silver tudittu-pin as her gift when enthroned (44); a sacred axe is placed on a statue for seven days (46); various o erings are made over a seven-day period; some are consumed by the seven and seven am a u-men (49 59, cf. 54); each singer receives a share of sacri ce, sheepskins, and a dinner-load and ug of beer for seven days (79 83). Nor is this the only ritual text from Emar that combines seven-magic and song-acts: see Arnaud 1986 no. 388.51 52, 395.2’ 4’. Cf. also RlA 12/5 6.464 5.3 (Wiggerman, Siebeng tter). Processions in the Installation of Baal’s High Priestess: lines 8, 29 36, 45, 62 64. Additionally, two hymns were speci ed (33A, 73); and the singers’ share of o erings and their payment were stipulated (79 84). The ritual also involved lamentation, probably for the death of the old priestess (Fleming 1992:173). There are many other references at Emar to the cult performances of singers, especially in connection with sacri cial ritual, as well as to female singers ( ammirāt ): see the discussion of Fleming 1992:92 94, with references; cf. SURS:313n861. PHG:170 171. Fleming 1992:93n81; Pongrat -Leisten 1994: 47; Cheng 2001:92n8; PHG:170. Franklin 2008:198 with references. E.g. in the KI.LAM festival, Singer 1983 1984 1:62. For Hittite occasions see further CANE 4:2661 2669 (de Martino). See p40 41. 171 Chapter Eight pressed.132 Tending in the right direction is Solomon’s transfer of the Ark into the Temple during Ethanim, the seventh month of the year a replay of David’s Ark-procession, again with massed musical praise drawing ahweh to a new home.133 Much clearer are the pious measures taken by He ekiah to restore the Temple from neglect in the reign of his father Aha (735 715).134 Seven bulls, seven rams, seven lambs, and seven male goats were sacri ced. Cult-musicians bore cymbals, n el-lyres, and inn r-lyres, and the music is carefully synchroni ed with the heptadic sacri ces: When the burnt o ering began, the song to the Lord began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of King David all this continued until the burnt o ering was nished. 135 The music evidently basted the o erings in waves of magical sevenness. The parallels from Ebla, Emar, Hattusha, Ugarit, and elsewhere for musical parades and the ritual use of sevens make David’s Ark-procession perfectly plausible as an historical event, and suggest that the surviving accounts preserve actual details from the occasion, and/or its periodic reenactment in the royal cult.136 They amount to, and/or derive from, a descriptive ritual.137 One may compare the detailed ritual actions that are incorporated into a text like Aqhat.138 (By contrast, the Emar ritual is strictly prescriptive.139) et descriptive rituals need not be mere literary productions. They could also be functional, uasi-canonical models, or manuals for the operation of the temple cults. 140 That some such account of the Davidic ritual was composed at a near contemporary date would accord with the theory of a uni ed Ark-narrative, and explain the existence of the Bible’s more literary narratives, for which it could have been a source at however many removes. It would also provide an attractive practical explanation for why the ritual actions of Solomon and He ekiah share three structuring elements with those of David. All three rituals include sevenmagic alongside song-acts governing the establishment, building, or maintenance of the cult center. The continuity between these events is made explicit. 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 For example, that David was selected for kingship after his seven older brothers had been re ected (1 Samuel 16:10) is most simply explained as a narratological device and folklore motif; while it does derive special interest from David’s training as a lyrist, the two details are not explicitly connected in the text itself. 1 Kings 8:2; 2 Chronicles 5:3, 11. Cf. PIW 1:174 175 and n176. 2 Chronicles 29:21 28. 2 Chronicles 29:27 28. For the same conclusion on other grounds, see Seow 1989:209. For ritual re-enactment of the Ark-procession, PIW 1:174 175 (thinking rather of saga than a contemporary source for the original event). For the term, see p67n35. For which see Wright 2001 passim. Fleming 1992:70. Levine 1983:473. 172 David and the Divine Lyre Solomon’s completion of the Temple is seen as the fruition of David’s own vision; the Levites minister with instruments for music that King David had made for giving thanks to the Lord. 141 He ekiah’s musicians were stationed, says the Chronicler, according to the commandment of David. 142 The parallels strongly suggest that David based his actions upon earlier Canaanite rituals, products of the same cultural environment that inspired or dictated his musical reorgani ation.143 With this we may consider more closely the musical dimension of David’s own performance. The king sings, dances, and plays the inn r before ahweh, at the head of all his sub ects, in front even of his own priests, musicians, guild leaders, and the Chief Singer himself. As a victory procession for ahweh, David plays the role of royal’ praise-singer, not unlike the position he had actually held under Saul. But as a victorious king himself, this was e ually his own triumph, so that David assumes a position analogous to that of ahweh. The ritual is a remarkable practical application of what, in the Sumerian texts, can otherwise appear a rather poetic conceit: the king who excels his own singers, and executes state rituals single-handedly. It also eshes out the Ugaritian ritual texts, where the king dominates the action, yet the cultic establishment was fully involved.144 David’s performance, I suggest, is as close as we are likely to come to witnessing the Divine Lyre in action. Here more than anywhere the inn r is a powerful symbol of the king’s divine favor. But the practicality of the lyre tradition makes the inn r more than ust a symbol. It was the actual instrument with which to cross the chasm separating human and divine. With it, a king could communicate ueries, receive instruction, and channel divine power toward speci c ends. Why does Michal react so strongly against this performance That she found it unacceptable is important: such a ritual was evidently unprecedented in some way. This should relate to the e ual newness, from the Jewish perspective, of David’s musical arrangements for the same ceremony. If those were indeed modeled on earlier Canaanite temple-music traditions, David’s own performing role may well be of a piece. Clearly he is putting on a mantle of kingship, publically demonstrating divine favor while simultaneously seeking to secure it. His actions will accord with the people’s desire that we also may be like other nations, the re uest that led to the original appointment of Saul. The popular nature of David’s rite is clear: it is repeatedly stressed that all the people are present (with every kind of local song ). In gratifying the crowd to this extent, David goes far beyond any royal display credited to Saul, and thereby shows 141 142 143 144 2 Chronicles 7:6. 2 Chronicles 29:25. See PIW 1:130 136 for further considerations. See p113 114. 173 Chapter Eight himself to be more kingly’. It is therefore appropriate and revealing that it is Michal, the last vital link between David and her deposed father, who ob ects to these novel royal antics.145 David, in his re oinder, takes up the implied contrast with Saul, and asserts that the performance is divinely-approved and his royal prerogative: It was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before the Lord.146 To conclude, David’s inn r is an integral part of the early narratives about the rise of the United Monarchy. David’s entrance in 1 Samuel is motivated by Saul’s need to nd a inn r-player. He advances because the Lord is with him, and no longer with Saul. This power is expressed through the inn r in David’s catharses of Saul and his victory procession’ for ahweh. The lyre’s ability to serve as a pivotal narratological device derives from the instrument’s more ancient potency in the royal cults of the wider region. David is not merely a king who happens to play the inn r He is king in large part because he plays it, incomparably well. This will be a crucial comparandum for understanding Kinyras of Cyprus. Sweet Psalmist of Israel: David’s Lyric Legacy It was later believed that both the canonical Psalms and other songs embedded in the Biblical narratives were produced during the United Monarchy. And this is true in many cases, if not of the whole corpus. Although speci c attributions to David and Solomon, as well as to their traditional guild-leaders, can never be conclusively veri ed, some Psalms are clearly of high anti uity.147 Certain songs may actually antedate their supposed author.148 145 146 147 148 Cf. Campbell 1975:138 139. 2 Samuel 6:21. See Freedman 1976 generally, with discussion of the early song in 2 Samuel 22 at 75 77; for the latter’s transmission history, with the parallel Psalms 18, see McCarter 1984:473 475, with further references. For 2 Samuel 23:1 7, David’s swan-song, see p175 178. The attribution of certain psalms to the Sons of Korah (2 Chronicles 20:19; Psalms 42, 44 49, 84 85, 87 88) is made more credible by Korah’s relative obscurity in the Bible itself; for their Levitical descent, see Numbers 16:1 11 (but cf. 31 33); 1 Chronicles 6:22, 9:19, 9:31. For Psalms 29, attributed to David, see Freedman 1976:60 61, 96, dating it to the twelfth century on stylistic criteria ( repetitive parallelism to an extraordinary extent, 60). 174 David and the Divine Lyre Even the most careful scholars are prepared to support Davidic authorship and/or date in certain cases like Psalm 132, relating to the Ark-procession.149 There is also the elegy for Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel, uoted from the Book of Jashar, a lost anthology of poetry including other purportedly royal productions. The song’s anti uity and even authenticity are suggested both by its topical content and the seemingly apologetic instruction that it be disseminated and taught throughout Judah.150 Such a gesture of public lamentation may in itself be seen as an assertion of kingship, if it was the royal prerogative and duty for a new monarch to raise the lament for the passing of his predecessor an idea that would t well with the ritual texts from Ebla and Ugarit relating to royal funerary and/or mortuary cult.151 The same contexts could also provide a good home for the famous song, supposedly the dying words of David himself, at the end of 2 Samuel. It begins: Oracle of David son of Jesse Oracle of him whom l exalted, Anointed of the God of Jacob, Favorite of the Mighty One of Israel (n m imrat i rā l), The spirit of ahweh spoke through me His word was upon my tongue.152 Scholars have dated this song variously between David’s demise and the late Judaean monarchy, with a strong case for an early origin on the grounds of diction and content.153 But an absolute date is less vital here than how David is represented. According to the traditional reading of the MT, zmrt is to be 149 150 151 152 153 See generally PIW 2:152 154. The anti uity of Psalms 132, a key text for the later royal cult (PIW 2:174 176), is defended by Cross 1973:94 97 ( reworked only slightly in the later royal cult, 97, with archaic details enumerated in n24) and 232 237 ( our earliest witness to the Davidic covenant lore of Davidic date, 232). 2 Samuel 1:19 27: see McCarter 1984:74, 77, 484 (also supporting the authenticity of the elegy to Abner at 2 Samuel 3:33 34); Cross 1998:137 138 (for typological analysis of its parallelism); Halpern 2004:64. See p67 71, 134 146. 2 Samuel 23:1 2, trans. and colometry of Cross 1973:235 236. For the text itself, of which the MT is the best witness, see Mettinger 1976 1977. Those supporting a Davidic date include Albright 1956:126; Cross 1973:234 237 and n81 (of a piece with Psalms 132); Freedman 1976. McCarter 1984:483 486 lays out and convincingly meets the ob ections against an early date in dissenting literature, interpreting the psalm’s application of solar imagery to the king in terms of LBA Egyptian and Hittite royal usage. In his view (480 481, 483), the presentation of David as prophetic dismissed as a late feature by some can be excised as secondary and due to later messianic reinterpretations of the Psalms (cf. e.g. Acts 2:30). et the inn r is found not only in prophetic contexts of the ninth century, but earlier still with Saul and the band of musical prophets. 175 Chapter Eight vocali ed as m r t, songs’ ( P-S zmr, sing/play’154), while n m comes from the root n‘m ( sweet, pleasant, gracious’) whence Sweet Psalmist of Israel in the King James ersion and its adherents. Now a musical interpretation goes back at least to the Hellenistic period, being re ected in the Septuagint translation, the importance of which to the tradition we have seen.155 But with modern appreciation of parallelism, it has become clear that the phrase should be e uivalent to the description of David as Anointed of the God of Jacob. Hence, most scholars now abandon a musical reading to vocali e zmrt as imrāt and connect it with Semitic cognates relating to power’ and protection’ ( P-S dmr).156 Similarly, n m is interpreted in terms of the n‘m which we saw applied to gods and heroes in Ugaritian texts.157 Therefore, n m imrat i rā l can be well rendered as Favorite of the Mighty One of Israel’, Favorite of the Defense of Israel’, or the like.158 This reinterpretation certainly produces a satisfying parallelism with Anointed of the God of Jacob. et this probably does not exhaust its meaning. If the Ugaritic usage of n‘m is indeed relevant as is generally agreed it becomes possible to maintain a musical nuance here on the basis of the word’s speciali ed application to divine musicians, especially the praise-singer of Baal.159 When this is seen against the casting of David as a inn r-player in the narratives discussed above, and his ongoing stance as praise-singer of ahweh in the Psalms, it become hard to avoid taking n m as akin to the Ugaritic usage, with all its cultic overtones. The Hebrew word may thus mean something very like Gracious Minstrel’ in itself—that is, whether one relates zmrt to songs’ or power’.160 The parallelism with Anointed’ is not violated by this reading; indeed it accords well with the idea, argued above, that one of David’s uali cations for 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 For this root, see p137 and n160. There, however, one has ε πρεπε ς αλμο σραήλ: David is the seemly songs of Israel. Gaster 1936 1937; Cross and Freedman 1955:243n b; Richardson 1971:261 262; Cross 1973:234n67; Freedman 1976:58, 73; Mettinger 1976 1977:149 151 (treating imrāt as an intensive plural ); McCarter 1984:476 480. See p128 129. Cf. Richardson 1971:261; Cross 1998:140, noting that the precise vocali ation is uncertain. This new understanding of zmrt has also a ected the interpretation of an ancient formula that appears in several Biblical passages. Hence in the Song of Miriam’ (Exodus 15:2) The Lord is my strength and song becomes strength and might, vel sim.; similarly in Isaiah 12:2, Psalms 118:14. For the evidently deep (Canaanite) anti uity of this fossili ed pair of words preserved in this set context only, see Lowenstamm 1969:464, the criti ue of Parker 1971, and further below, p177n161. See p128 129. The potential of this parallel has been noted by ARTU:4n16; Koitabashi 1996:222; Parker 1997:166n36; RTU:328n19. Levenson 1985:66, in interpreting n‘m as person granted a favorable omen’, re ected singer’ as lacking in Biblical parallels; but he did not note the Ugaritian ones. 176 David and the Divine Lyre kingship is his power as an inspired lyrist. The reading has the further advantage of accounting for the early musical interpretation of the L . Given all this, it remains worth considering whether Heb. zmr was once capable of some semantic ambivalence between song’ and power’ not by virtue of historical linguistics, but ritual-poetic convention.161 We have seen this precise duality in the Ugaritian text RS 24.252 with its crucial wordplay on zmr/ mr, whereby the song’ of R p’iu was simultaneously a source of the king’s power’.162 The phrase n m imrat i rā l may therefore imply not only that David was the Gracious Minstrel of the Might of Israel, but that his own power as ahweh’s terrestrial agent derived precisely from his praising of ahweh in song. Only on his deathbed is David characteri ed as n m, contemplating his role as mouthpiece of ahweh, god’s covenant with his royal house, and the legacy of his own reign. I suggest connecting this with the appearance of n‘m in RS 24.257, evidently a text relating to the royal mortuary cult of Ugarit, with its eternal, archetypal monarch presiding over a paradisiacal feast of innāru-led music uite possibly, I have argued, as the innāru-player himself.163 The Rabbinic tradition presents vivid images of David at the eternal ban uet that was to follow udgment day immune to eshly decay, and with his inn r leading the angelic host and all his royal descendants and other Israelite kings in singing new hymns to ahweh, across from whom David was to be enthroned.164 This 161 162 163 164 Stimulating and provocative suggestions to this e ect were put forward by Lowenstamm 1969, vis-à-vis the formula in Exodus 15:2; Isaiah 12:2, Psalms 118:14 (see p76n158). Lowenstamm’s argument (465 466) for a single P-S root mr containing within itself ideas of both song’ and power/glory’ cannot be sustained on linguistic grounds: see p138n160. I also recogni e the general validity of the criti ue by Parker 1971 (cf. Mettinger 1976 1977:150n13). et neither study took account of the wordplay on mr in RS 24.252 (see p137 139). Such a con ation of song’ and power’ seems to underlie the imri son of erah who has four musical brothers in Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Darda (1 Chronicles 2:6), the Canaanite cultural sympathies of whom were explicated by Albright 1956:127 (cf. p152). Pardee 1988a:142 thinks of folk etymology: It is uite likely that in popular understanding the onomastic element imr was mistakenly’ thought to be related to zamar make music’. Therefore I am still drawn to Lowenstamm’s conclusion that No translation is likely to render the exact force of the Hebrew words, because their connotations and associations are too deeply rooted in the speci c theology of the ancient Canaanite hymnic tradition (469 470). My analysis of the wordplay in RS 24.252 has led, from an independent angle, to a result very similar to Lowenstamm’s conception of the early Hebrew formula: The noun primarily denoting the glory given to God in cultic song, may also be applied to the glory bestowed by the Lord upon those who glorify Him The notion of praise in cultic music becomes reduced to that of glory pure and simple. It follows that the pair of words denotes the Psalmist’s strength and glory, the source of both he nds in his God (468). See p137 139. See p140. See sources and discussion in LJ 4:114 116, 6:272 273 n128 129. I thank Miryam Brand for her help with these texts. 177 Chapter Eight portrait, although a composite from several late sources, nonetheless exhibits striking sympathies with the Ugaritian R p’iu text. The temporal disparity between the Ugaritian texts and 2 Samuel 23:1 on the one hand, and the late evidence for David as ahweh’s praise-singer in paradise on the other, is of course enormous. et the intervening period is at least partially spanned by a living tradition of psalm-singing. Note for instance the bird-headed nials on the instruments of the captive Judaean musicians from the reign of He ekiah, shown on a relief of Sennacherib (704 681) a decorative feature going back to the LBA, with parallels from Egypt, Cyprus, and the Hittite world.165 A fundamental usti cation for the later attribution of psalms to David must have been the continued importance of the inn r in the cult. A speci c connection with David is seen in those psalms that, when not authentic, nevertheless adopt as a performative stance his persona as inn r-playing prophetking, mouthpiece of ahweh, and thus a kind of divine messenger.166 This Davidic guise probably arose in the context of the royal rituals by which the House of David maintained its founder’s ideological legacy. Although ensemble playing is sometimes speci ed for various psalms, it is probable that they were e ually performed in a Davidic manner that is, by an individual inn r-player, or one who led an ensemble, as David was said to have done in the ark-procession. A psalmist who performed such songs in these circumstances will have e ectively reenacted the ancient king. This would further explain the traditions of the song-writing Solomon, ust as Ishme-Dagan repeated the musical claims of Shulgi.167 The umran texts whose many psalms, entirely absent from the canonical Psalters (L /MT) yet sharing much of their diction, show the tradition ourishing post-exile include songs attributed to Mannaseh, an otherwise unnamed King of Judah (He ekiah ), and perhaps David himself ( the Man of God’).168 The traditional reenactment of David seems one of the clearer legacies of the Divine Lyre. The instrument’s magical ualities certainly rang on in the 165 166 167 168 BM 124947 (see above, n30). For the point, Sellers 1941:38; Rimmer 1969:34; DCPIL:49; Parallels: see p247 and n27. Of the psalms attributed to David (Psalms 3 9, 11 32, 34 41, 51 70, 86, 101, 103, 109 110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138 145), a clearly Davidic persona may be seen in e.g. 144 145, and especially the supernumerary Psalms 151 in the L (relating to the victory over Goliath). For 2 Samuel 22/ Psalms 18, see p147n174; for 2 Samuel 23:1 7, p175. This phenomenon provides some usti cation for those who would translate n m m r t i rā l as Favorite of Israel’s Songs : so e.g. Laymon 1971:180. See p80 81. 4 381 fr. 24.4 ( Man of God’), 31.4 ( King of Judah’, name lost), 33.8 (Mannaseh). For Psalmody at umran: Schuller 1986 (royal ascriptions, 29 and 101); Schuller’s introduction to Charlesworth 1997:1 with references. 178 David and the Divine Lyre corpus. In Psalm 98, one nds the same ancient conception represented by the Orpheus ug the lyrist exercising control over the natural world: Make a oyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break forth into oyous song and sing praises, Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody. With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a oyful noise before the King, the Lord.169 The universal glori cation of ahweh is itemi ed in greater detail in Psalm 148, where the inn r, though not explicitly mentioned, is implied by the parallel of Psalm 98 and the genre itself: Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, re and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind ful lling his command Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and ying birds 170 These Psalms show that the praise-singing lyrist, while but one instantiation of a more cosmic exultation that also included every form of musical celebration,171 nevertheless plays a privileged role, occupying an intermediate, focusing position between the natural world and the divine ob ect of its praise. It is this power which eventually facilitated David’s absorption of Orphic ualities in the By antine period.172 David’s uasi-divine status gradually crystalli ed with the idea that ahweh had established an eternal covenant with his line.173 This eventually gave rise, with the uctuating fortunes of Israel and Judah, and the interruption of the Davidic royal line, to the idea that the pro ected messiah would be a second David, even 169 170 171 172 173 Psalms 98:4 6. Psalms 148:7 10; cf. 149. Note Psalm 149:3 and especially the famous instrumentarium of 150, which became a favorite sub ect of By antine musical iconography: see Currie forthcoming and p543 544. See p193 194. See e.g. EJ2 5:451, 459 463. 179 Chapter Eight his reincarnation.174 One musical outgrowth of this is the early Christian trope of Jesus as a lyre-player, which e ually incorporated Apollo’s role as overseer of cosmic harmony; on the human plane, a devout Christian was a lyre often kinýra on which Jesus played his divine message.175 Another development is seen in the coins of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 136 CE) the last Jewish insurrection against Rome, when cultural oppression after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE culminated in Hadrian’s new temple to Jupiter on the temple mount (ca. 130). The revolt was led by Shimon, son of Koseva, whose name was reinterpreted as Kokhba to imply ful llment of the prophecy that There shall step forth a star (kokhav) out of Jacob. 176 The tradition that the prominent sage A iba (ca. 50 135 CE) was among those who promoted Bar Kokhba as the messiah is probably accurate; and it may be no coincidence that A iba is the earliest source for the vision of David’s eternal throne alongside ahweh.177 One of the rebels’ primary gestures of independence was to usurp the imperial prerogative of coinage. Making a political virtue of economic necessity, they withdrew Roman issues from circulation and over-stamped the heads of hated gods and emperors.178 The Romans themselves had shown that coins were a vital medium for propaganda.179 Hence, one cannot doubt that the Bar Kokhba coins bore a clear political message and every detail on them was intentional. 180 The limited repertoire of motifs related to the temple and its tools, simultaneously expressing the nationalist ideal of rebuilding ahweh’s cult center, and supporting the messianic image of Bar Kokhba himself.181 Prominent among the coin-types are two kinds of lyre, in several variations due to multiple dies (Figure 14). These instruments probably represent inn r and n el,182 albeit in contemporary forms showing the Hellenistic morphological in uence one sees 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Thus Matthew 1:1 17 carefully establishes the Davidic descent of Jesus. Further sources and discussion in LJ 6:272 273; EJ2 5:451a 454a. See Halton 1983, and further p209 210. For the link back to David, note e.g. the description of Jesus in Paulinus Carmina 20.41 42 as ille Dauid uerus, citharam qui corporis huius / restituit, etc. Numbers 24:17. For the messianic aspect of the Bar Kokhba movement, see with ancient sources adin 1971:18 19, 23, 27; AJC:140 142; EJ2 3:157 159. This is accepted by Strack 1983:72, who otherwise re ects much of the biographical tradition about A iba; cf. EJ2 1:562a 563b. David’s throne: Sanhedrin 38b (BT 12:245); LJ 6:272n128. Mildenberg 1984:13 14. For the sophistication of Roman imperial propaganda via coins, see Nore a 2011. AJC:141, cf. 137. adin 1971:27; AJC:140 142. Lyre-coins: Mildenberg 1984 no. 165, 172 186, 196, 201 220, 232 241, 244, 247 249; AJC no. 223a h, 236, 238 242a, 272 275, 296 299, with discussion at 147 149. For identi cation as inn r and n el, Bayer 1968; RlA 6:580 (Collon, Leier B); SAM:170 171 (no. 133 134). 180 David and the Divine Lyre Figure 14 Coin of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE). Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 5651. Drawn from SAM no. 133–134. in many NE lyres of the Roman period.183 The Bar Kokhba coins thus evoked the liturgical practices associated with David, while promoting a rebuilding campaign.184 It is tempting to relate these lyre-coins to a Rabbinic tradition that edekiah, last king before the Babylonian Exile, and Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, had hidden the sacred instruments of the First Temple before its destruction, to be revealed at the coming of the messiah.185 The legendary musical powers of David and Solomon persisted through anti uity and beyond in the Jewish, Greek Christian, Syrian Christian, and Arabic traditions alike. A Jewish legend intended to explain the invocation of the inn r in Psalm 57:8 9 and 108:1 3 (see above) is attributed to Simeon the Pious in the third century BCE. Here the inn r is seen as an Aeolian harp, stimulated by a 183 184 185 DCPIL:56 ( Neo-Grecian ), cf. MGG 5:1035 1036; also 1:1510 pl. 2 (Braun) for other seemingly Helleni ed lyre forms from Akko, Caesarea, Ga a, Samaria, Gadara, Petra, and elsewhere in Jordan. Recall the musical organi ation that accompanied the Second Temple’s dedication. Cf. AJC:148, with reference to Nehemiah 12:27. LJ 4:21, 6:411n64. 181 Chapter Eight midnight wind and calling David to his liturgical duties of its own accord. 186 Here it e ectively has a life and a voice of its own, although, given its sympathetic vibration with the natural order, ahweh is not far away. Similarly Greek Christian hymnographers described David’s kinýra’ as god-sounding, godinspired, and an animated psaltery a kinýra charming souls / Towards 187 god-inspired love. Gregory of Na ian us, archbishop of Constantinople in the later fourth-century CE, in listing David’s youthful virtues, refers to the power of his kinýra the Gk. dýnamis has connotations of capacity’ and potential’ and describes the lyre itself as even overcoming the Evil Spirit with its enchantment. 188 Nikephoros Basilakes, rhetorician of the early twelfth-century, imagines David both with the holy spirit, and the kinýra of the holy spirit. 189 Despite the lateness of this source, the lyre of the spirit’ is an early and wellattested motif, vividly developed in the Syriac theological poetry of St. Ephraim (ca. 307 373).190 In Arabic tradition, which incorporated oral lore from Jewish and Christian populations in fable-rich southern Arabia, David remained the paragon of musical ability, as seen from many passages in the Arabian Nights.191 The uran accepts David as a true prophet whose visions of God are relayed in the Book of Psalms.192 Mohammed rightly saw that, while David’s prophetic songs induced the sympathetic vibration of nature, the source of his power was held to come from beyond the psalmist himself. It was God who: 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 The tale appears in Berakhot 3b (BT 1:9 10), where it is given in the name of R. Simeon the Pious (cf. Strack 1983:107, identifying with the High Priest Simeon I, ca. 300 BCE); Sanhedrin 16a (BT 12:79); Midrash Rabbah Numbers 15.16 (Freedman and Simon 1983 6:659): A harp i.e. inn r hung over David’s bed. When the hour of midnight arrived, a northerly wind blew upon it and it played of its own accord. Thereupon David would rise up with his disciples. For they used to occupy themselves with the Torah, toiling and driving sleep from their eyes, studying Torah until the dawn. This is why David said, Awake, my glory; psaltery and harp, I will awake the dawn.’ Cf. LJ 4:101. Analecta mnica Graeca, Canones Januarii, Day 25, Canon 30 (1), Ode 6.46 (ed. Proiou/Schir ): τ ν θεόηχον κινύραν (referring to the emulation of David by Gregory of Na ian us); Canones Decembris, Day 26, Canon 51, Ode 5.16 17 (ed. Kominis/Schir ): το ς μελ δήμασι / χρ μενοι α ίδ, τῆς ἐνθέου κινύρας σου; Ode 8.56 58: αλτήριον μ υχον / κα κινύρα υχ ς θέλγουσα / πρ ς ρ τα τ ν νθεον. Gregory of Na ian us Orations 43 (PG 36:596B): πρ τῆς ασιλείας τῆς κινύρας δύναμις, κα πονηροῦ πνεύματος κατεπ δουσα. Nikephoros Basilakes Orations 1.608: τὸν αυ δ μετ το πνε ματος καὶ τῆς το πνε ματος κιν ρας. Cf. Analecta mnica Graeca, Canones Novembris, Day 30, Canon 44, Ode 7.8 (ed. Kominis/ Schir ): τ ν κιν ραν το πνε ματος, again of David. See p61, 210. SOM 1:75. For the cultural and historical issues which account for Mohammed’s familiarity with and use of these legends, see Adang 1996:1 22. For a good survey of sources for pre-Islamic Arabian legend, including the development of David and Solomon, see Norris 1983. See 17.55, 27.15. For the uran’s engagement with the Psalter speci cally, cf. Masson 1958:429. 182 David and the Divine Lyre caused the mountains and the birds to oin with David in Our praise. All this We did.193 We made the mountains oin with him in praise evening and morning, and the birds, too, in all their ocks; all were obedient to him. We made his kingdom strong, and gave him wisdom and discriminating udgment.194 In the uran, Solomon speaks with beasts, birds, and insects, and is master of the elements through his command of the d inn. David was credited with similar superpowers by both the Rabbinic and uranic exegetes.195 In a tenthcentury Arabic source, David can assemble the d inn by means of his harp’ (mi‘zaf).196 A particularly striking parallel to the Orpheus ug is a legend compiled by al-Tha lab in the eleventh century from earlier authorities: David would recite the Psalms with seventy melodies so that those with fever would sweat and the unconscious would revive Wild beasts and beasts of prey would draw near and be sei ed by the neck, while birds shielded him from the sun’s rays, the owing water stood still, the wind died down.197 A similar portrait of Solomon is found in the Targum Sheni of Esther, which reached its present form ca. 700 CE: The king had dominion over the demons, spirits and Lilin, and knew the language of each and when his heart was merry with wine, he would command the wild animals, the fowl of heaven, and the creeping things of the earth, as well as the demons, spirits and Lilin, to dance before him.198 193 194 195 196 197 198 21.79 (trans. Dawood); cf. 34.10. 38.18 (trans. Dawood). For the tale of David and the talking frog, see LJ 4:101 102, 6:262 263n84. uran: see especially 21.81, 27.16 45 (language of birds); 34.12 14; 38.36. The uranic passages relating to David and Solomon are compared with their Biblical antecedents by Masson 1958:423 436. Much fabulous material is found in the exegetical tradition of the uran: see Thackston 1978:289 286, 300 308; E 1:495a 497b (I. Hass s.v. David), 5:76a 78b (P. Soucek s.v. Solomon); Wheeler 2002:266 279; Brinner 2002:462 468 (David), 491 498 (Solomon). SOM 1:123 (source: the I d al Far d). Brinner 2002:463 (translation), cf. 464 (the mountains answer David’s songs); Thackston 1978:289 (the earth laughs and beasts bow down to David upon Solomon’s birth). Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3 (translation after Ego 1996). For this work and its dating, see EJ2 19:513b 515a. Naturally individual elements of the targum may represent older traditions. 183 Chapter Eight Despite the lateness of these texts, their details go well beyond what is obvious in the Bible itself. Nor can they be dismissed by appeal to later Hellenistic in uence. The persistence of these traditions about magical music and David’s inspired lyre is best explained as having been reinforced by the widespread and deeply rooted indigenous lyre-cultures whose prestige and power is so vividly epitomi ed by the cult of Kinnaru at Ugarit and the rich mythology of Kinyras, to whom we may nally turn. 184 PART TWO KINYRAS ON CYPRUS 9 Kinyras the Kinyrist A fundamental o stacle to connecting Kinyras with Kinnaru of Ugarit, and Syro-Levantine lyre-culture generally, is the relative scarcity and lateness of sources linking him to music. It is therefore best to begin by securing this elusive dimension, which should be the heart of Kinyras. Once that is established, his extra-musical associations can then be explored as special developments. The Etymology of Kinyras Homer’s mention of Kinyras in Iliad 111 prompted an impressively learned disquisition by Eustathios in his twelfth-century commentary—our single richest source for the mythical Cypriot king, followed by choppy notices in the Pindaric scholia. One passage especially opens many windows on Kinyras’ complex mythology: Kinyras … was a son of Theias, according to some; he was a very wealthy king of Cyprus, who hosted the Achaeans when they came, promising that he would also send necessary supplies to Troy. But they say that after defaulting he was cursed by Agamemnon.2 [They] also [say] that he perished competing musically with Apollo—because he was an expert in music; which is even why Kinyras was named by derivation from the kinýra while his daughters, fty in number, leaped into the sea and turned into halcyons.3 1 2 3 See p1. I punctuate after γαμέμνονος following Erbse’s treatment of the parallel passage in the . Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20 (expanding upon material in the Homeric ): ινύρας … είαντος ν κατά τινας πα ς, ασιλε ς ύπρου ζάπλουτος, ς παριόντας το ς χαιο ς ἐ ένισεν, ποσχόμενος κα ἐν λί πέμ ειν τ ἀναγκα α ασ δ α τ ν ἀμελήσαντα ἐπικατάρατον γενέσθαι π γαμέμνονος κα α τ ν μ ν ἀπολ λέναι δικ ς μιλλ μενον τ πόλλ νι ς 187 Chapter Nine Eustathios has taken the bulk of this passage, somewhat denser than his usual rolling prose, from the corresponding Homeric scholia—one of his principal sources—with mainly cosmetic variations.4 As often, however, he includes further details, highlighted in my translation. These are crucial: Kinyras was a musician, and took his name from the kinýra.5 The etymology is not Eustathios’ own idea, for we will see it in a second By antine source, where the context is proverbial. And elsewhere he o ers a parallel derivation of in resthai (‘threnodize’6) from kinýra. He supports this assertion, raised in a discussion of the Homeric adjective in r (‘mournful’), with a remarkable allusion to professional threnodes: in r : properly of those who sang songs for the dead, using the kinýra— which [sc. action] was even in resthai.7 This derivation is too tangential to the Homeric passage, with too many idiosyncratic details, to be ad hoc invention; evidently Eustathios had access to a source well-informed about lamentation-singing in some parts and periods of the kinýra’s native range. That he is reproducing ancient etymologies is 4 5 6 7 ο α μουσικῆς τεχνίτην δι κα ινύρης ἐκλήθη παρ νύμ ς τ κινύρ . τ ς δ θυγατέρας α τοῦ πεντήκοντα ο σας λέσθαι ε ς θάλασσαν κα ε ς ἀλκυόνας μεταπεσε ν. For Eustathios’ relationship to the scholia, see van der Valk 1971–1987:LIX §70 and n2; Dickey 2007:23–24 with further references. Note how the added material has slightly disturbed the balance of μέν and δέ in the scholion. It is thus not strictly accurate to conclude that “la conséquence de cette mort pendant le concours usti ait son nom (Baurain 1980a:7): Eustathios has drawn the etymology from elsewhere (see below). For this dominant meaning, Homer Iliad 17.5: κινύρεσθαι γ ρ τ θρηνε ν; Apollonios of Rhodes 1.292: σημαίνει γ ρ τ θρην δοῦσαι; Suda s.v. κινυρομένη δυρομένη, θρηνοῦσα; s.v. κινυρόμεθα θρηνοῦμεν; Photios Lexicon s.v. κινύρεσθαι δύρεσθαι; Hesykhios s.v. κινύρεσθαι θρηνε ν, κλαίειν (he also de nes the hapax χλουνάζειν a κινύρεσθαι . With this word I shall mark the upsilon long ( in resthai) to help keep the issue of vocalization in mind. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 17.5: ινυρ δ κυρί ς ἐπ ἀνθρ π ν, ο κινύραις χρ μενοι ἀοιδ ς ἐπ το ς κειμένοις μελπον, κα κινύρεσθαι ν. The feminine adjective occurs in a simile of a mother-cow standing κινυρή over a newborn calf; the comparison is to Menelaos guarding the fallen Patroklos (Homer Iliad 17.4–6). Space prohibits a detailed discussion of the passage and κινυρός itself. Fortunately this omission is not crucial, as the abundant material for κινύρα, κινύρεσθαι, and κινυρίζειν can by itself carry the coming arguments. I would simply state my view (and cf. Lorimer 1950:465) that κινυρός is indeed historically related to these words, as Eusathios and other sources assert, and that the Menelaos/Patroklos passage can be illuminated in light of the threnodic conventions which these words evoke (the cow’s cry for its calf is already a trope of Sumerian lamentation poetics: see Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 3c1). Kινυρ is glossed as ο κτρά, θρηνητική, vel sim. in Apollonios Sophistes Homeric Lexicon, Suda, Photios Lexicon, Hesykhios, and Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828–1829) s.v. κινυρή, κινυρόν (but Hesykhiοs also records what are clearly guesses from the Homeric context: παλή, ‘soft, tender’; νέα, ‘new, young’; s.v. κινυρόν λεπτόν, ‘slender, weak’; καπυρόν, ‘loud’; ύ, ‘shrill’); Eustathios and have ο κτρ νος. 188 Kinyras the Kinyrist corroborated by the trope of Kinyras the Lamenter, present already in one of Ovid’s Greek models.8 Since the derivation of in resthai from kinýra is obviously of a piece with this, the whole complex can be traced back at least to the Hellenistic period.9 Of course this in itself does not guarantee that the etymologies were correct, as Hellenistic scholars delighted in fanciful lexical associations. But we saw that in the BA Near East the innāru was sometimes linked to mortuary cult and lamentation; I shall present further such material in Chapter 12, some bearing on kinýra itself in Greek sources. It may be objected that a direct connection between kinýra from in resthai is ruled out by the di ering uantities of upsilon (y/ ).10 But we shall see below that ‘Greek’ kinýra often represents a variety of linguistic cognates from the East, most of which did indeed contain the long second vowel.11 We may conclude that the ancient impulse to associate all these words was generally usti ed. The Con ct With Apollo I have already noted the faulty cultural assumptions beneath the view of J. P. Brown—writing without knowledge of Kinnaru—that Eustathios’ etymology of Kinyras < kinýra was a false, Christianizing interpretation.12 The de ciency of this is still more evident from the larger context of the passage, since it cannot account for the further musical material which Brown did not address—the contest of Kinyras and Apollo. Eustathios’ summary exhibits many details that would appeal to a Hellenistic poet or early imperial mythographer: ethnographic trivia from a marginal locale, aetiological metamorphosis, and etymological wordplay. Besides the derivation of Kinyras from kinýra itself, the halcyons are born from a leap (halésthai) into the sea, where thálassan may conceal a further play on hála (‘brine’) in an anterior source.13 There was perhaps another pun on Apollo as ‘the destroyer’ (hence a ol l nai). Yet the contest per se conforms to a well-known and generally older pattern, already found in Homer, relating to Apollo’s Panhellenic displacement of or syncretism with epichoric ‘rivals’.14 Especially numerous are the Olympian’s 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 See p280–282. See especially p197n55, 280. See p188n6, 199–200. See p213–216. Brown 1965:207–208: cf. p4. The halcyon was also known as the λιπορ υρίς: Thompson 1936:46. See e.g. GR:188 189: Apollo brings death to Linos, Hyakinthos, and Neoptolemos The gure killed in this way is preserved in the divine domain as a dark re ection of the god. Even the 189 Chapter Nine musical competitions: the aying of Marsyas; the thieving young Hermes’ threatening new lyre;15 the killing of Linos for using linen lyre strings, or for putting his own musical ability on a level with the god’s.16 There is also Apollo’s takeover of the Cretan deity Paiawon, echoed in his kidnapping of paian-singing priests in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo.17 So Apollo’s contest with Kinyras is readily viewed as a cultural ‘confrontation’, whether through ongoing commerce between Greece and Cyprus, the transplantation and growth of Apollo-cult on the island itself, or both. And there are other mythological expressions of this encounter, which is hostile only in the present case.18 All such constructions must echo the long-term historical ad acency of Aegean and Cypriot musical traditions, and more speci cally their lyric strains.19 We shall see much further evidence for this in what follows. Now Kinyras’ deception of Agamemnon is elsewhere attested and must derive from the lost epic Kypria.20 But this episode was probably never linked to the contest with Apollo outside of a mythological handbook. In the imaginative reconstruction of C. Vellay, Agamemnon’s curse called down madness on Kinyras, who thus challenged Apollo and was killed by the god’s arrows, with his desperate daughters then throwing themselves into the sea.21 But the italicized material has no basis in the text, and the Greek of the scholion and Eustathios can be punctuated to make a division into two separate myths a natural 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Olympian god would not be what he is without this darker dimension. Franklin 2003:295–299. For Linos, see p306. Homeric Hymn to Apollo 388–544; cf. Burkert 1992:60, 63; Franklin 2006a:59–60. Homer knew a similar dispute between Apollo and Eurytos over archery: Homer Odyssey 8.224–228. See p221, 226–235, 410, 512 . Engel 1841 1:273, 2:109 115, saw here rather a con ict between Phoenician/pipes and Greek/ κιθάρα (comparable to Apollo and Marsyas). This interpretation depends upon a proposed etymological connection of Kinyras with the Phoenician γίγγρας-pipes used in Adonis-lament (Athenaios 174f, etc.). The phonetic similarity of Kinyras and Gingras is admittedly striking, and some real connection should perhaps not be ruled out (see further p145, 202–204, 299n117). But recent scholarship has made clear that lyre and pipes were not immemorial enemies; their con ict emerged in the later fth century, especially in Athens, where the α λός spearheaded the so-called New Music, the strong demotic associations of which implicated the instrument in contemporary social struggles (Wilson 1999; Martin 2003; Csapo 2004; Franklin 2013). Engel’s view was initially in uential: Lenormant 1871 1872:255; Mar uand 1887:335, Kinyras was the personi cation of Phoinikian music, which was based upon the pipe ; Sayce 1898:264–265, proposing a further collateral form in Cenchreis/Kenkhreis (wife of Kinyras in Ovid Metamorphoses 10.435; Hyginus Fabulae 58); Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras (Stoll); HC:68–69 and n5, rather agnostic; Atallah 1966:312–313. It must have entered Cypriot encyclopedias, for the idea has come up in several conversations there. See p1 and n2. Vellay 1957:242, perhaps following Wagner 1891:182, quo terrore perculsae etc. (of the daughters). 190 Kinyras the Kinyrist reading.22 Madness and arrows aside, a king’s curse provoking a musical contest seems a very tenuous link. Agamemnon’s anger nds a more natural se uel in a Cypriot tradition treated by Theopompos, whereby the Mycenaean king and his men drove Kinyras from power.23 Conversely, the many fatal confrontations between Apollo and upstart musicians strongly suggest that Eustathios’ contest was originally a self-standing myth. Kinyras’ musical death and the metamorphosis of his daughters, however, are an organic unit.24 The halcyon’s lament was proverbial already for Homer,25 suggesting a connection between Kinyras’ ill-fated daughters and the topos of Kinyras ‘The Lamenter’ (see Chapter 12).26 Note that in resthai became a Hellenistic mannerism to evoke the plaintive songs of halcyons, swallows, and other sorrowing birds.27 This provides an attractive context for the curious kinnyrídes, which Hesykhiοs glosses as tiny little birds’.28 The word is probably a poetic coinage, these creatures being otherwise unknown.29 The feminine plural form, with what may be taken as a patronymic su x, suggests something very close to ‘daughters of Kinyras’.30 In any case, Kinyras’ halycon-daughters probably aetiologized female choruses like those shown on the Cypro-Phoenician bowls, which feature lyres, pipes, frame-drums, and dancers (see Chapter 11). One may compare the metamorphosis of the Pierides, rivals of the Heliconian Muses, into magpies; or the Meleagrides, sisters of Meleager, who, as they lamented their brother’s death, were transformed by Diana into guinea hens.31 Equally apposite is a fragment of Alkman (ca. 625), seemingly from a prelude to a Spartan maiden-dance, in which the ithar id s imagines himself an aged male halcyon, born along by a young female chorus: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 See n2 and n3 above. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103. See further p346–348. So rightly Baurain 1980b:304 ( étroitement liée ). Homer Iliad 9.561–564, etc.: see Thompson 1936:47. For the poetic topos of lamenting birds generally, including halcyons, Levaniouk 1999. See p.289. The halcyon’s ocean habitat might also recall Kinyras’ own maritime associations: p326–330. See e.g. [Moskhos] Lament for Bion 37–44, 46–49 (κινύρατο at 43). Swallows and κινύρεσθαι: Greek Anthology 5.237.1 (Agathias Scholasticus); 7.210.5 (Antipatros of Sidon). John Tzetzes, the twelfth-century Byzantine polymath, attests a more upbeat avine association: “the melodious κινύρα was a nickname for the I nx (Eurasian wryneck), a bird whose parts had many uses in love magic, and was called an aid to lovers : Chil. 11.380, line 582, δ κινύραν ἐμμελῆ τ ν γγα λέγουσι ; cf. 571, ἐρ σι συνεργόν. Hesykhios s.v. κιννυρίδες τ μικρ ρνιθάρια. This would account for the lexicographer’s generic-sounding de nition: he (or his source) was guessing, but had some limited context. Compare the Memnonides, sister-birds who arose from the ashes of Memnon’s pyre: [Moskhos] Lament for Bion 43; Ovid Metamorphoses 13.600–622. Ovid Metamorphoses 5.294–678; 8.534–546. 191 Chapter Nine O sweet-sounding, holy-voiced maidens, my limbs can Carry me no farther. Come now, come—let me be a r los, Who ies above the blossom of the wave together with the halcyons, With fearless heart, a sea-purple sacred bird.32 The image of a lyrist surrounded by birds is very ancient; the two elements are conjoined in iconography of the second and even third millennium, in both the Aegean and ANE.33 These scenes are generally held to represent divine epiphany, whether e ected by a musician alone or as part of a larger performance.34 I conclude therefore that Eustathios and the scholion present a fusion of two originally independent Kinyras myths, both rooted in archaic mythmaking. But the contest in its present form has passed through Hellenistic or later hands. The halcyon daughters could have appeared in one of the fashionable Hellenistic compendia of metamorphoses—perhaps Boios’ Creation of Birds.35 Another more tangible candidate is the Novel History of the early imperial wonder-monger Ptolemy Khennos (‘The Quail’); I defend this suggestion in Appendix B. The episodes were eventually conjoined by someone wishing to develop a coherent biography of the Cypriot king, though whether they were ever causally linked is very doubtful. Outplaying Orpheus and Thamyris A second Byzantine source that makes Kinyras a musician is an anonymous epistolary poem, from a thirteenth-century codex but itself somewhat older. The poet atters a musician-friend, likening him to: 32 33 34 35 Alkman 26 PMGF: ο μ τι, παρσενικα μελιγάρυες αρό νοι, / γυ α έρην δύναται άλε δ άλε κηρύλος ε ην, / ς τ ἐπ κύματος νθος μ ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτήται / νηδε ς τορ χ ν, λιπόρ υρος αρ ς ρνις. The poet’s diction is obscure at several points, but this does not undermine the comparison. For the topos of the aged male halcyon, Thompson 1936:46–51; for the r los, 139–140. For the citharodic/choral quality of these verses, see Nagy 1990:352 and Power 2010:202–203 and n44, noting the equally relevant fr. 38 σσαι δ πα δες μέ ν ἐντί, τ ν κιθαριστ ν α νέοντι, “and all the younger girls among us praise the itharist s (trans. Power). Examples include Figure 4 (1e, 1k, 1p, 1r, 4a–f?, 4j–l, 5e, 5i, 5g, 5o, 5t), 5 (1gg, 8f, 8h–i), 11, 13, 22, 47 (IIa–b). Note that some of my images do not preserve the bird element (for which see DCPIL); in other cases it appears as a feature of the instrument itself. Cf. Power 2010:25 and n49. For a convenient list of Hellenistic metamorphoses collections, Cameron 2004:272. Boios’ ρνιθογονία: Philokhoros FGH 328 F 214 and the nine credited episodes in Antoninus Liberalis. Ovid contains a large number of bird-transformations, but his treatment of Alcyone followed two other traditions, represented by Nikandros (fr. 64 Gow/Scho eld) and Theodoros (SH 750): see [Probus] on Vergil Georgics 1.399. 192 Kinyras the Kinyrist Some Orpheus or Thamyris or even Kinyras— With songs they charmed the trees, the stones, and animals.36 These verses, though bland, preciously establish Kinyras as a proverbial musician. Indeed, the rhetorical structure, slight as it is, shows that he was considered the best of the lot. And the company he keeps veri es that Kinyras was a lyre-player. The poet was obviously familiar with the etymology known to Eustathios, which was therefore popular. Dismissing Kinyras’ inclusion here as a late, Christianizing artifact would strain incredibly against the cumulative evidence. It may be, however, that his association with kinýra—the instrument of David, and a potent Christian symbol—did give him a renewed edge against the lyrists of Greek pagan mythology. Still, any such favor that Kinyras enjoyed must have been equally rooted in living musical traditions going back to pre-Christian antiquity. In the home range of the knr, ‘Kinyras’—in whatever linguistic guise will always have stood out from imported Aegean gures, no matter how rmly Hellenistic settlement in the East lodged them in local artistic and literary convention. At rst glance, admittedly, the musical deeds attributed to Kinyras are suspicious. In classical sources, the lyric control of animals and trees is credited not to Thamyris or Kinyras, but to Orpheus who appears rst in the poet’s list. Moving rocks is typically associated with Amphion and building seven-gated Thebes, but Orpheus too can move them in Euripides.37 Later authors sometimes lump Orpheus and Amphion together for their magical music.38 Our verses are thus something of a pastiche, and one may suspect that the powers of Orpheus and Amphion have been extended to Thamyris and Kinyras by artistic license. Yet why should we suppose that this lyric pastiche did not equally entail an eastern contribution? David we saw charms beast, bird, and nature, and Solomon had power over animal and mineral.39 When Constantine Manasses, a twelfthcentury chronicler, attributes to David’s kinýra the power of charming “even stones, it is surely more than con ation with Amphion.40 One should equally resist bland Orphic interpretations of such images as a sixth-century oormosaic from a synagogue in Gaza, where David (tastefully restored) charms snake, 36 37 38 39 40 Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839–1841) 4:274.5–6: ρ εύς τις άμυρις κα ινύρας / θελγον δα ς δένδρα, θήρας κα λίθους (for dating, see p265). Euripides Iphigeneia at Aulis 1211–1212; Apollonios of Rhodes 1.26–27; Konon Narrations FGH 26 F 1 (45); [Apollodoros] Library 1.3.2; Seneca Hercules Furens 569–572, Medea 228–229; [Orpheus] Argonautika 261–262; etc. Pausanias 6.20.18; Macrobius Commentary on the Dream of Scipio 2.3.8. See p178–179, 182–184 . Constantine Manasses Chronicle 4687–4688: τ α δ χησε … / κα το ς λίθους θέλγουσα καλλιμελ ς κινύρα (ed. Lampsides). 193 Chapter Nine lion, and gira e with his lyre (Figure 15).41 True, David is attired as a Byzantine emperor, and his instrument betrays centuries of Greco-Roman in uence.42 Yet this was still a synagogue; the mosaic’s dedicatory inscription is in Greek, but its donors have Jewish names. Hybrid iconography presupposes a receptive partner, and we have seen that the Syro-Levantine ‘lyrist with animals’ motif goes back to the EBA (Figure 6).43 The mysterious, animal-charming ‘kinyrist’ of the eleventhcentury ‘Orpheus jug’ holds more than enough eastern promise to account for the thaumaturgical Kinyras of our verses (Figure 13).44 Jug and poem are separated by two millennia; but the gulf is largely spanned by the knr tradition itself. To ‘outplay’ Orpheus and Thamyris, Kinyras’ musical roots must have been as deep and wide as theirs—and more so in the Byzantine East. The ‘Greek’ Kinýra And so we come to the basic conundrum that has caused scholars to reject, as late arti ce, Eustathios’ derivation of Kinyras kinýra.45 This is the apparent disparity between Kinyras’ nonmusical qualities in early Greek poetry, and the comparatively late rst attestation of kinýra, in the LXX translations of the third century. It is often stated or assumed that this word was borrowed directly from Hebrew; many have held that it was coined to translate inn r.46 Admittedly, the most visible subsequent examples are either in overtly Judaic contexts like Josephus, or in Christian writers who might seem to elaborate that tradition.47 But this cannot be right. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 IAA 1980.3410: Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987:60–62 no. 83, pl. LVIII.1, LIX, CLXXVIII; SAM:112 (no. 72). Compare those of the Bar Kokhba coins: p180–181. Note the LXX’s supernumerary Psalms 151, where David, in recollecting his youth, juxtaposes his pastoral duties with his instrument-making and psalmistry: I shepherded my father’s ocks. My hands made an instrument, and my ngers tuned this psaltery’ (ἐποίμαινον τ πρό ατα τοῦ πατρός μου / α χε ρές μου ἐποίησαν ργανον, ο δάκτυλοί μου ρμοσαν αλτήριον, 1–2). See p159–161. Those rejecting Kinyras < kinýra include, besides Brown 1965:207–208, Emprunts:69n2; Chantraine 1968 s.v. κινύρα; Baurain 1980a:11–12; Baurain 1980b:304. Boisacq 1938 s.v. was undecided. Muss-Arnolt 1892:127; Lewy 1895:164 (“κινύρα = Hebr… . inn r ); von Kampt 1956:129 130, 327 (conditioned by folk etymology with κινυρός); Frisk 1960 s.v.; Brown 1965:207; Emprunts:69 (apparently); Chantraine 1968 s.v. (“emprunt à l’hébreu inn r ); Kapera 1971:133 ( rst used in the Septuagint … to render the Hebrew inn r ); Dugand 1973:200 (remodeled via κινυρός); Tischler et al. 1977:577; Beekes 2009 s.v. follows von Kamptz. Hence the word was not given detailed treatment by E. Masson, who wished to concentrate on pre-Hellenistic borrowings (Emprunts:69n2). 194 Kinyras the Kinyrist Figure 15 ng Da d w th an ma . th century oor mo a c, a a re tored . eru a em, 1980.3 10. Drawn from M no. 2. One immediate challenge is posed by generic-sounding de nitions in ancient lexica—for example, “kinýra: a musical instrument; kithára where there is no obvious reason to exclude extra-Biblical contexts.48 Besides, Heb. inn r could have been rendered much more accurately than ‘kinýra’. The form itself, indeed, decisively places the adaptation well before the LXX. The Semitic originals from which a ‘Greek’ adaptation could derive would either have preserved the ancient vocalization innār- which persisted in North 48 Suda, Hesykhios, Photios Lexicon, Lexica Segueriana, Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828–1829) s.v. κινύρα ργανον μουσικόν, κιθάρα, vel sim. 195 Chapter Nine Syria, or come from the Canaanite/Phoenician sphere, where had shifted to by ca. 1800–1400.49 While the original, unshifted vocalization has indeed left a few traces in our sources (see below), the upsilon of kinýra cannot have represented at any point in Greek history. By the same token, the Greek letter can only have corresponded to Semitic or prior to the fourth or even fth century BCE, by which time its original sound—a back closed, rounded vowel of variable length ( / ) was already assuming a pronounced fronted uality (like German ü) in the Ionic dialect (whose sound values became a point-of-reference when the Ionic alphabet was adapted, via Athens, for use in regional inscriptions beginning in the fourth century).50 A third-century Greek adaptation would thus have rendered Phoenician * inn r as *kin(n)our or even *kyn(n)our. In fact, the latter form is found in a typically calculated passage of Lykophron, whose Alexandra is a Trojan Cycle in miniature—a monstrous display of Hellenistic learning masquerading as the ominous ravings of Kassandra.51 E. L. Brown argued convincingly that Paris is portrayed as a lyre-playing gadabout en route to Sparta, “passing the night by causing the nine-sail expeditionary band to leap-and-prance … to the accompaniment of the ‘eastern lyre’ (pròs kynoûra). 52 This reinterpretation, which after all accords with Homer’s own depiction of Paris as a lyrist,53 brings sudden sense to a passage that was already obscure to ancient critics.54 But why did 49 50 51 52 53 54 See p55–57. Thus Herodotos could already represent the Persian name Vištaspa as st s s; conversely the use of omicron upsilon ( ) to represent / / in Boeotian inscriptions by ca. 350 shows that upsilon was no longer suitable: see Allen 1987:66–69. Fraser 1979 persuasively con rms those critics (going back to anti uity) who would see the whole Alexandra as the work of a second Lykophron in the second century BCE (in accord with the description of Rome’s power at 1229), rather than by ‘the’ Lykophron who was active in the early third; see also Fraser in OCD s.v. Lycophron. Lykophron Alexandra 97–101 with Brown 1981:398–399. Brown’s hypothesis treats the noun as third-declension (see below); but his κύνουρα and consistent but unexplained κίνυρα for traditional κινύρα (for - , cf. λύρα and κιθάρα) appear to be a lapse. Homer Iliad 3.54; Ptolemy Khennos in Photios Library 153a1–5; Plutarch Alexander 15, Moralia 331d; Ailianos Various History 9.38; Stobaios Anthology 3.7.52; Eustathios on Homer Iliad 3.24, 54. While most of these sources are late, the lyre was a standard attribute of Paris in later Archaic and Classical vase-painting: LIMC s.v. Alexandros nos. 9–11, s.v. Paridis Iudicium nos. 9, 13, 17, 20 21, 29, 37 39, 45, etc.; SIAG:38, 52 g. 16, 104 g. 9; Gant 1993 2:569. Our only interpretive clue for what Scheer gives as πρ ς κύνουρα (99) is the scholiast’s πρ ς τ ς τραχείας πέτρας; but this is easily explained by false inference from ύθειον as an ἀκρ τήριον τῆς ακ νικῆς. Brown’s hypothesis does seem to be clinched by the bow-lyre imagery of 139–140 (τοιγ ρ αλά εις ε ς κεν ν νευρ ς κτύπον / σιτα κἀδ ρητα ορμίζ ν μέλη), noting especially that ‘plucking’ ( αλά εις) is atypical of Greek lyre-practice, but known for the inn r (see p58). Brown’s ultimate argument, incidentally, is that Greek n soura is a deformation via folk-etymology (‘dog’s-tail’) of a Phoenician name (* inn r) for the constellation Lyra. Add to his dossier that Lyra is called kennar in a Pahlavi translation of a Greek astrological work, the Liber de stellis beibeniis: see p61n89. 196 Kinyras the Kinyrist Lykophron adopt what from a contemporary Greek perspective was not only an archaizing phonetic spelling, but at odds with the short upsilon of kinýra, which on any account will have been current in the poet’s time? As it happens, etymological speculation about kinýra and its seeming relations provided considerable entertainment for Alexandrian and other Hellenistic savants.55 These parallels assure us that Lykophron’s pròs kynoûra was a willful contrivance; conversely, kinýra must have had connotations he wished to avoid. Apart from any possible metrical convenience, the poet may have wanted to defamiliarize the word for poetic e ect, enhancing his oriental characteri ation of Paris. Possibly he intended to present kinýra as pronounced in legendary times. On the other hand, long pronunciations of the second syllable would still have been heard in the Semitic dialects of Alexandria and the Levant. That Lykophron cast his coinage into the third declension, rather than the rst of kinýra, equally accords with Phoenician and Hebrew forms, which had lost their ancestral nal vowels centuries earlier.56 Remarkably, however, the poet gives his rst upsilon its contemporary Greek value, as though tipping us o to his anachronistic novelty.57 But then Lykophron is lled with riddles from start to nish. 55 56 57 An explanation of κινύρα through a player’s ‘moving’ (κινε ν) of its strings (Suda s.v.: ἀπ τοῦ κινε ν τ νεῦρα) was stretched to account also for κιθάρα and κίθαρις (Anecdota Graeca [Cramer 1839–1841] 4:35.13–14: παρ τ κί τ κιν κίναρις κα κίθαρις; for κίναρις, see p198), and connected to their ability to ‘move’, i.e. arouse, love (Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. κ θαρις ἀπ τοῦ κινε ν τ ν ρ τα; s.v. κιθαρ δ παρ τ κινε ν ε ς ρ τα το ς ἀκο οντας; Anecdota Graeca [Cramer 1839–1841] 4:35.10–11: κιθάρα, παρ τ κινε ν ε ς ρ τα το ς ἀκούοντας, παρ τ κινε σθαι αδί ς). That these etymologies go back to Hellenistic speculation is con rmed by Apollonios’ treatment of κιν ρεσθαι ( and d an n a a n ( a Moreover, Lykophron’s κυνουρ- as a contrived e uivalent of κινυρ- is corroborated by the attempt of Apion ( . ca. 25 CE) to derive κιν ρεσθαι from κινε ν + ο ρά (‘tail’) to explain Homer’s bovine κινυρή (Iliad 17.5) in terms of ‘tail-moovements’ ( Apollonios of Rhodes 1.292 = Apion FGH 616 F 51 = 48 Neitzel: κυρ ς δ κιν ρεσθα ἐστιν ἐπ ο ς κα ε ρηται παρ τ κινε ν τ ν ο ρ ν ἐν τ μυκ σθαι). In doing so, the scholiast says, Apion was “transferring an etymological discovery by his Alexandrian predecessor Apollodoros of Athens (ca. 180 110), a Homerist disciple of Aristarkhos who had derived ταῦρος (‘bull’) from τείνειν (‘stretch’) and ο ρά (‘tail’), i.e. in light of a bull’s posterior tendencies (Apollodoros FGH 244 F 277: κα π ν δ ε ρ ν τ ν ἐτυμολογ αν παρ πολλοδ ρ τα την, τι ταῦρος λ γεται παρ τ τε νειν τ ν ο ρ ν, μετ θηκε τ ν ε ρεσιν τῆς ἐτυμολογ ας). Hesykhios s.v. κινούρας το ς κακούργους ππους (LSJ: “shaking the tail, a sign of weakness in a horse ) is presumably related to these e orts. They are generally represented in the Amarna letters (as also at Ugarit), but occasional omissions indicate a transitional state (Sivan 1984:114–123), as do inaccuracies of representation (Albright 1934:29 §61). The endings were certainly lost well before the eighth century, since it induced further developments complete by that time, as seen in e.g. the Greek letter-name ἰῶτα: the new nal syllable of i d was lengthened under accent to i ´d, which then became i d under the Canaanite Shift, the in uence of which continued to a ect such cases of secondary (not inherited) ā. See Harris 1936:25 §8, 34–35 §11, estimating an eleventh-century loss; cf. Harris 1939:59–60; SL §21.13, 25.6. Assuming that the upsilon has been correctly transmitted. 197 Chapter Nine In any case, it is certain that when the LXX represented inn r as kinýra, this was a true translation, using a ‘Greek’ word that long predated the new Hellenistic settlements that followed Alexander’s conquests.58 It must have been obvious, of course, to all educated Jews, that kinýra and Hebrew inn r were essentially the same word.59 Yet Hebrew will hardly have been the direct source of kinýra. We must look to the Greco-Levantine interface more broadly. O. S emerényi repeatedly traced Semitic loanwords in Greek to speci c periods and source dialects, using vocalization as a key diagnostic.60 The phonetic and phonemic inventory of an adapting language naturally reshapes the original, and the outcomes are often more than random distortions.61 But the situation is seriously complicated by unknown and undeciphered intermediaries; crucial missing pieces are Minoan and other pre-Greek languages of the Aegean and Cyprus. The impact of these lost tongues on early loanwords must not be underestimated. There is su cient evidence to show that kinýra was once but one of several adaptations of knr in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Greek lexicographic tradition has preserved a few sparse traces of Syrian (i.e. non-Canaanite/ Phoenician) originals. Thus, alongside Homeric kítharis (‘lyre-playing’ and later lyre’), one nds the parallel kínaris.62 It is impossible to say which form was modeled on the other; perhaps they developed side-by-side. Still more striking, Hesykhiοs has an entry for a verb kinarýzesthai, which he de nes as to lament with groaning. 63 The derivation of this remarkable word from knr is again usti ed by the evidence, ANE and Greek alike, for the lyre’s association with lamentation (Chapter 12). And the upsilon of kinarýzesthai surely echoes the ancient Semitic form innāru m , found at Ebla, Mari, 58 59 60 61 62 63 As rightly seen by Albright 1964:171n47; Baurain 1980b:305. See above, p47 and n19. Szemerényi 1968 (criticizing the tendency of Emprunts to ignore vocalization and trace all loans to Phoenician); Szemerényi 1974; Szemerényi 1981; Szemerényi 1986. The view of Burkert is too categorical: “foreign words [sc. in Greek] … are accepted only in perfectly assimilated form as to phonetics and in exion They imitate and go into hiding, adapting themselves to the roots and su xes of native Greek Popular etymology plays its role in metamorphosis; no rules of phonetic evolution can be established (1992:35, my emphasis). Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839–1841) 4:35.13–14: κίθαρις παρ τ κί τ κιν κίναρις κα κίθαρις, παρ τ κί , τ πορεύομαι (“kínaris and kítharis come either from in the sense of n [‘I move’], or from in the sense of poreúomai I go’ ). That κίναρις is as genuine a word as κίθαρις seems guaranteed by the awkward etymological explanation from κιν (see n55). One could suppose that an intended κινύρα was in uenced by κίθαρις, but this would leave unexplained why κίθαρις was given etymological attention rather than the more obvious κιθάρα. Hesykhios s.v. κιναρ ζεσθαι θρηνε ν μετ τοῦ γογγ ζειν. 198 Kinyras the Kinyrist and Ugarit.64 It is thus potentially quite old in Greek, given the EIA evanescence of inherited nal vowels in Aramaic, Phoenician, and Hebrew.65 These rare ‘unshifted’ forms are hard to pinpoint historically. One may think, for instance, of an adaptation from Aramaic during ‘Philistine’ settlement of the Amuq in the EIA, or a later trade colony like Al-Mina (ca. 800).66 An equally attractive candidate is Cilicia, once part of the Hurro-Luwian state of Kizzuwatna in the LBA.67 One should note here that Kinyras himself has a Cilician pedigree in several traditions, including one that makes his father Syrian.68 Another was adopted—or contrived—by the mysterious Theodontius, a lost source for Boccaccio’s Genealogy of the Pagan Gods (ca. 1350–1375). But it is probably just a striking coincidence that these authors, followed by Étienne de Lusignan, give the spelling Cinaras rather than Cinyras.69 A Syrian musical milieu must also underlie the Cinara whom Horace loved in his youth—an allusion to the Syrian musiciennes who became a xture of Roman streetlife after Pompey annexed the region in 64 BCE (see further Appendix C). Another notable phonetic variant is the long upsilon of in resthai versus the short vowel of kinýra, kinyrízein, and Kinýras.70 There are other cases of Semitic loanwords preserving their vowel-length in Greek; there are also exceptions.71 While in resthai normally relates to threnody in Greek sources,72 this need not require complete dissociation from knr, since the instrument’s use in and/or association with ANE lamentative contexts provides the necessary semantic link (Chapter 12). Moreover, while the derivation of kinýra from a long-vowel original like * inn r is beyond doubt, it is the long upsilon of in resthai that corresponds more closely to the original Canaanite/Phoenician forms. 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 It will have been readily adapted to a well-de ned pattern of Greek verbs that add ζ to stems in -υ (τονθορύζ , γρύζ , γογγύζ , etc.). Cf. p197 and n56 above; Aramaic: SL:270 (§32.24); CEWAL:400 §3.5 (Creason). For the fast-developing picture in the Amuq, see the concise synthesis of Hawkins 2009. Al-Mina: Boardman 1980. Cf. p96 above. Of course a substantial Phoenician cultural presence in the eighth century is attested by the inscriptions at Karatepe and Çineköy (Hawkins 2000 no. I.1, I.8; Tekoglu and Lemaire 2000). See the survey of Lipi ski 2004:109 144. See Chapter 21. See Appendix F and G. Thus Lewy 1895:164 rightly noted that Kinyras cannot be derived directly from in resthai. For in r s, see p188n7. Vowel length preserved: σσ πος, χιτ ν, σινδ ν, μν : see discussions of Szemerényi 1968:194– 197; also καυνάκης, Aram. nna ā. Loss of vowel length: ύσσος ( ax and axen cloth) versus Akk. u and Heb. , cf. Phoen. (Emprunts:20–22); μύρρ (myrrh), Ug. mr (DUL s.v.), Can. mu-ur-ra (EA 269.16), Akk. murru (CAD s.v.), Aram. m rā, Heb. m r (cf. Emprunts:55; Chantraine 1968 s.v.). Some variations in vowel length are due to metrical utility, e.g. δόνες/ δ νος: Homer Iliad 23.743, Odyssey 15.425; cf. Brown and Levin 1986:78 with further permutations. See de nitions in n6 above. 199 Chapter Nine Thus, we should trust the instincts of sources that connect kinýra and in resthai without batting an eye. Besides Eustathios, note several lexicon entries that are tied to a passage of Apollonios of Rhodes: Am hi in r menai: Apollonios. in r menai: playing music (mélpousai), singing; from the kinýra.73 For this etymology to work, the short-upsilon kinýra must stand generically for one or more ANE cognates that maintained the original long vowel; but such a universalizing usage is well paralleled (see below). The relevant passage of Apollonios completes a simile that began with a sunny scene of happy, busy bees. These he compares, in a much discussed mood reversal,74 with the Lemnian women ‘whining about’ the Argonauts, beseeching them not to leave: Thus indeed did they, Crying/Crooning ( in r menai), pour themselves about the men in earnest Saluting each with hands and speeches, Imploring the gods to bestow a harmless homecoming.75 The contrast between tenor and vehicle is jarring, discordant; many scholars agree with the scholiast that “the comparison is not sound nor harmonious in all respects … the meadow rejoices and exults, and yet the city is in pain, which is why he says ‘ in r menai’. 76 This straightforward reading is certainly natural, and accords with the earlier scene of Jason’s mother lamenting his departure (using the same verb).77 Yet this makes all the more striking the lexicographers’ de nition of the word as singing and playing music. The viability of a nonlamentative sense is seconded by another lexical entry—this time with no clear link to Apollonios—which connects kinýra itself with a verb kin , de ned as both threnodi e and sing. 78 These positive’ musical de nitions are a kind of lectio di cilior that must be explained. 73 74 75 76 77 78 Apollonios of Rhodes 1.882–883; Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. ἀμ ικινυρόμεναι πολλ νιος κινυρόμεναι μέλπουσαι, δουσαι ἀπ τῆς κινύρας; much the same entry is found in Etymologicum Symeonis and Etymologicum Magnum s.v., the latter also with κα κιν ρετο , ἐθρ νει έλπειν often implies lyre-music: LSJ s.v.; Franklin 2003:297. See the excellent analysis of Clare 2002:179–187, with literature in n16. Apollonios of Rhodes 1.882–885: ς ρα ταίγε / ἐνδυκ ς ἀνέρας ἀμ κινυρόμεναι προχέοντο, / χερσ δ κα μύθοισιν ἐδεικανό ντο καστον, / ε χόμεναι μακάρεσσιν ἀπήμονα νόστον πάσσαι . ad loc.: δ παρα ολ ο χ γι ς ο δ ε ς πάντα ρμόζεται … χαίρει κα ἀγάλλεται λειμ ν, καίτοι λυπε ται πόλις, διό ησι κινυρόμεναι. Apollonios of Rhodes 1.292. Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. κινύρα κιθάρα, ἐκ τοῦ κινύρ τ σημα νον τ θρην κα δ . 200 Kinyras the Kinyrist R. J. Clare has explicated, in the larger Lemnian episode, Apollonios’ careful manipulation of emotional expectations, climaxing in the present scene with in r menai being the crux of the entire comparison ; it is a olt in itself to realise that lamenting is being compared to re oicing a re ection of the sudden comprehension of the women as their idyllic interlude disintegrates and optimism turns to pessimism. 79 Given Hellenistic interest in in resthai and its apparent cognates,80 it would seem that Apollonios has exploited, in support of his purposefully dissonant simile, a semantic bifurcation between the celebratory and plaintive that was inherent in the word.81 This reading is supported by several performative nuances that result. Lamentation could be addressed to the gods apotropaically against future misfortune.82 That is clearly operative here, and later we shall see a kinýra used in just this way.83 But the image of women streaming out of a city equally evokes the ANE custom, attested in the Bible, of greeting victorious, homecoming warriors with celebratory music—just the outcome for which the Lemnian women beseech the gods.84 This perverted ‘coming out’ scene neatly reprises the further careful permutation with which the Lemnian sojourn began—when the women, fearing that the arriving Argonauts were enemies, poured forth under arms.85 I conclude that Apollonios, like Lykophron, has carefully crafted his passage around an ongoing poetic and scholarly dialogue about in resthai and its presumed cognates. The phonetic discrepancy between forms in y and is explicable in regional terms, resulting from parallel adaptations in separate linguistic spheres. Leaving aside many self-conscious literary examples of in resthai in Hellenistic and later poetry,86 the harder demographic evidence of epigraphy indicates the word’s popular currency in Anatolian funerary inscriptions of the Roman era.87 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Clare 2002:184. See p197 and n55 above. There is a similarly willful mixture of joyous and plaintive context with in resthai at 3.259 and 664. See p30, 279. See p302–303. See p126. Clauss 1993:140–142; Clare 2002:179–181. The verb, like the adjective in r s, became a standing resource for Hellenistic authors, and a mannerism in late epic; they regularly refer to, or presuppose, lamentation in mythological contexts. A representative sample includes Kallimakhos Hymns 2.20 (see p126); Apollonios of Rhodes, passages already cited and 4.1063; Triphiodoros 430; Nonnos Dionysiaka 2.157, 4.199, etc.; Quintus Smyrnaeus 6.81, 7.335, etc; Kollouthos 216. Three cases are undated but belong to the rst centuries CE. The type may be exempli ed by SEG 29:1202 (Lydia), an epigram for a Iulianos by his sons and wife, “who has miserable pain in her heart, lamenting your death my youthful husband ( τε σ νευνος χου σα ρεσ λ πην 201 Chapter Nine Here in resthai describes lamentation—or better threnody (see Chapter 12)—by the bereaved when dedicating the stone; by committing this act to an ostensibly permanent medium, a one-time funerary rite was e ectively converted into a perpetual mortuary cult.88 That in resthai was particularly at home in Anatolia would also help explain a passage in Aristophanes’ Knights (424 BCE), where the verb describes “lamenting a lyre-pipe concert (synaulían), the mode of Olympos (the legendary Phrygian aulete).89 If in resthai is indeed to be connected with knr, as seems inevitable—and note that an Anatolian context could be equally indicated by Lykophron’s Paris and even Apollonios’ Lemnian women—one might look to the westerly Phoenician expansion along the Anatolian coast in the eighth and seventh centuries, attested by inscriptions in Cilicia and Pamphylia, and other sporadic traces from Lycia and Caria in southwestern Anatolia.90 Compare the threnodic Phoenician pipes known as gíngras, which our sources indicate took special hold among the Carians.91 The word is also said to be an alternative name for Adonis: The gíngras is a kind of small aul s, mournful and emitting a funereal sound, of Phoenician discovery and suitable for the Carian muse. And the Phoenician language calls Adonis Gingras, and their aul s takes its name from this.92 It has long been proposed to derive gíngras and several related words from knr, and to see Adonis-Gingras as a doublet of Kinyras.93 If this derivation is right, 88 89 90 91 92 93 ἀμ γαρτον / σε ο κινυρομ νη θ να τον θαλεροῦ παρα κο του, 7–13); similarly Calder 1928 319, cf. SEG 6:290 (Gözlu, Galatia); Mitchell et al. 1982 149e (Meyildere, Galatia). Of two examples from Thessaly, one lacks any Anatolian association (Peek 1955 694: Thessalian Thebes, third [?] century CE), but in the second the mother was evidently of Anatolian background, Dounda being a variant of Douda, common in Asia Minor (I.Thess.I no. 43B, Ktiri, third century CE; SEG 28:515). The form κινυραμένη in 5–6 is slightly puzzling: although an aorist is rightly read at [Moskhos] Lament for Bion 43 (despite LSJ s.v. κινύρομαι), here the funerary context makes one expect a present participle, as in the three foregoing parallels. Perhaps it is a lapicidal error (note that the cutter erroneously gave the accusative κινυραμένην). See further p70n54. Aristophanes Knights 9–11 ( υναυλίαν κλαύσ μεν λύμπου νόμον / μυμῦ μυμῦ μυμῦ μυμῦ μυμῦ μυμῦ / τί κινυρόμεθ λλ ς). υμῦ a α λός, συναυλία implies an equal lyric component: see p295 and n95. For Cilicia (Karatepe, etc.): see p252n50. For the Cebel Ires Da i inscription (Pamphylian border), Mosca and Russell 1987 (dating to ca. 625–600); Lipinski 2004:128–130 (ca. 650), cf. 141–143 for a survey of data relating to Lycia and Caria. See p145n200. Sources for Carian lamenters generally: Reiner 1938:66. Pollux Onomastikon 4.76: γίγγρας δ μικρός τις α λίσκος γο δη κα θρηνητικ ν ν ν ἀ ιείς, ο νι μ ν ν τ ν ε ρεσιν, πρόσ ορος δ μούσ τ αρικ δ οινίκ ν γλ ττα ίγγραν τ ν δ νιν καλε , κα τούτ α λ ς ἐπ νόμασται. See p145, 190n19, 299n117. The unstable representation of Semitic stops is a known phenomenon: cf. Szemerényi 1968:197; for g < k, cf. e.g. Gk. γρύ < Sem. ker (Szemerényi 1974:150); 202 Kinyras the Kinyrist gíngras would constitute yet another epichoric adaptation, presumably localized in Caria if one may trust the sources.94 Although it would result in a remarkable semantic shift from lyre to pipes,95 this might be explicable via the poetics of ritual performance.96 “Our K n ri Apollo”: Playing the Kinýra on Cyprus The Anatolian associations of in resthai encourage us to seek the origin of kinýra and other short-upsilon forms elsewhere. Admittedly parts of Anatolia remain poorly documented. Yet one cannot ignore Cyprus as a probable locus for parallel adaptations, since the island was the epicenter of Greek cultural and linguistic interface with Syria and the Levant from at least the twelfth century BCE.97 This privileged position is re ected in a Cyprocentric conception of the eastern Mediterranean that must equally go back to the EIA migrations. Already for Homer, Menelaos’ homecoming route from Troy took him “wandering through Cyprus and Phoenicia and the Egyptian people that is, clockwise around what the geographer Strabo, commenting on the passage, called “the lands around Cyprus. 98 The same idea helps account for the description of Paphos as ‘the center of the world’ ( s om hal s), alluding to its far-famed sanctuary, which rivaled Delphi itself.99 Even after Greek horizons were expanded in the Hellenistic age, the island’s cultural prominence was out of proportion to its size; this is well illustrated by the Tabula Peutingeriana, a thirteenth-century map going back to a Roman original of later antiquity, with still older antecedents.100 Here Cyprus, greatly magni ed, is the focus of the eastern Mediterranean (Figure 16).101 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 the opposite may be seen in καυνάκης/γαυνάκης < Aram. nna ā, or other Semitic forms (Hemmerdinger 1970:50–51). For example, with backward shift of accent from Cypro-Phoenician *Kinnýras leading to syncopation of the second syllable and dissimilation of -nn- to -ng-? Brown 1965:207. For such an interpretation of the Ugaritic text RS 24.257, see p141–146. Further considerations, p291–303. I am not insisting on an absolute division between Cyprus and Anatolia; if in resthai may indeed be referred to Phoenician in uence, a fortiori such a form would be viable on Cyprus itself with its sizeable Phoenician population. As I shall argue, however, the short-upsilon forms go back on the island to the LBA, and would thus be at least a parallel adaptation there: see p272–278. Homer Odyssey 4.81–85 with Strabo 1.2.32 (τ περ προν χ ρ α). Hesykhios s.v. γῆς μ αλός ά ος κα ελ οί. See further p411, 416. For the antecedents of the Tabula Peutingeriana, see Bowersock 1983:169–186 passim (tracing to Agrippa); Talbert 2010, Chapter 5. Admittedly this owes something to the mapmaker’s narrowing of water-bodies to accommodate land-masses. Nevertheless, the island is given relatively prominent treatment. Like Crete and Sicily, Cyprus features a road network, and only Cyprus and Crete have the word Insula 203 Figure 16 y ru and the ea tern Med terranean accord ng to the a u a eut nger ana. ed y erm on of the terre ch che at ona othe , enna. Kinyras the Kinyrist The island’s central location and large concentration of Greek-speakers provide a compelling explanation for how a speci cally Greco-Cypriot form I mean kinýra—could eventually prevail in the Hellenistic koine. Until recently this would have been but an educated guess. It can now be corroborated by evidence from Cyprus itself. In 1959, a marble slab was discovered in secondary use at a church in the village of Nikokleia, near Palaipaphos. It contains an oath of allegiance to Tiberius, taken by the Community of Cyprus on the Roman emperor’s accession in 14 CE.102 Several gods are invoked as witnesses: By our Akraía-Aphrodite and our Kore and our l t s-Apollo and our en rist s-Apollo and our saviors the Dioskouroi and the island’s common Boulaía-Hestia and the common ancestral gods and goddesses of the island and the god Caesar, august descendant of Aphrodite, and eternal Rome and all other gods and goddesses …103 When T. B. Mitford rst published the stone in 1960, he read Apollo’s second cult-title as Ke[r] t n, connecting it with Keryneia on the north coast. This was not entirely satisfactory: the site is rarely mentioned in ancient sources, and none attests a connection with Apollo.104 J.-B. Cayla has recently made a vital contribution, perceiving that the correct reading is in fact Ke[n]yr i] t n. This I can corroborate from my own examination of the stone.105 102 103 104 105 written in full. All other islands, including the larger Sardinia, are represented very schematically. See Talbert 2010:89–90, 108. For the development of τ κοιν ν τ υπρ ν in Cypriot inscriptions, HC:185, 233–234; Mitford 1960c:77–78; HIOP 99 and notes. Kouklia-Palaipaphos Museum, inv. 85; Mitford 1960c, cf. SEG 18:578; Karageorghis 1960:274 and g. 53), revised reading by Cayla 2001 (SEG 51:1896) I.Paphos 151, reprised in Cayla 2005 (SEG 55:1534): ν τ ν μετ ραν κρα αν φροδ τ ν κα ὶ τ ν μ ετ ραν Κ ρ ν καὶ τὸν μ τερον λ τ ν π λλ ω καὶ τὸν μ τερον Κε ν υρ ι στ ν (Cayla 2001: ε ρ υν την Mitford 1960c) π λλ κα το ς μετ ρους τῆρας ιοσκο ρους κα τ ν κοιν ν τῆς ν σου ουλα αν στ αν κα θεο ς θε ς τε το ς κοινο ς τῆς ν σου πατρ ους κα τ ν κγονον τῆς ροδ της ε αστ ν ε ν α σαρα κα τ ν ναον μην κα το ς λλους θεο ς π ντας τε κα π σας κτλ Cf. HC:87. Cayla 2001:78–79; pace Fu ii 2013:80. I veri ed Cayla’s observation of a curve consistent with , not , in the fth position. To his upper and lower hori ontal strokes, re uiring restoration of or instead of Mitford’s H (four letters from the end), I can add that the sloping inner strokes of the are just visible, at certain angles of light, along the left edge of the lacuna (having apparently helped shape the break). I thank the Department of Antiquities for permission to examine the stone at Kouklia on May 25, 2012; and J. Webb, G. Fawkes, and especially R. Walker for additional eyes and discussion. Walker also pointed out that μ τερον κε ν υρ ι στήν yields a dactylic sequence (on the reasonable assumption that it shares the short upsilon of Zenodotos’ κινυρίζειν [see below] and the short-voweled Kinyras himself, both of which are metrically guaranteed). 205 Chapter Nine On Cyprus, and especially at Paphos, en rist s inevitably evokes Kinyras. It clearly interprets the legendary Cypriot king as a form of Apollo.106 But what exactly is implied? As Mitford saw, the uali cation of the oath-gods as ours’ indicates their distinctively Cypriot status. The particular combination of divinities, however, remains obscure, with several being otherwise poorly attested. Mitford speculated that they were intended to represent the island regionally, and although the geographical associations of Kore and the Dioskouroi are too poorly known to permit conclusive demonstration, the hypothesis would accord well enough with the totalizing reference to “the common ancestral gods and goddesses of the island. 107 Cayla uses this pan-Cypriot perspective to explain the surprising absence of such famous Cypriot powers as Paphian Aphrodite and Salaminian Zeus, strongly associated with particular cities.108 But it is possible that these and other gods were indeed invoked in a lost stone containing the oath’s preamble.109 In any case, while the precise rationale behind the surviving theoì h r ioi is still unclear, “Our en rist s Apollo is a uni uely Cypriot gure. Any deeper appreciation depends upon determining the meaning(s) of en rist s. The word is clearly related to the verb kinyrízein, which, though only thrice attested, must once have been more widely current than this would suggest.110 These two words are most naturally interpreted in light of three exact parallels from the world of lyre-playing, the agent-verb pairs itharist s-kitharízein, 106 107 108 109 110 The certain εν- for expected ιν- is unproblematic, though interesting. Cayla 2001:78–79 (cf. Cayla 2005:229) rightly notes other oscillations of ι/ε in Cypriot inscriptions (e.g. Idalion/Edalion, Kition/Ketion). Because inherited ε becomes ι before ν in Cypriot (e.g. ν for ἐν, cf. Bechtel 1921– 1924 1:403 §15; Masson 1988a:21; Ruijgh 1988:143; Risch 1988:71, 76), Cayla suggests that ενmay be hyperdialectal an arti cial form induced by a desire to create an impression of anti uity (the phenomenon is otherwise attested in Hellenistic Cypriot inscriptions: Steele 2013:150–151, 238–239). That εν- should re ect a genuinely ancient form is complicated by the agreement of Linear B ki-nu-ra (see Chapter 17) and Kinyras in Homer, on the one hand, and the consistent vocalization of knr as kin- at Ebla, Mari, Ugarit, Emar, and Alalakh. I recognize the potential ambiguity of representing vowels in these early scripts (note that oscillations between e and i vis-à-vis later Greek forms are not uncommon in Linear B [Risch 1966:154; Ruijgh 1967:71–72], and that an early Cypriot adaptation may have been exceptional. Yet εν- could also be a later development through the in uence of Phoenician, where short i was rather lax and open (hence ιλκ-/ ελκ-, etc.): SL 21.13; cf. ICGSL:48 49 8.74, 77 . Cf. Lipinski 2004:62, seeing Phoen. in uence behind Edalion/Idalion; the same should apply to Kition/Ketion, a largely Phoenician site. Mitford 1960c:77. Cayla 2005:228. Fujii 2013:78–82. The scribal error of ινυρίδαι for ινυράδαι in Pindar Pythian 2.27b might point in this direction. 206 Kinyras the Kinyrist hormi t s-phormízein, and l rist s-lyrízein.111 en rist s should therefore simply mean ‘the kinýra-player’, and kinyrízein ‘to play the kinýra’. And yet kinyrízein has been almost universally interpreted along di erent lines. This misunderstanding derives from the earliest attestation, a rhapsodic variant in the Iliad championed by enodotos ( . ca. 285), Homeric critic and rst librarian of Alexandria; it was later disputed by Aristarkhos of Samothrace (ca. 216–144), who advanced his own preference, which is itself distinct from what has come down in the manuscript tradition. We know of this scholarly issue from Aristonikos, a critic of the Augustan age who mentioned it in his Homeric commentary, along with many of Aristarkhos’ other readings, which he often contrasts with those of Zenodotos. The verse in question forms part of Achilles’ rebuttal of Phoinix who, as a member of the embassy sent by Agamemnon to soothe the sulking warrior, has ust nished his cautionary exemplum about the destructive pride of Meleagros. The three versions are as follows: Traditional: Do not confuse my angry-heart (th m n) with your lamenting and wailing (od r menos kaì a he n).112 Zenodotos: Do not confuse my angry-heart with your kinýralamenting (od r menos in r n).113 Aristarkhos: Do not confuse my angry-heart in my breast with your moaning (en st thessin a he n).114 We are told that Zenodotos treated od r menos in r n “as if it meant thr n n that is, ‘singing a funeral dirge’. One can hardly suppose that Zenodotos did not know what the phrase meant: od r menos, and the correspondence of in r n with a he n, guarantee that kinyrízein could be at least connected with lamentation. And yet this would be readily explained by the kinýra’s use in threnody.115 According to Aristonikos (evidently reproducing the opinion of Aristarkhos) enodotos’ variant was un-Homeric and out-of-character 111 112 113 114 115 Adduced with di erent emphasis by Cayla 2001:80 81. Homer Iliad 9.612: μή μοι σύγχει θυμ ν δυρόμενος κα ἀχεύ ν. Cf. Iliad 24.128, Odyssey 2.23, 4.100, 14.40. Zenodotos: μή μοι σύγχει θυμ ν δυρόμενος κινυρίζ ν. Aristarkhos: μή μοι σύγχει θυμ ν ἐν στ θεσσιν ἀχε ν. See Chapter 12. 207 Chapter Nine ( ar t r s on).116 Not all modern scholars have been persuaded by this condemnation,117 but editors have generally preferred the traditional version for its “parallelismus membrorum and the accumulation of synonyms, while the variants of Zenodotos and Aristarkhos have been attributed to the Alexandrian desire to avoid such constructions, diversify at the expense of formulaic diction, and increase sentimentality.118 Still, the variant enjoys solid precedents in the formulaic system. d r menos stena h , attested four times in the same position, would readily support a substitution of in r n in a lamentative sense without requiring that the two be strictly synonymous.119 Crucial here is the frequent occurrence of ithar n (‘playing the kithára’) and collateral forms in the same verse- nal position, typically preceded by an adverbial expression.120 When we come to consider kinýra-lamentation in more detail, I shall argue that Zenodotos’ variant introduces interesting nuances to the scene.121 But rst we must corroborate this ‘lyric’ interpretation of kinyrízein. Of the word’s two other attestations, which Classicists have hitherto overlooked,122 it will su ce to present only the earlier here. The second, being quite late (ninth century), raises further historical issues and needs more convoluted argument; it is analyzed in Appendix D. 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Aristonikos Grammaticus, On the Signs of the Iliad, 168 Friedlander: μ μοι σ γχει θυμ ν ἐν στ θεσσιν ἀχε ν τι ην δοτος γρ ει δυρ μενος, κινυρ ζ ν , ο ον θρην ν ἐστι δ ο χ μηρικ ν, κα παρ τ πρ σ πον Homer Iliad 9.612: δυρ μενος καὶ ἀχε ων: τι ν δοτος γρ φει δυρ μενος, κινυρ ων , ο ον θρ νῶν. στι δὲ ο χ μ ρικὸν καὶ παρ τὸ πρ σωπον. ρ σταρχος δὲ ἐνὶ στ θεσσιν ἀχε ων . Aristonikos may, however, merely be o ering his own interpretation of the divergence (so Duentzer 1848:131 and n62); Aristarkhos’ emendations were often not provided with commentary, and Aristonikos displays periodic independence and unreliability vis-à-vis his predecessor. See van der Valk 1963 1:537 (on Aristarkhos) and 1:553–592 (Aristonikos’ methods). Duent er 1848:131 and n62, approved enodotos’ two participles in asyndeton, nding the variant si ni cantior Achilles rem recte au et Phoenicem monens ne lamentationi us i sum fati et Hic asyndeton gradiationem bene indicat. Aristarchos scripturam minus vivide rem describentem recepit. Cf. Lorimer 1950:465, it hardly deserves the strictures of Aristarchos. See van der Valk 1963 2:1–37 and 113–118, especially 21 and 113–114 for the present verse (and quotation); cf. van der Valk 1949:104–105. δυρ μενος στεναχ ζ : Odyssey 1.243, 9.13, 11.214, 16.195. Homeric Hymn to Apollo 515 (ἐρατ ν κιθαρίζ ν), cf. Homeric Hymn to Hermes 424 (λιγέ ς κιθαρίζ ν , 432 (ἐπ λένιον κιθαρίζ ν), 455, 510; Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 80 (διαπρύσιον κιθαρίζ ν). Also Apollo 201, Hermes 17, 475. See p316–318. Thus van der Valk 1963 2:21, asserts that kinyrízein is not attested in Greek, and that enodotos “seems to have coined a new word, derived from κινυρός ; accordingly he interprets in r n as ‘whimpering’. The same etymological connection was drawn by Duentzer 1848:131 and n62. So far as I have found, only PGL s.v. κινυρίζ has recognized the word’s correct meaning (‘make music’) vis-à-vis the later attestations. 208 Kinyras the Kinyrist The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena are a pair of hagiographical romances variously dated between the third and fth centuries CE, recounting the Christian conversions of the title gures the wife and sister-in-law of Roman Spain’s governor in the time of Claudius.123 At the relevant juncture, Xanthippe had sneaked out of the house, as her Christ-resisting husband slept, to seek the apostle Paul. Assaulted en route by a troop of demons, Paul materialized like a superhero to the rescue, after which he promptly baptized her as a precaution against further mishap. Safely home, Xanthippe pours out praise of Jesus and Paul: I desire to keep silent, since human reason makes me afraid, lest I have not the grace of eloquence. I desire to keep silent, and am compelled to speak, for someone in ames and sweetens me within. If I say, I will shut my mouth, (yet) there is someone playing the kin(n)ýra in me ( ) Is it not that teacher that is in Paul lling the heavens, speaking within and waiting without, sitting on the throne with the father and stretched upon the cross by man?124 Xanthippe’s irrepressible inner joy clearly does not support a threnodic sense for inn r n. Some scholars, seeking a parallel with the verb minyrízein, suggest a translation like someone murmurs inside of me. 125 Yet minyrízein typically connotes despondency; even its most positive possible sense, ‘sing in a low tune, warble, hum’, will hardly suit Xanthippe’s ebullience.126 The metaphor must convey the ine able and intimate even erotic127—exultation with which Jesus lls anthippe. For this, thrilling lyre-music would be highly apt. Divine praise-hymns and other celebratory and amatory occasions are well known for the inn r in the Bible and the innāru elsewhere in the Syro-Levantine world, 123 124 125 126 127 Gorman 2003:6–15; debt to Greek novel: Hadas 1953:xiii. Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena 14 (James 1893:68, cf. 54 for dating): trans. after Roberts et al. 1885– 1896 9:209. So in Roberts et al. 1885–1896 9:209. Leumann 1950:241–243 sought semantic enlightenment from the parallel pairs κινυρός/κινύρεσθαι and μινυρός/μινύρεσθαι and an appeal to the principle of Reimwortbildung (see generally Güntert 1914; cf. Frisk 1960 s.v. κινυρός). But his tidy historical scheme (μινυρίζ μύρομαι μινύρομαι μινυρίζ κινυρός μινυρός κινυρός μινύρομαι κινύρομαι) assumes that μινυρίζειν and κινυρός are the oldest forms because they alone are in Homer. The inade uacy of this approach is su ciently shown by the lamentative κιναρύζεσθαι, which must be quite early (see p65n64). Two senses were rightly distinguished by Ptolemy of Ascalaon, Heylbut 1887:402.11–12 = Ammonios n imilar and i erent Words 321: μινυρ ζειν μ ν λ γουσι τ ρ μα προσ δειν, μιν ρεσθαι δ τ θρηνε ν τ δ α τ κα κιν ρεσθαι. LSJ s.v. An erotic reading ts well with the thematic interplay of sexuality, asceticism, Christian conversion, and marital harmony analyzed in this and related works by Gorman 2003:27–44 et passim. Recall the ancient linking of κίθαρις, κιθάρα, and κίναρις with κινε ν (‘move’) and erotic arousal (n55 above), and cf. Analecta Hymnica Graeca, Canones Decembris, Day 26, Canon 51, Ode 8.57 58 (ed. Kominis/Schirò): κα κινύρα υχ ς θέλγουσα / πρ ς ρ τα τ ν νθεον (of David’s lyre). 209 Chapter Nine and are equally attested in Gk. for kinýra Photios de ning musics as glad delights as from pipes and kinýra, and similar things. 128 This lyric interpretation is corroborated by the -nn- of inn r n, which betrays an association with ANE forms like inn r (see below). In the Acts of Xanthippe, therefore, we have one of many illustrations of the Christian ‘conversion’ of earlier Pythagorean and Platonic ideas of cosmic harmony and the soul as an attunement (harmonía).129 A particularly illuminating parallel comes from Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE), who presents Jesus as a new Apollo, Orpheus, Amphion, or Arion— an enchanting new song (kainòn aîsma) or incantation (e id ) to replace the seductive deceptions of pagan liturgical music:130 Tuning this world and this microcosm—I mean man, both soul and body—with the holy spirit, he plucks (psállei) this many-toned instrument—man—and sings thereto for God.131 Similar ideas relating to the knr speci cally are found in St. Ephraim’s elaboration of the ‘Lyre of the Spirit’ and the ‘Lyres of God’.132 Jesus is thus playing sweet, passionate music on Xanthippe’s ‘inner kin(n)ýra’.133 We must conclude that, while Apollo is not unknown as a lamenting god,134 his Cypriot epithet en rist s meant, rst and foremost, the kinýra-player’. This e ectively glosses Kinyras himself, showing that this name/word too could entail a sense of agency: ‘Kinyras’ is ‘the kinýra-player’ (see Chapter 17). en rist s also presents an obvious parallel with ithar id s (‘kithára-singer’), one of Apollo’s most familiar guises re ecting his patronage of professional 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Photios Lexicon s.v. μουσικά τερπν τ δι α λ ν κα κινύρας κα τ μοια = Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828–1829) 1:304. Aristotle On the Soul 407b 408a, etc. For the in uence of these ideas on early Christian musical thought, HBMH:46–60, 96–97, et passim. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 1, especially 1.4–5. See Halton 1983; Cosgrove 2006:276–281; Kindiy 2008:138–149. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 1.5.4. Palmer 1993, with further parallels from Greek patristic sources. See further p180. There is considerable further evidence for the trope of Jesus as the cosmic lyre-player in early Christian thought: see Halton 1983:184–186 (quotation 184), noting especially Paulinus Carmina 20.30–61, where Jesus himself is treated as the lyre of God hung upon the cross (hanc renovaturus citharam Deus ipse magister, / Ipse sui positam suspendit in arbore ligni, 51–52, etc.). Byzantine hymnography also developed the idea; note especially the opening of Ode 4 in Analecta Hymnica Graeca, Canones Januarii, Day 27, Canon 34 (ed. Proiou/Schir ): Divine Lyre / Of secret songs, / Kinýra of the mysteries of Christ, / Cry faithfully out again, / Sounding with secret mystery ( θεία λύρα / τ ν ἀπορρήτ ν δ ν, / κινύρα τ ν μυστηρί ν ριστοῦ / α θις κέκραγε πιστ ς, / μυστικ ς χήσασα, κτλ, 3–7). See p294–295. 210 Kinyras the Kinyrist lyrists, in whose image he was typically represented.135 But the insistence on “Our Kinyrist shows that this Apollo, whatever the immediate reasons for his inclusion in the theo h r ioi,136 stands for the full musical range of the island’s own lyrical traditions. These used not the kithára, not the h rmin , not the lýra— but the kinýra.137 The deliberate and traditional character of the epithet, in an o cial document of Tiberian date, becomes all the more palpable when one considers the long musical engagement of Cyprus with the outside world, and especially the Aegean. The island and its singers helped formulate several Cyprocentric themes that found their way into mainstream Greek epic.138 The lost Kypria— attributed in ancient sources to either Stasinos or Hegesias/Hegesinos of Salamis—must have contained the ‘Cypriot Hosting of the Achaeans’, with Kinyras’ terracotta eet.139 A lyre-singer Stesandros—or better Stasandros— of Salamis performed ‘battles Homer’ at Delphi, apparently in the sixth century; although Athenaios ranks him among historical ithar ido , he himself probably considered his instrument a kinýra.140 Mainstream Greek genres must also have been increasingly visible on the island with the emergence of international musical celebrities and professional concert circuits from the Classical period onwards.141 Thus, the early fourth century saw Stratonikos—the Groucho Marx of the kithára—at Salamis and/or Paphos; while these anecdotes transpire in the royal courts, Stratonikos was 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 While the term ithar id s makes explicit that the lyrist was also a singer, en rist s should not be taken to imply mere instrumental performance. For historically the role of ithar id s evolved from that of the communal, ritual itharist s who accompanied choruses but also sang preludes (prooímia)—whence Apollo’s other title ‘Muse-leader’ (Mousagétas)—and might also sing epic. This background is re ected in such early formulations as ἀν ρ όρμιγγος ἐπιστάμενος κα ἀοιδῆς, Homer Odyssey 21.406; ἀοιδο κα κιθαρισταί, Hesiod fr. 305.2 M-W. See further Franklin 2003:299; Power 2010:201–215 (noting 205n49); Franklin 2011b. One may recall here the Mesopotamian evidence for oaths sworn on musical instruments, and the LBA seal in which a harp-player apparently accompanies a loyalty oath (see p20–21). Note also the mutually binding pact between two warriors at Homer Iliad 22.254–255, where the gods will be / The best witnesses and overseers of accords’ (το γ ρ ριστοι / μάρτυροι σσονται κα ἐπίσκοποι ρμονιά ν); ρμονία is literally a ‘joint’ (e.g. mortise-and-tenon, Homer Odyssey 5.247–248, 361–362), but a secondary musical nuance could be equally operative. One must therefore resist reducing all Cypriot representations of lyrists to ‘Apollo κιθαρ δός’, as Karageorghis 1998:114 rightly stresses on more general grounds. Franklin 2014. For the attribution, Kypria T 3–4, 7–9, 11 EGF; 1, 3, 7–9, 11 PEG. The sources are discussed by Jouan 1966:23. For the Cypriot Hosting, see below p343–344. Athenaios 638a = Timomakhos FGH 754 F 1 (with Wilamowitz’ convincing emendation of άμιον to αλαμίνιον); see further Franklin 2014:229–231. Zarmas 1975:15 mistakenly makes Timomakhos himself a Cypriot citharode. For this long-term trend, see now Power 2010. 211 Chapter Nine equally famous for his public recitals.142 Around the same time, Nikokles I of Salamis is said by Theopompos to have vied with Straton of Sidon in making his court luxurious, bringing citharodes and rhapsodes from Greece, as well as singing- and dancing-girls.143 Cypriot patronage of dithyramb and tragedy is also attested: Alexander held musical contests in Phoenicia that were made splendid by the lavish expenditures of the island’s kings, who competed with each other as executive producers ( hor o ).144 It is in this same period that Cypriot statuary, as part of the medium’s more general assimilation to a Hellenistic koine,145 shows several lyres which are in uenced by the kithára in their upper structure, yet maintain the round base of their Cypriot ancestors (Figure 27e).146 Yet even here such precedents as the Khrysokhou lyrist (Figure 17) and the instrument on the Louvre amphora (Figure 5.5q, tenth or ninth century) make unilateral Greek in uence’ a problematic assumption.147 Cypriot performers are well attested outside the island during the Hellenistic period, typically as victorious competitors at foreign festivals.148 An inscription from Nemea, plausibly dated to 323/322, lists several Cypriot kings serving as the rod oi—that is, hosting the Nemean ambassadors who came to 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 Athenaios 349e–f (Makhon 156–162 [11 Gow]), 352d; cf. HC:145–146. On whether the anecdotes relate to Paphos or Salamis, see Gow 1965:90–91. For Stratonikos generally, see Gilula 2000. Theopompos FGH 115 F 114 = Athenaios 531a–d; cf. HC:145. Nikokles is also known to have staged choral and musical performances at the funeral of his father, Euagoras: Isokrates 9.1. Plutarch Alexander 29.1–6: ἐχορήγουν γ ρ ο ασιλε ς τ ν υπρί ν … κα γ νίζοντο θαυμαστ ιλοτιμί πρ ς ἀλλήλους μάλιστα δ ικοκρέ ν αλαμίνιος κα ασικράτης όλιος διε ιλονίκησαν (2–3). We also hear of the aulete Dorion (GMW 1:226n138; AGM:54) visiting the court of Nikokreon of Salamis: Athenaios 337e–f. Connelly 1991. Cesnola 1894, pl. XXXIV no. 282 (= Myres 1914:359 no. 2254); Monloup 1994 no. 392. Note also Apollo’s instrument in the ‘Apollo and Marsyas’ mosaic, house of Aion, Nea Paphos (Daszewski et al. 1988:66 g. 32; Michaelides 1992:61 no. 30). This is e ectively a en rist s Apollo’. The Louvre amphora was so dated by Rutten 1939:436–438, but without stratigraphic information. These are all from either Paphos or Salamis, the same sites which have produced inscriptions relating to the Artists of Dionysos (see below). A certain Antisthenes of Paphos (ca. 100) is called a μελοποιός (‘melody-maker’, ‘composer’), a word that may well imply stringedinstrument music (for the various subtle contrasts with κιθαρ δός, see Power 2010:121, 234, 238, 511); but here κινύρα and κιθάρα would be equally possible. Antisthenes is no. 219 in Stefanis 1986, whose other examples include a Paphian trumpeter (σαλπιγκτής) Aristonax (no. 397, early rst century; cf. Pouilloux 1976:161); a Paphian herald’ (κῆρυ ) Zoïlos (no. 1034, early rst century); a Salaminian piper (α λητής) Onasimos (no. 1947, third–second century); and a ‘costumer’ ( ματιομίσθης) from Salamis named Stratokles (no. 2307, second quarter of the third century). Also known are a Cypriot πυθαύλης (‘Pythian-piper’, cf. LSJ s.v.; AGM:93 and n63) named Publius Aelius Aelianus who won victories at Delphi, Rome, Nemea, Argos, and several other places in the mid-second century CE (FD III.1 no. 547); and an anonymous Cypriot πυθαύλης κα χοραύλης buried at Rome (Pouilloux 1976:163 and n2, with references). 212 Kinyras the Kinyrist announce upcoming games.149 Between the mid-second and early rst century, a Cypriot branch of the Artists of Dionysos is attested, seemingly headquartered at Paphos; it was evidently promoted by the Ptolemies to support their dynastic cult during the troubled accessions of this period.150 In the earliest inscription (ca. 144–131), the only one to give any information about the guild’s organization, a citharode Kriton is named president.151 This is the rst secure evidence that the word kithára was current on the island. Yet one can hardly assume that it had displaced kinýra.152 The Artists of Dionysos were avowedly professional and international in outlook, and therefore cannot represent the totality of popular and cultic music-making on the island.153 Lost in Translation: Kinýra At the Syro-Levantine Interface Because Cyprus was the ancient epicenter of Greek in the region, it was the island’s kinýra, rather than a number of parallel forms having all but disappeared from the record, which prevailed in the Hellenistic koine. That it was then used to render Heb. inn r is but one conspicuous example of a quite universalizing usage whereby kinýra became a blanket term for referring to the lyric cultures of Syria and the Levant. It is still possible, however, to detect linguistic and cultural multiformity behind a number of scribal variants in the transmission of Greek manuscripts, as well as several translation phenomena. It is not unusual to encounter textual oscillations between -n- and -nn- in the representation of kin(n)ýra, Kin(n)yras, in n r s (‘plaintive’), and in n resthai (‘threnodize’). A single -n- is metrically guaranteed for all by Greek poetic sources, variously from Homer onwards; they are equally found in prose. It is clear therefore that these forms re ect genuine Grecophone pronunciations. This divergence from -nn- in the Near East must be due, like the short upsilon of kinýra, to phonetic di erences in one or more adapting languages. Nevertheless, 149 150 151 152 153 Nem. Inv. no. I 85 (stele): Miller 1988; Miller 2004:115. Aneziri 1994, especially 186–194, with a collection of the nine inscriptions from Paphos and Salamis (the former probably being the guild’s headquarters); I.Paphos:386–389, 525 (§17); Anastasiades 2009, especially 200–203; Papantonio 2012:155 (further correlating the Artists with the advent of theaters on the island, in the context of Ptolemaic Dionysos-cult), cf. 344n303; Fujii 2013:18. SEG 13:586; Mitford 1953:135–137 no. 10 with n14; Aneziri 1994 no. 1; Anastasiades 2009:198. The only other attestation known to me is the mannered κ θαριν I.Kourion 104 (ca. 130/131 CE), the Antinoos inscription: see p318–319. An apt parallel here is the strong conservatism of Cypriot sanctuary architecture in this and later periods. Cf. Snodgrass 1994:171: “The Cypriote preference for the open-air courtyard sanctuary was so strong that, centuries later, it could resist and often defeat the in uence of the Greco-Roman columnar temple, which eventually became a commonplace in countries lying to the south and east, as well as the west and north, of Cyprus. 213 Chapter Nine spellings in kinnyr- were clearly seen as legitimate by many authors and anonymous scribes, for whom an origin or association with Syria or the Levant, when not directly attested, may be reasonably inferred. Especially revealing is the exchange of kinýra and kinnýra in manuscripts of the LXX, where the Hebraic context helps explain the ‘confusion’—or better reverse engineering (and note that such a kinnýra was probably regarded as having a long upsilon).154 Elsewhere an eastern provenance may seem likely on biographical grounds, but cannot be certainly established.155 In Greek metrical works, forms with n must generally be preferred.156 But otherwise there is no reliable criterion for deciding whether an author originally intended -nn- rather than -n-, or if one or the other was introduced by a scribe. In every case, however, these variants betray alternative and vital regional pronunciations. In the Byzantine period, there were certainly many bilingual scribes in and from Syria and the Levant (a considerable number of monks left Muslim Palestine for Constantinople in the eighth and early ninth centuries157). The great value of these nn variants is that they attest a fairly general belief that the several Greek words were etymologically related to Phoen. * inn r, Heb. inn r, etc. In particular I would emphasize that the variant of Kinnyras for Kinyras158 echoes the ancient form Kinnaru at Ugarit. Indeed the principle of the lectio di cilior would normally urge us to accept ‘Kinnyras’ as the ‘correct’ 154 155 156 157 158 For example, the variant κιννύραις for κινύραις at L 2 Samuel 6:5: see the apparatus of Brooke and McLean 1906–1940 2.1:124. In a homily falsely attributed to John Chrysostomus (ca. 347–407), a native of Antioch and later archbishop of Constantinople, one nds κιννύρα for κινύρα ([John Chrysostomus] On the Adoration of the Precious Cross, PG 62:752.72). Was this anonymous author himself Syrian? The Byzantine historian Nikephoros Kallistos (ca. 1256–1335) apparently used κιννύρα for David’s lyre in a hymn to Mary; he was active in Constantinople, but his native home is unknown: Carmina 4, stanza 23.3 (text: Jugie 1929–1930). Biographical data: Cross and Livingstone 1997 s.v. The variant κιννύρονται appears in the to Aiskhylos Seven against Thebes 122. An especially interesting case is found in the Laurentian codex 31.16, a fteenth- or sixteenth-century collection including Aristophanes’ Knights. n line 11 (for the passage, cf. p202n89 above), κινυρόμεθ was ‘corrected’ to κιννυρούμεθ (sic see the apparatus of von Velsen’s 1869 Teubner edition. This manuscript is not the same as 31.15, which later editors rely on: I thank Giovanna Rao of the Biblioteca Medicea Lauren iana for con rming this). Was this false emendation metrically motivated, the scribe confused by the initial resolution (τί κιν ρ μεθ’ ἄλλως; ο κ ἐχρῆν τεῖν τι; ‿‿ ‿‿ ‿ ‿ )? Perhaps the copyist thought he saw a quick solution: had he assumed , his correction’ would give an initially satisfying iambic metron (‿ ‿ ), but leave the remainder a jumble. Corrigan 1992:956. See C. Baurain in Aupert and Hellmann 1984:111n20: two MSS (M and A) of Photios Library (the Theopompos fragment on Kinyras [FGH 115 F 103]: see p347), and the Codex Marcianus (Gr. 622) of Hesykhios, which has ιννυράδαι, ιννύρας, κιννυρή, and κιννυρίδες. This fteenth-century manuscript is rather corrupt, probably copied from a tenth-century exemplar in southern Italy; beyond that the trail vanishes (Latte 1953–1956 1:XXIV–XXXIII). But the three forms show that this was no slip of the pen: the copyist thought this a legitimate way to spell these words. 214 Kinyras the Kinyrist reading, were not ‘Kinyras’ itself otherwise sanctioned by Greek usage.159 In fact, neither ‘reading’ is exclusively correct: ‘Kin(n)yras’ was at home in more than one linguistic-cultural sphere. The foregoing scribal variants are symptomatic of the long-term overlap of Greek and Syro-Levantine cultures, which, though a central feature of GreekCypriot life from at least the twelfth century BCE, became a much more widespread phenomenon in the Hellenistic period. Given this situation, it is likely that some bi-musicality’, rather than the mere in uence of scripture, underlies Byzantine writers’ periodic use of ki(n)nýra in contexts where one expects the simple Greek kithára.160 John Tzetzes, the encyclopedic pedant of twelfth-century Constantinople, who was Georgian on his mother’s side and at least super cially familiar with a number of other languages, calls Pindar ‘the Theban kinýra’ without missing a beat.161 Elsewhere Tzetzes replaces kithára with kinýra in paraphrasing Prokopios.162 Similarly, Theodoros II, emperor of Byzantine Nicaea (1254–1258), expressed inexpressible Christian joy by rhapsodizing: “Who will take up the kinýra of Orpheus Who will tune it in the manner of Pindar 163 There are many other examples of this interchangeability.164 In other cases when kinýra has won through against kithára, further dialectal variety lurks. Forms in kinnyr- or kinnar- must often have been leveled to kinyr- under mainstream literary in uence in the Greek East whether by translators of Syriac writings, bilingual Syro-Levantine authors, and/or later 159 160 161 162 163 164 Baurain in Aupert and Hellmann 1984:111n20: “nous ne sommes pas loin de penser qu’elle serait celle sc. Kinnyras u’il conviendrait d’adopter s’il n’y avait pas l’usage consacré. For the notion of bi-musicality, see e.g. Nettl 1985:73–74. John Tzetzes Khiliades 7.99, line 15: η α ς κινύρα δε τ ν ίνδαρόν σοι λέγ , κτλ. Tzetzes apparently dabbled in “Alanic, i.e. Ossetian … Cuman, which belonged to the Turkic family, Seljuk Turkish, Latin, Arabic, Russian, and Hebrew : Wilson 1983:192. Prokopios n the Wars 4.6.30–31; John Tzetzes Khiliades 3.77–88, line 332. For the passage, see further p302–303. Theodoros II Doukas Laskaris Epistles 195.19 (ed. Festa): τίς ρ έ ς λά κινύραν τίς ρμόσει κατ τ ν ίνδαρον. This was already seen in ancient de nitions like κινύρα ργανον μουσικόν, κιθάρα ( 195n48 for sources). It also explains random oscillations between κιθάρα and κινύρα in LXX translations of inn r (twenty and seventeen times respectively: HMI:106–107). Note also 1 Maccabees 4:54 (reconsecrating the temple ἐν δα ς κα κιθάραις κα κινύραις κα κυμ άλοις, where κιθάρα stands for Heb. n el). Similarly [Philo] Biblical Antiquities (ca. 100 CE, ed. Harrington 1976), 2:8, where the Biblical invention of Jubal (Iobal) is expanded beyond the inn r to include cyneram et cytharam et omne organum dulcis psalterii. This apparently builds on LXX Genesis 4:21 ου αλ ο τος ν καταδεί ας αλτήριον κα κιθάραν, where αλτήριον will correspond to κινύραν, as regularly; hence also Augustine City of God 15.17.35; similarly in Michael the Syrian’s twelfthcentury Chronicle 1.6 (Chabot 1899–1924 1:10). 215 Chapter Nine copyists of either.165 Thus, in the Greek works attributed to Saint Ephraim (ca. 306 373 CE), one nds kinýra rather than the innār a Ephraim himself would have used in his native Syriac.166 Philip of Side, in his early fth century CE Christian History, used kinyrístriai of the female lyrists, in the temple of the Babylonian Hera, who accompanied the Muses’ spontaneous song on the night of Christ’s birth (among other portents); here too the cultural setting should imply an underlying Aramaic form.167 The opposite process would have occurred with Aramaic translations of Biblical books (the targums), where the triconsonantal root knr would easily pass out of Hebrew vocalization. There is even a Syriac commentary on 2 Kings, attributed to Ephraim, in which ‘cinnara’ is called a translation of the Hebrew word.168 One should be similarly sensitive to the frequent use of Greek kithára or salt rion in Christian contexts where it answers to the original inn r of the Bible.169 When this is found in texts deriving from the greater Syrian sphere—for instance with Gregory of Nyssa, in Cappadocia (d. after 394)—it is quite possible that the author himself would have used innār a when speaking to his neighbors. Conc u on I have shown that kinýra and several cognates, along with the instruments so designated, enjoyed a life in the Byzantine world independent of Biblical exegesis.170 This is the cultural framework within which Eustathios and the anonymous poet still knew Kinyras as a proverbial lyrist, and accepted without question an etymological link with kinýra and in resthai. Because the knr’s traditional range, for many centuries, fell largely within Byzantine territory, the burden of proof 165 166 167 168 169 170 It is hard to decide whether Greek poets or the L exerted the greater in uence here. It probably varied regionally and with personal interests. Over the centuries, of course, as the mainstream was progressively Christianized, the ‘Biblical’ value of kinýra must have become increasingly in uential. The accuracy of the traditional attributions to Ephraim of these Greek writings, which purport to be translations of his works, is generally doubtful (Murray 2004:32–33). But the authorship of Ephraim himself is less the issue here than any author’s own ultimately Syrian origin, and/or his inspiration by Ephraim himself or his tradition. The word is absent from LSJ. Philip of Side fr. 3.2 is found in the so-called Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden; the passage in question reads α τομάτ ς α κινυρίστριαι ρ αντο κρούειν τ ς κινύρας κα α μοῦσαι δειν. For the Greek text see Bratke 1899; for its inclusion among the fragments of Philip, Heyden 2006. The episode and word are repeated by John of Damascus (ca. 675–749), Sermon on the Birth of Christ 9. In the Latin translation of Assemani 1732–1746 1:524A (comment on 2 Kings 3:15): ut ex Hebraeo erti osset cinnaram. For salt rion, see p194n43, 215n164, 541 . For the elusive question of how and when these words/instruments went out of practical (rather than learned) use, see Appendix D. 216 Kinyras the Kinyrist must be on those who would insist that, when a Christian author writes kinýra, he has only the Jewish instrument in mind, or that any symbolism he attaches to it derives exclusively from the Bible. His independence will be especially clear when not simply commenting on scripture, but engaged in his own creative work. It is certain that the etymology of Kinyras from kinýra was no anachronistic Christian construct, but went back into the pagan past, and was long recalled by some in Cyprus and the Syro-Levantine home range of the knr. “Our en rist s Apollo, as a recasting of Kinyras, looks back from Roman Paphos upon a distinctively Cypriot lyric art form stretching into past centuries. We must now trace this tradition as far back as possible, and determine the depth and nature of Kinyras’ involvement with it. Our rst step takes us to the fth century and the poet Pindar. 217 10 Praising Kinyras P indar’s P 2 contains the most elaborate allusion to Kinyras in early Greek literature , and is our rst explicit source for him as a familiar of Aphrodite and Apollo.1 The latter relationship by itself readily suggests the musical and prophetic abilities credited to Kinyras elsewhere.2 This natural inference, I shall argue here, is not mistaken, so that Pindar (ca. 518 440) e ually becomes our earliest source for a musical Kinyras, while himself presupposing a tradition of untold anti uity. The poet uxtaposes the Cypriot king with Hieron of Syracuse, an analogy that sheds light on both parties, and so contributes considerably to our understanding of Kinyras as a royal gure. At the same time, the immediate context of the comparison is musical, both gures being the sub ect of celebratory song. The verses, complemented by scholiastic notices and iconographic evidence, can be pressed to yield further insight about the musical and speci cally lyrical aspect of Kinyras. Pindar and the Example of Kinyras The poem, addressed to Hieron, alludes to a chariot-racing victory of controversial date and location, notwithstanding its traditional Pythian designation.3 It is a complex work, the tone and meaning of which have occasioned much debate. Ancient allegations of rivalry between Pindar and Bakkhylides induced older scholars to infer a souring of relations between patron and poet, detecting 1 2 3 Kinyras is probably understood as Aphrodite’s lover here (Woodbury 1978:285n3), cf. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.14 ( ινύρ ίλη κτλ), 2.33 ( ροδίτη δ ἐπ ρει κατ σχυμμένη μετῆλθεν ἐπ ινύραν κτλ). So Farnell 1896 1909 4:245. See Lloyd-Jones 1973:117 118, with reference to the theories and classi cations of the Alexandrian scholars (preserved in the ) and the extensive secondary literature. The proposed dates range from 477 to 468, with the ma ority of scholars divided between 470 (Pythian games) and 468 (Olympics). 219 Chapter Ten discreet reprimands by the latter.4 Later fashions discredited this idea as so much biographical ction; Pindar’s decrying of envy becomes a well-developed generic theme something that eminent men like Hieron inevitably attract.5 One’s critical stance will color interpretation of the poem’s two mythological exempla Kinyras and Ixion and their relevance to Hieron. Both relate to kháris that sense of gratitude for a good deed that compels reciprocal action.6 Kinyras who is associated with h ris surprisingly often in early sources is presented concisely as a positive parallel to Hieron himself, and receives his due from those in whom he has aroused gratitude.7 Ixion’s refusal to re uite the favor shown him by the gods negates the motif and is developed at length. et Kinyras himself featured in some traditions as a dishonest double-dealer kháris perverted, leading to his kingdom’s downfall; moreover, like Ixion, he was a sobering a case of lawless coupling (eunaì parátropoi, 35) without the Graces ( , 42), thanks to his unwitting incest with Myrrha.8 Pindar seems to allude to these darker tales in Nemean 8, where he declines to elaborate.9 It is therefore worth considering whether Pindar chose Kinyras precisely because the theme of kháris was ambivalently developed in his mythology. If so, the exemplum could contribute to a larger admonitory program by bridging the wholly positive Locrian maidens (see below) with the wholly negative Ixion. I shall return to this point below. For now we may concentrate on the more obviously favorable. The relevant verses are as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 See e.g. Bowra 1964:135 136 (from the slanderers mentioned in 72 82, 89 92, and the relating to Bakkhylides). The controversy, well reviewed by Gant 1978, Woodbury 1978, and Currie 2005:258 295, need not be rehearsed here. So Lloyd-Jones 1973:126 127, very forcefully. See generally Kurke 1991:218 224. For χάρις in Pindar, Bundy 1962:86 91 (on ε εργεσία); Nagy 1990:65 66n72 ( a beautiful and pleasurable compensation, through song or poetry, for a deed deserving glory kháris conveys both the beauty ( grace’) and the pleasure ( grati cation’) of reciprocity ) et passim; Kurke 1991:154 156 ( that force which creates community, which links the victor to the gods, his family, his aristocratic group, and the poet, 155). άρις in this poem: Schadewaldt 1928:328 330; Lloyd-Jones 1973:119, 121n72; Bell 1984:5 7; Kurke 1991:98, 111 112. Kinyras is connected with χάρις Homer Iliad 11.19 23 (χαριζ μενος, , a n a n n n d d n Kypria’s terracotta eet episode (see Chapter 14); also Alkman 3.71 PMGF (νοτία ινύρα χ άρ ις), for which see p1, 330. For the double-dealing Kinyras, see p343 346; for Kinyras and Myrrha, p282 289. The phrases uoted are used of Ixion and the cloud and the birth of Kentauros. For the contrast of Kinyras/ χάρις and Ixion/ νευ αρίτ ν, Gant 1978; Bell 1984:11 14; Brillante 1995:33 34; Red eld 2003:415. For the Kharites/Graces as personi cations of χάρις, Nagy 1990:206. Pindar Nemean 8.19 22, with and Giu rida 1996:292. Cf. below p223n30. 220 Praising Kinyras Other men have made well-sounding hymns (eua h a h mnon) for other kings the reward of virtue. While Cypriots’ songs ( h mai r n) often resound around Kinyras whom golden-haired Apollo gladly loved, the Cherished ( t lon10) priest of Aphrodite driven no doubt by awelled gratitude (kháris) for one of his friendly deeds, ou, Deinomenes’ son, the maids of Western Locri Sing (apúei) before the temple ( r d m n), looking out secure from helpless Toils of war, because of your great power.11 The passage has been closely analy ed for linguistic nuance and historical context in a recent study by B. Currie.12 Two main uestions arise. What did Hieron do to earn Kinyras-like gratitude And why has Kinyras, of all possible mythical gures, been chosen to mirror the tyrant The scholia adduce the infamous episode of the Locrian maidens, otherwise known from Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus (Augustan era), who in turn probably drew on fourth-century historical sources: Hieron saved the city of Locri from attack and destruction by Rhegion between 478 476, with the Locrians allegedly vowing to prostitute their maiden daughters to Aphrodite if they prevailed.13 This passage has been much debated. Currie, attempting to harmoni e textual and archaeological evidence, concludes that the vow was indeed made and executed. Hieron should be connected, he argues, with the construction of the Ionic temple, dated to ca. 480 470, which lies ust outside of Locri, and a reorgani ation of Aphrodite’s cult there, speci cally the institution 10 11 12 13 My translation follows observations by Woodbury 1978 on the nuances of κτίλον (285 286 and n3). Morpurgo 1960, followed by Currie 2005:277 283, interpreted Pindar’s κτίλον literally as ram’, instead of (or in addition to) its derived sense of beloved’ (cf. 31: κτίλον ροδίτης ο ονε σύνθρεμμα κα συνήθη τ θε ). This idea was re ected by Lloyd-Jones 1973:119n59, overlooking however the eece-clad priests mentioned by John Lydus ( n the onths 4.65, discussed by Currie) who, writing in the sixth century CE, gave an anti uarian description of the old Ad ni at Paphos. The details are too abstruse to be pure invention. During a sacri ce of sheep the priests would (apparently) dress in eeces; wild pigs were also slaughtered, a choice which the author relates to Adonis’ death at the tusks of the boar. Note also that early coins from the reign of Euagoras of Salamis, who claimed descent from Kinyras, depict a ram on the reverse: BMC Cyprus:c, cii and pl. I.8 11. Pindar Pythian 2.13 20: λλοις δ τις ἐτ λεσσεν λλος ἀν ρ / ε αχ α ασιλεῦσιν μνον ποιν ἀρετ ς / κελαδ οντι μ ν ἀμ ιν ραν πολλ κις / μαι υπρ ν, τ ν χρυσοχα τα προ ρ ν ς ἐ λησ π λλ ν, / ερ α κτ λον ροδ τας γει δ χ ρις λ ν πο τινος ἀντ ργ ν πιζομ να / σ δ, εινομ νειε πα , ε υρ α πρ δ μ ν / οκρ ς παρθ νος ἀπ ει, πολεμ ν καμ τ ν ἐ ἀμαχ ν ν / δι τε ν δ ναμιν δρακε σ ἀσ αλ ς. Currie 2005:258 295, with a thorough review of the secondary literature. Pindar Pythian 2.36bc, 38; Justin Epitome 21.3. 221 Chapter Ten of a festival of deliverance (s t r a) in which the maidens ful lled their promise and celebrated Hieron in choral-song before the temple. 14 The crucial point that allies Kinyras and Hieron, he suggests, is the Cypriot king’s associations with sacred prostitution’ at Paphos.15 This complex thesis will raise eyebrows in the current critical climate, highly skeptical of all references to sacred prostitution’ (in various forms).16 But Currie’s reconstruction of a celebratory choral context at Locri can stand.17 I shall consider in detail below its implications for Cypriot choral-lyric in the cult of Kinyras. But note rst that, if the analogy is strictly pressed, we should be dealing with female Cypriot choruses an idea that distinctly resonates with the lyre-playing and dancing women who grace the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls.18 One should also emphasi e the traditions of Kinyras as founder of Aphrodite’s temple in Paphos, as this is a strong parallel for Hieron’s presumed building initiative at Locri.19 Let us leave Locri and consider the con unction of Kinyras and Hieron more generally. The scholia con ecture that, while Kinyras was consecrated as hierophant for the two gods, Aphrodite and Apollo, Hieron’s father was responsible for transferring cultic rites from Cyprus to Sicily; or that Deinomenes was himself of Cypriot ancestry.20 The latter is probably biographical ction; the former less 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 For a good survey of archaeological work conducted at Locri, and the history and identi cation of the cult-structures, see Red eld 2003:207 223; cf. Bellia 2012, with references in 21n6. Following Woodbury 1978, especially 291 292. The main sources for sacred prostitution’ in connection with Paphos and Kinyras are Christian and polemical. First and foremost is Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.13.4 5: The Cypriot islander Kinyras would never beguile me he who dared transmit from night to day the lustful orgies of Aphrodite, eagerly hoping to deify a prostitute, one of his citi ens ( γάρ με ύπριος νησι της ινύρας παραπείσαι ποτ ν, τ περ τ ν ροδίτην μαχλ ντα ργια ἐκ νυκτ ς μέρ παραδοῦναι τολμήσας, ιλοτιμούμενος θειάσαι πόρνην πολίτιδα); repeated verbatim by Eusebios Pre aration for the Gos el 2.3.12, 15; cf. Firmicus Maternus n the rror of Profane Reli ions 10.1. See now Budin 2008, who argues that all relevant passages constitute so many historiographical myths going back ultimately to Herodotos, who is himself given a liar-school interpretation; Near Eastern references (she holds) have been alleged by those seeking con rmation of Herodotos. Leaving aside the dubious Christian polemics relating to Kinyras (see n15), I am not fully convinced by her account (210 239) of other evidence for Cyprus (Herodotos 1.199.5; Klearkhos fr. 43a Wehrli Athenaios 515e; Justin Epitome 18.5). In particular recall that Klearkhos was himself from Cypriot Soloi (rightly stressed by Currie 2005:283). Moreover Budin’s proposed neutral translation of Justin (239) leaves unexplained exactly how the dowry money was to be earned. For a good response to Budin’s treatment of the ANE material in which Cyprus must be included see Bonnet 2009. Bellia 2012:21 22 further relates Pindar’s sketch to cultic and performance realities at Locri. See p258 272. See Chapter 16. Pindar Pythian 2.27b: διαπορε ται δ , τί δή ποτε ε ς το ς τοῦ έρ νος ἐπαίνους τ ν ινύραν προσῆκται, ε μ τι τα ν θεο ν ερο άντης ἀπεδέδεικτο εινομένους γ ρ υ ε ς ε σιν ο περ τ ν 222 Praising Kinyras obviously so.21 Modern scholars have pointed out that Kinyras and Hieron were both priest-kings the latter being hierophant of Demeter and Persephone.22 Others suggest that Hieron, victorious at the Pythian games, could resemble Kinyras in en oying the favor of Apollo.23 Certainly the comparison with Hieron guarantees that Kinyras is regarded here as a king. That he is simultaneously priest of Aphrodite con rms the Paphian dynastic legend already for the fth century (see Chapter 16). et the poet’s general terms show that Kinyras is envisioned as a pan-Cypriot gure; and it is this island-wide stature that usti es the parallel with Hieron. The Syracusan tyrant, as lord and master of many well-garlanded cities and an army, dominates his own large island, reproducing a Golden Age like that of Kinyras on Cyprus.24 A scholiast aptly suggests that the Cypriots celebrated Kinyras either as founder/leader (ar h t n) of the island, or as its most fortunate (eudaimonéstaton) king and greater than those before him. 25 A further point of contact probably relates to Kinyras’ proverbial connections with seafaring.26 Pindar’s awareness of this dimension is seen in Nemean 8, were he parallels the blessed fortune of the honorand (Deinias of Aegina) with that which freighted Kinyras with riches once upon a time in Cyprus on the sea. 27 Here the Cypriot king’s immense wealth is uite logically linked to seafaring. The same association suits Hieron, who inherited one of the two largest eets in the Greek world some two hundred ships at the time of the Persian Wars, built up by Gelon for use against his Sicilian neighbors and 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 έρ να τοῦ τ ερ ἐκ ριοπίου ἐκ τριοπίας, G ; α τροπίου, EF; ἐκ τριόπου, P; ἐκ τριόπης, C τῆς ύπρου ε ς ικελίαν κομίσαντος ο τ ς ε σ ν ο λέγοντες τ ν εινομένην τ ν πατέρα έρ νος ἀνέκαθεν ύπριον δι νῦν ε λόγ ς γρά ν ε ς τ ν έρ να μέμνηται ινύρου. Cf. in Abel 1891: τοῦ έρ νος πατ ρ εινομένης τ ἀνέκαθεν ύπριος ν. The point is obscured by textual corruption (see previous note), as no site called Triopios is known on Cyprus: see Bell 1984:6 7 with literature in n17; Cannavo 2011:419. For other attempts to explain the connection of Deinomenes and Cyprus, see Giu rida 1996:294 301, with further references. Pindar Olympian 6.158a. Bell 1984:6 7 and n17; Currie 2005:283; Cannavo 2011:419. Note Cypriot Aphrodite’s identi cation with Demeter: p287n46, 396n133. Schadewaldt 1928:328; Lloyd-Jones 1973:119 120; Parry 1982:30 32. Pindar Pythian 2.58: πρύτανι κύριε πολλ ν μ ν ε στε άν ν ἀγυι ν κα στρατοῦ. For the parallelism between the two islands and rulers, Gildersleeve 1907:258; Schadewaldt 1928:328. For the Golden Age of the blessed, virtuous Kinyras, see further Chapter 13. Pindar Pythian 2.27 (Abel 1891): τ δ κελαδέοντι ε πεν ς ἀρχηγέτην τῆς νήσου, ς ασιλέα α τῆς ε δαιμονέστατον κα μείζ τ ν πρ α τοῦ γενόμενον. See p326 330. Pindar Nemean 8.17 18: λ ος / σπερ κα ινύραν ρισε πλούτ ποντί ν ποτε ύπρ 223 Chapter Ten Carthaginian rivals.28 Hieron himself won a famous naval victory against the Etruscans at Cumae in 474, and other such actions may be presumed.29 Pindar’s two allusions, though concise and disconnected, reveal a consistent view of the Cypriot king. In Nemean 8, Kinyras exempli es wealth which is more stable for having been planted with a god’s favor. Further details clarify that Aphrodite is the deity in uestion.30 The idea is conventional; but when applied to Hieron’s own prosperity in Pythian 2 it brings further point to the comparison with Kinyras.31 Hieron’s fortune is so great, Pindar claims there, that nobody in ancient Hellas was so exalted in wealth or honor.32 Similarly, Kinyras was ranked among such wealthy kings of legend as Kroisos, Midas, and Sardanapalos; and even here Kinyras was exceptional since, by one proverb, Rich was Midas, but thrice as rich Kinyras. 33 In a further popular saying, someone particularly well-to-do was richer than Kinyras. 34 Pindar’s point is therefore that Hieron has achieved and exceeded the highest prosperity known to myth and legend. et the poet may include an insurance policy against divine envy by specifying Hieron’s peer group as Hellas, whereas Kinyras belonged, like Kroisos, Midas, and Sardanapalos, to its oriental periphery.35 he all experienced catastrophic reversals-of-fortune, so that the wealth of an eastern 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Herodotos 7.158. For Gelon’s naval program, including probable maneuvers around the battle of Himera in 480, see Dunbabin 1948:419 426. Kinyras stands at the climax of a se uence of thought that progresses by the following stages: an invocation of outh, the herald of Aphrodite’s immortal love-encounters ( ρα πότνια, κάρυ ροδίτας ἀμ ροσι ν ιλοτάτ ν, 1); the better loves (τ ν ἀρειόν ν ἐρ τ ν) which one attains by not straying from due season (καιροῦ μ πλαναθέντα ἐπικρατε ν, 4 5); such loves, the shepherds of Kypria’s gifts (ποιμένες / υπρίας δ ρ ν), attended the bed of eus and Aigina (6 7); conse uently their son Aiakos and all his line (including by implication the honorand) en oyed the same long-lasting good fortune as Kinyras (7 18). The circuit is closed by Kinyras’ own immortal loves with Aphrodite (cf. Giu rida 1996, 292). Given the context of encroaching sexual maturity and the exhortation to age-appropriate decisions, the specter of Kinyras and Myrrha is probably in the background an ominous reminder of paths not to be chosen: cf. p220. See Parry 1982:32 on Pythian 2.56: τ πλουτε ν δ σ ν τ χ π τμου σο ας ριστον ( to be wealthy by the good fortune of one’s divine fate is wisdom’s best sc. result el sim. . Although the sentiment is somewhat obscurely deployed here, its application to Hieron (rather than the poet himself) seems guaranteed by the se uel: see the reading of Lloyd-Jones 1973:121 122. For extraPindaric parallels: Henry 2005 ad loc. Pindar P thian 2.58 61. Pap.Oxy. 1795.32 ( rica Ades ota 37 CA): λ ιος ν ίδας, τρ ς δ λ ιος ν ινύρας. For further sources, p323n10. ινύρου πλουσι τερος uda s.v. καταγηρ σαι; Appendix Proverbiorum 4.68. Di erently Currie 2005:293 294, who argues for divine overtones in the poet’s treatment of Hieron: The implications of the simple collocation of Kinyras and Hieron at 15 20 thus seem to have become bolder: now not even Kinyras (or any other hero of myth) could claim to outdo Hieron. 224 Praising Kinyras monarch was something better avoided. Thus Kinyras, despite his virtues and prosperity, could e ually serve as a conventional admonition about the instability of fortune and the enduring importance of reputation (like Kroisos in Pythian 1).36 Given Pindar’s purposeful contrast between Hellas and the Orient, it is probably signi cant that he refers to the composition and dispatch of his ode as follows: Like Phoenician merchandise this Song is being sent beyond the dusky sea. Inspect with open mind this Kastor-song on Aeolian strings Greeting with favor this gratitude-gift (khárin) From my seven-toned lyre.37 Poet as navigator and poem as voyage are again conventional ideas.38 But the ethnographic detail stands out. For Bowra, who considered the work a poetic letter rather than a proper choral ode, Phoenician merchandise e ectively means on approval. 39 I suggest rather that it takes its point from the earlier Kinyras exemplum, given the Cypriot king’s treatment as a virtual Phoenician in some strands of tradition.40 The poet, in singing of Hieron, does so like the Cypriots who praise Kinyras in a well-sounding hymn (eua h a h mnon). The parallel nature of their activity, resulting logically from the exemplum itself,41 is emphasi ed by the poet through well-placed verbal echoes. Pindar’s description of his poem as a kháris-gift (70) recalls the kháris that motivates the Cypriots in their celebration of Kinyras.42 And since Pindar’s own musical kháris-gift was a product of the seven-toned lyre, he implies that the Cypriots also venerated their ancient king through choral lyric. Now in Pindar’s later statement I shall embark on a well- owered naval-expedition, resounding about your virtue, the phrase am h aret i / elad n clearly echoes the earlier elad onti am h 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Pindar Pythian 1.92 98. Pindar P thian 2.67 71: τόδε μ ν κατ οίνισσαν ἐμπολάν / μέλος π ρ πολι ς λ ς πέμπεται / τ αστόρειον δ ἐν ολίδεσσι χορδα ς θέλ ν / θρησον χάριν πτακτύπου / όρμιγγος ἀντόμενος. Kurke 1991:49 61, 198; Segal 1998, Chapter 10, gives a detailed reading of the motif as developed in Nemean 5. Bowra 1964:135 136; cf. Gentili 1992:52. See p317, 345. Compare Bakkhylides’ and Korrina’s use of Phoenician’ to mean Carian’ (Athenaios 174f), and consider the substantial Phoenician population which had long been present on Cyprus itself. Cf. Pindar P thian 2.27e: δ ἀνταπόδοσις τοῦ λόγου α τη περ μ ν τ ν ινύραν ο τ ν υπρί ν μνοι, περ δ σ ἐμ ς κα τ ν υρακουσί ν. Similarly 2.32: προευεργετηθε ς π τοῦ έρ νος νῦν ἀμεί εται α τ ν το ς μνοις κα ἐγκ μίοις. Cf. Gentili 1992:52 53, who notes also χα ρε in 67. 225 Chapter Ten in ran, of the Cypriot singers’ own praise-songs.43 et, whereas the can praise their king in their own territory, Pindar’s song must be shipped to Syracuse: the Phoenician merchandise is thus a virtual Cypriot song dispatched by Pindar temporarily assuming the guise of a Cypriot lyre-singer to Hieron, that new Kinyras. The poet’s maritime metaphor, reinforced by reference to the Kastorsong, e ually recalls Pindar’s treatment of Kinyras in Nemean 8, where the king grew wealthy from seafaring: Hieron will be enriched by Pindar’s musical merchandise’.44 The Love of Apollo That Pindar places himself in the position of a Cypriot lyre-singer executing royal praise calls for closer examination of the Kinyras passage in its own right that is, divorced from its immediate context and treated as an ethnographic idyll. The poet sketches a vivid cultic scene, evoking the sight and sound of celebration in a few deft strokes. Pollákis ( often’) shows that Pindar envisages the Cypriot praise-songs (phâmai) as an ongoing custom, not a single occasion.45 This is given further substance by Kinyras as priest of Aphrodite and beloved of Apollo, which conforms to a pattern of early epichoric heroes’ who were connected to the cults of female gods and eventually absorbed by male Olympians who wore their names as epithets. The phenomenon brings further point to Apollo’s title en rist s, the preconditions for which were therefore already established in Pindar’s own day, and probably before (see below).46 The poet thus assumes a sanctuary-setting of Cypriot Aphrodite’ where Kinyras played a role, ust as we nd at Classical Paphos (see Chapter 16). This would be a natural venue for the development of cult-narratives, helping account for the rich (if lamentably terse) notices that survive about Kinyras, his family, and 43 44 45 46 Cf. 62 63: ε ανθ α δ ἀνα σομαι στ λον ἀμ ἀρετ / κελαδ ν. Also noted by Currie 2005:293, with di erent emphasis. Note too the poet as unsinkable cork (80). The αστόρειον is evidently to be connected with fr. 105 106: see Gentili 1992, with 54 55 for possible generic nuances of Kastor-song. The Dioskouroi’s role as patrons of sailors (GR:213) is probably relevant. Their cult on Cyprus is known from the loyalty oath to Tiberius (see p205). They are also called κιθαριστα ἀοιδοί by Theokritos Idylls 22.24 (see p480n126); the fth-century currency of this detail is seen in a red- gure hydria by the Kadmos Painter (ca. 430 420 BCE: SIAG:74, g.7), for which, and the Theokritos passage generally, see now Power 2010:282 285. See Currie 2005:275 and n84, with Pindaric parallels. Cayla 2001:74, with the parallels Erekhtheus Athena Poseidon-Erekhtheus; Hyakinthos Artemis Apollo Hyakinthios. For Apollo and his rivals, see p189 190. 226 Praising Kinyras associates.47 The Cypriot king was the center of his own mythological cycle, giving the phrase about Kinyras (amphì in ran) one immediate point.48 Admittedly Pindar’s phâmai does not directly denote a musical form; the word’s basic meanings are an utterance prompted by the gods’ and reputation’ (that is, what people are saying).49 et this is linked to the basic function of a praise-poet, whose divinely inspired songs secure such fames’.50 This explains the parallel construction between the Cypriots’ phâmai and the well-sounding hymn(s) (eua h a h mnon) with which other unnamed singers celebrate their own patrons. So Pindar de nitely alludes to a Kinyras song-tradition. It is precisely this which gives the exemplum weight: not only are Hieron’s friendly deeds worthy of similar praise-poetry, they are great enough to endure the centuries and secure imperishable fame the essential self- usti cation of the professional praise-singer.51 By contrast with Aphrodite, the presence of Apollo adds nothing essential to the picture. It is rather a Panhelleni ing gloss on Kinyras himself an alternative expression of the cultural encounter that underlies the fatal musical contest.52 Pindar’s Apollo, who loved (e h l se) Kinyras, emphasi es cultural sympathies. One scholiast denies that Kinyras was Apollo’s beloved (er menos) an idea perhaps inspired by parallels like Hyakinthos.53 Another states that Kinyras was the Olympian’s son a seemingly banal solution that may nevertheless re ect a speci c dynastic construction developed by the Kinyrad kings of Paphos and/or Salamis, integrating themselves into a Panhellenic framework.54 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Farnell 1930 1932 2:122 ( Pindar’s statement that Apollo also loved him points to the contemporary prevalence in Cyprus of music associated with Kinuras sic ); Bell 1984:6 ( cultic community ); Karageorghis 1988:182n6. Hero-cult as productive of mythmaking: Nagy 1979:304 305 and n4 ( is is Arkhilokhos). For other hero-cults connected with legendary priest-kings, interred within a deity’s temple, see P ster 1909 1912:450 459 passim (for Kinyras/Kinyradai, 295 as city founder , 303 as royal ancestor , 452 453); Farnell 1921:17; West 1966:428; Currie 2005:275 and sources in n86. For Kinyras’ family cycle’, see p280 291 and Chapter 14. Cf. Pindar Nemean 8.32c: πολλα ο ν, ησί, περ τοῦ ινύρου κατα έ ληνται στορίαι κα διά οροι. LSJ s.v. ήμη I.1 3; Woodbury 1978:294 297 especially n31; Kurke 1991:124n46. Cf. Pindar Olympian 7.10 12, etc.; of external parallels, note especially Aiskhylos u liants 694 697: ε ημον δ ἐπ μο ς / μοῦσαν θείατ ἀοιδοί, γν ν τ ἐκ στομάτ ν ερέσθ ήμα ιλο όρμιγ . Cf. Gant 1978:17 18; Bell 1984:6; Currie 2005:284. See p187, 189 192. Kinyras appears in Clement of Rome’s catalogue of Apollo’s lovers (Homilies 5.15.2; PG 2:184C 185D): πόλλ ν ινύρου, ακύνθου, ακίνθου, όρ αντος, λα, δμήτου, υπαρίσσου, μύκλα, ρ ίλου, ράγχου, † υμναίου μεναίου , άρου, οτνιέ ς, ρ έ ς. Pindar Pythian 2.27a: ν δ ο τος πόλλ νος υ ός. See further p410. Apollo is also Kinyras’ father in Theokritos Id lls 1.109; Hesykhios s.v. ινύρας. For the Kinyrad descent of Euagoras of Salamis, see p351 359. 227 Figure 17 Lyrist-archer, White Painted krater from Khrysokhou (near Marion), ca. 850–750 (CG III). Collection of the Archbishopric of Cyprus, Nicosia. Drawn from Karageorghis 1980b. Praising Kinyras A third commentator supposes that Apollo loved Kinyras either as an archer or as a musician. 55 Neither suggestion grows obviously from the Pindaric text, and one may suspect that the scholiast has simply brought forward bow and lyre as being Apollo’s main attributes an ancient pairing, rmly entrenched in epic diction.56 et the scholion prompts comparison with a remarkable Cypriot vase dated to the ninth or eighth century and discovered near Marion, bordering the kingdom of Paphos to the north (Figure 17).57 One side shows a lyre-player seated, surrounded by uadrupeds like an Orpheus, and playing an instrument of at least six strings; that he is enthroned is suggested by the chair’s monumental proportions. The other side shows him (or a twin ) returning from the hunt, leading a captive bull; he carries a uiver of arrows on his back. By what name would the painter have known this gure Bow and lyre make the Classicist think rst of Apollo. et the Greeks had no monopoly over this ancient idea. We have seen a probable example from Ugarit in the ale of A hat.58 There is also Kinyras’ syncretism with Kothar, A hat’s bow-maker.59 The bow is besides an attribute of the WS god Resheph, who was e uated with Apollo by Phoenician-Cypriots.60 But a fourth-century bilingual inscription from Tamassos uali es both Apollo and Resheph as Alashiyan’, so that we must also assume a pre-Greek, pre-Phoenician gure whose powers overlapped with theirs.61 The vase vividly illustrates the problem of isolating indigenous gods in the Cypriot iconographic record. It would be no less reckless to suppose that the painter intended Apollo and Apollo alone, than to insist upon seeing only Kinyras here. This situation is familiar from the many exotic titles born by Apollo on Cyprus from the Classical period onwards; for despite the diversity and strangeness of these epithets, the Cypriots themselves were evidently prepared to see one god with many faces.62 The two that come most readily to mind in the present case 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Pindar Pythian 2.30g (Abel 1891): ς το ικ ν ς μουσικόν. Homer Odyssey 21.406 411; omeric mn to A ollo 131; omeric mn to ermes 515; cf. Herakleitos 22 B 51 DK; Plato Kratylos 404e 405d; Kallimakhos Hymns 2.42 46; Diodoros Siculus 5.74.5; innumerable later instances, especially in poetry. The two instruments’ share the same principle of construction; their historical kinship (HMI:56 57) is re ected in Greek vocabulary, both having arms’ or horns’, yoke’, and string (πήχεις/κέρατα, ζυγόν, χορδή). See further Kirk 1954:207 209; Franklin 2002b:2 5; Franklin 2003:297 301. White painted ware krater (CG III) in private collection, dated ca. 850 750 by Karageorghis 1980b (giving the number of strings as ve but examine them ust under the crossbar); stylistically it is very close to SB.1 and SI.1 in CCSF u l ment:6 17. See p131 134. See Chapter 18. Lipinski 2009:104 108. ICS 216. See p372. Cult-titles of Apollo on Cyprus include (besides Alasi tas) Am la os (see p372n6), l t s, a sar, erai t s, rios, a eut s, a e rios, el nthios, rt t s. See with further references HC:80 81; Mitford 1961a:116, 134; Glover 1981; Cayla 2005:227n1. 229 Chapter Ten are l t s (the woodsman’), attested from the fourth century; and of course en rist s.63 And yet the vase is centuries older than the epigraphic evidence for Apollo’s insular cult-titles. The ultimate age of the Olympian’s association with Kinyras cannot be determined; Pindar merely provides a terminus ante uem. It may have developed very early indeed, if Apollo was imported to the island during Aegean migration in the twelfth and eleventh centuries, when comparisons with pre-Greek divinities will have been uickly drawn.64 While Apollo is not attested in Linear B, recent scholarship on his Anatolian background indicates that he was indeed of BA anti uity.65 Certainly by the Archaic period Apollo was known on the island. His name is found in a sixth-century inscription fragment from Paphos (Rantidi).66 And a seventh-century tripod dedicated by a Cypriot to Apollo at Delphi, along with other contemporary evidence for a Cypriot aristocratic presence there at this time, shows that the Olympian’s cult was in uential on the island.67 The laurel spray and eagles that appear on some fth-century Paphian coins have been interpreted as Apollonian symbols, and later fth-century types from Marion seem to show Apollo’s head accompanied by the king’s name.68 Given this early evidence, and Apollo’s traditional guise as lyre-player, his identi cation or association with Kinyras surely goes back into the Archaic period whether the connection was made by Aegean Greeks seeking to understand the peculiarities of Cypriot cult, Greek-Cypriots under Panhelleni ing in uence, or both.69 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 See further p204 213. See generally Dietrich 1978. Apollo erai t s ( Horned Apollo’) has been adduced as an import, because Apollo was known under such a title in Arcadia (Kereátas, Pausanias 8.34.5): see e.g. Karageorghis 1998:32, noting that Apollo was worshipped as a god of sheep and cattle at Kourion by the eighth or seventh century (cf. Had ioannou 1971:40, also a rmative). et there is the counter-example of a cult of Paphian Aphrodite at Tegea, which obviously originated in Cyprus, probably in some kind of reciprocal action following the EIA migrations: see further p364 365. Others would explain erai t s in light of the famous Horned God of Enkomi, itself exemplifying a widespread ANE pattern of divine representation: see p396n134. This uestion will be treated in detail by Bachvarova forthcoming. I.Rantidi 14; ICS 39 (cf. 40 41, 43 44); DGAC:780 no. 237. The evidence for Cypriots at Delphi down into the Roman period is collected by Pouilloux 1976, to which one should add the case of the (sixth-century ) lyre-singer Stesandros/Stasandros (see p211). Apollo P thios is attested at the sanctuary of Apollo l t s at Kourion (I.Kourion 41, late third century BCE). Note also that a connection between Kinyras and Delos may be implied by the myth of Melus’: see p290. Paphos: BMC Cyprus:lxviii lxxiv; Marion: BMC Cyprus:lviii and pl. .5 6; Head et al. 1911:739. But this need not contradict Cayla’s hypothesis that Nikokles of Paphos introduced an Apolloen rist s alongside Apollo- l t s when founding New Paphos in the fourth century: Cayla 2005:235 238; see further p410. 230 Praising Kinyras Singing ‘about’ Kinyras While the ancient suggestion that Apollo loved Kinyras as a musician is in itself too bland to inspire much con dence, another scholiast makes a crucial contribution: Kinyras was loved by the god because he Kinyras was celebrated in song by musicians.70 This could hardly have been inferred from the poem alone, for Pindar’s Cypriots’ songs suggests pandemic reverence, not the narrower customs of musicians.71 But of course the latter group will have been essential in practice. he musicians in ras is therefore a enuine tradition. Once this is appreciated, Apollo’s a ection for Kinyras becomes readily intelligible, ust as the scholiast saw.72 And because Kinyras en oyed his musical praise in a formal cultic setting, his honors ere a in to those of a od Let us reexamine the passage with this in mind. First, one may read am h in its literal spatial sense ( around, about’), and so interpret the Cypriot praisesongs as those of a festival chorus of traditional circular shape, with Kinyras’ in the center. In early Greek choral lyric, this was the position typically occupied by the musician, sometimes at an altar, whose playing led the dance.73 The arrangement is seen in many Cypriot terracotta gure-groups, probably going back to the pre-Greek period.74 Pindar’s allusion to choral space was caught by one scholiast: The hymns of the Cypriots often dance around ( er ) Kinyras .75 Note that h mnos (drawn from the poet’s own text) is properly used of divine praise-songs, typically to the lyre in Apollonian contexts; and that er permits 70 71 72 73 74 75 Pindar Pythian 2.31b: ο χ τι ἐρ μενος πόλλ νος ινύρας ἀλλ ἀγαπ σθαί ησιν α τ ν π τοῦ θεοῦ δι τ ἐγκ μιάζεσθαι α τ ν π τ ν μουσικ ν. For the musical dimension of ἐγκ μιάζεσθαι, cf. LSJ s.v. ἐγκ μιος, .2 (ἐγκ μιον, laudatory ode’), noting that a group performance (κ μος), i.e. choral, may also be implied. Jager 2000:270 (following armas 1975:10 11) states without argument that Pindar considered Kinyras a κιθάρα-player (sic), by tacitly combining the Pindaric scholia with Eustathios’ etymology of Kinyras κινύρα, and imputing both ideas to the poet himself. I agree with the overall result; but the treatment of sources here and throughout is cavalier. Cf. Farnell 1930 1932 2:122. A circle-dance is often described by χορεύειν ἀμ ί or περί; note also the compounds ἀμ ιχορεύειν and περιχορεύειν. A vivid citharodic example is Euripides Alkestis 583: χόρευσε δ ἀμ σ ν κιθάραν, of Apollo; the arrangement is also readily inferred for omeric mn to A ollo 194 203. Perhaps the most detailed performative sketch is the much-discussed Pratinas PMG 708 (although this concerns the α λός). See p242. Pindar Pythian 2.27d: χορε ουσι μ ν περ τ ν ιν ραν πολλ κις ο τ ν υπρ ν μνοι. 231 Chapter Ten the same ambiguity between about’ and around’ as am h .76 As noted above, Pindar’s parallel with the Locrian maidens makes it very likely that female choruses are imagined here, ust what one nds in the Cypro-Phoenician bowls, the Hubbard amphora, and other Cypriot representations, where again a circle dance is assumed.77 It is e ually possible to connect am h DN with a regular device of early Greek lyre-poetics, describing the god about’ whom one is singing. Several examples from Homer and the Homeric hymns show that the phrase had general application.78 et the professional interests of kithára-singers ( ithar ido ) meant that Apollo was so invoked especially often. This led to the semi-technical expression am hiana t ein for the act of calling upon Lord’ (ánax) Apollo at a musical outset a protocol so standard that ithar ido became known as amphiánaktes.79 Such an epicletic force to am h in our Pindar passage is made perfectly possible by keladéonti ( resound’), which, referring basically to the production of loud sound, commonly described celebratory singing addressed to god, hero, or man, especially in citharodic contexts.80 I suggest therefore that amphì in ran both gives the su ect of the Cypriots’ songs, and evokes the lyric environment in which they transpired. This would provide an attractive context for Apollonios of Rhodes’ am h in r menai, which several ancient lexica construed as a compound verb, play music, sing, deriving it from the in ra. 81 While this word/expression, like the simple 76 77 78 79 80 81 μνος developed a special connection with praise of gods and heroes by the Classical period: see especially t molo icum Gudianum s.v. μνος; Furley and Bremer 2001 1:9 14, with Appendix C for the link to lyre-music (cf. e.g. Pindar Olympian 2.1: ἀνα ι όρμιγγες μνοι). See p222, 236 237, 256, 262, etc. The construction, which takes both genitive and accusative, may be seen in Homer Odyssey 8.267: ἀμ ρεος ιλότητος ἀείδειν; omeric mn 7.1 2: μ ι νυσον εμέλης ἐρικυδέος υ ν / μνήσομαι; 19.1: μ ί μοι ρμείαο ίλον γόνον ννεπε οῦσα; 22.1: μ οσειδά να θε ν μέγαν ρχομ ἀείδειν; 33.1: μ ι ς κούρους λικ πιδες σπετε οῦσαι (Dioskouroi). See further Power 2010:194 195. Pindar usually makes the ob ect praised accusative without preposition: Pindar l m ian 1.9 10, 2.2, 6.88, 10.79 81, Pythian 11.10, Nemean 9.54, Isthmian 1.52 54. But the prepositional complement is paralleled by Pythian 2.62 63 (κελαδε ν ἀμ ί dative) and Isthmian 5.47 48 (κελαδε ν περί genitive), and after all accords with the traditional syntax. The key evidence comes from the uda s.v. ἀμφιανακτί ειν, de ning it as τὸ προοιμιά ειν. δι τὸ ο τω προοιμιά εσθαι ( to sing a prelude, from preludes being so sung ). See further Gostoli 1990:49 50; Power 2010:194 195; Franklin 2013:221 222. Cf. Woodbury 1978:294 5n30. For positive, citharodic’ κελαδέ , a few further examples may su ce: the invocation of Apollo attributed to Terpandros (σο δ με ς / πτατόν όρμιγγι νέους κελαδήσομεν μνους, Terpandros 4 Gostoli ); Pindar Olympian 2.1 2 ( να ι όρμιγγες μνοι, / τίνα θεόν, τίν ρ α, τίνα δ νδρα κελαδήσομεν, which gives the range of usual praiseob ects), cf. l m ian 10.79 81; Euripides I hi eneia amon the aurians 1129, cf. Herakles 694. Apollonios of Rhodes 1.882 883; t molo icum Genuinum s.v. ἀμ ικινυρόμεναι πολλ νιος κινυρόμεναι μέλπουσαι, δουσαι ἀπ τῆς κινύρας; similarly t molo icum meonis, t molo icum a num s.v. See further p200n73. 232 Praising Kinyras in resthai, ust as readily connotes lament’, I have argued that the Apollonios passage is purposefully ambivalent between positive’ and negative’ connotations, re ecting the two main performance moods of the in ra.82 The same duality would readily apply to songs about Kinyras himself, since the Cypriot king, as father of Adonis and many other ill-fated children, was well uali ed to bestow or receive lyric-laments (see Chapter 12). Note that Pindar’s keladéonti, translated above as sing’, is also found of mournful outcries.83 The proposed semantic duality, with the Cypriots’ songs both about Kinyras and performed around Kinyras, is harmoni ed by the lyrist himself who, by singing hymns about a god, leads an encircling chorus in bringing that power into the space they circumscribe.84 (The audience creates a second concentric circle.) It is a mimetic ritual where the performer, in the Aegean, played Apollo’ whose most familiar guise, after all, was ithar id s. Such enactments must have been seen as su ciently magical for ithar ido like Terpandros and Arion to perform the civic catharses and city-foundation rituals that are surprisingly abundant in Greek legend, music-historiography, and other sources.85 Pindar implies a comparable conception of ritual performance on Cyprus, where the distinction between Kinyras’ and kinyrist’ vanishes. This idea is corroborated by further implications of our en rist s Apollo. As Cayla rightly stresses, the epithet adheres to a well-attested pattern of agent-words in -st s/ -stas or -d s/-das and verbs in ein built upon divine names and cult-titles, and relating to cultic societies that celebrated the root- gure. Many such groups 82 83 84 85 See p200 201 and further Chapter 12. Pindar fr. 128eb.7 (threnodic context); Aiskhylos e en a ainst he es 866 870 (ed. Page), especially τ ν δυσκέλαδόν θ μνον ρινύος ἀχε ν ίδα τ / ἐχθρ ν παι ν ἐπιμέλπειν; cf. i ation Bearers 609 (of a baby’s cry); Euripides I hi eneia amon the aurians 1089 1093 (of the halycon’s lamenting song); Hel. 371 (formal lament for war-dead); clo s 489 490 (κέλαδον μουσιζόμενος / κλαυσόμενος). This idea is inherent in the citharodic epicletic formula itself. The basic version associated with Terpandros ( . ca. 675, and credited with traditional practices of unknowable anti uity) permits two simultaneous readings: 1) Let my heart for me again sing about the far-shooting Lord; 2) Round a out me let my heart sing again the far-shooting Lord (ἀμ ἐμο α τις ναχθ κατη όλον ἀειδέτ ρήν, Terpandros 2 Gostoli uda s.v. ἀμ ιανακτίζειν . The viability of the second interpretation is con rmed by a skillful Aristophanic pastiche in the parabasis of Clouds. The antode begins by invoking Apollo with a spare adaptation of the citharodic formula (Be) around for me once again, Lord Phoebus (Clouds 595: ἀμ ί μοι α τε, οι να κτλ) where the absence of any explicit verb, and the appearance of ánax Phoebus in the vocative rather than nominative case, re uires am h to bear the full weight of invocation with its literal spatial force. The antode’s three further invocations (of other unior Olympians) all depend upon this opening construction. See generally Franklin 2006a, especially 52 62. 233 Chapter Ten are found in Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman-era inscriptions.86 From Cyprus itself one may note amatr ein (glossed by Hesykhios as to gather in the fruit of Demeter );87 and the asiliasta ( Celebrants of the King’, perhaps garrison soldiers) attested at Old Paphos and Lapethos in connection with the Ptolemaic ruler cult in the early rst century.88 A en rist s Apollo can therefore be not only a in ra-player but un d le de Kinyras, ui honore Kinyras, ui participe au culte de Kinyras. 89 It is no great leap to see this Apollo as embodying the function of the Kinyradai of Paphos.90 There are strong parallels with various musical clans’ from the Greek world: Musaists’ ( ousa sta ) of Rhodes and Macedonia;91 the Homeridai of Chios and the Kreophylidai of Samos, well-known rhapsode-guilds;92 and especially lyre-clans like the motherless’ Ametor dai (purveyors of erotic kithára-songs in the context of Cretan rites-of-passage),93 and the Eumolpidai of Eleusis and the Euneidai at Athens.94 There are also the ham r ddontes ( tham r ddein tham r ein) of an early fourth-century inscription from Thespiai in Boeotia.95 These functionaries, probably not a standing body but periodically appointed,96 clearly evoke Thamyris (or Thamyras), the legendary lyre-singer who was blinded for rivaling the Muses (a myth perhaps representing a competing regional tradition, or epic 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Besides the Adoniasts and Haliads of Rhodes (Cayla 2001:79 80), there were πολλ νιασταί, ρτεμισιασταί, σκληπιασταί, ακχισταί, ιονυσιασταί, ιοσσ τηριασταί, ιοσκουριασταί, στιασταί, ανιασταί, οσειδ νιασταί, ριαπισταί, α αζιασταί, αραπιασταί, etc. (LSJ s.v.). Hesykhios s.v. αματρ ζειν τ συνάγειν τ ν ημητριακ ν καρπόν. This verb, which relates to the Cypriot goddess’s fertility aspect (see p287 and n46) probably does not predate the in ux of Olympian names in the Classical and Hellenistic periods: Karageorghis 1988:191. ExcCyp 124; HIOP 105; I.Paphos 82; cf. HC:185; Papantonio 2012:154; Fu ii 2013:18n31. Other such royal-cult groups are known: αισαριασταί, τταλισταί, μενισταί, et al.: see LSJ s.v. Cayla 2005:229. Cf. GR 184 for other Apolline cult-titles deriving from festivals or ritual activities the god is imagined as doing (e.g. a hn h ros). See p421 424. Ialysos, Rhodes, third century: Carratelli 1939 1940:165 166 no. 19.24; IG II.1, 680 (undated); Pieria, Macedonia, early second century: SEG 49:697. Allen 1924:42 50; Burkert 1972b; West 2001:15 17. Athenaios 638b, with Chaniotis 2013 2.3; cf. Power 2010:373n164. Burkert 1994; Cassio 2000; Power 2010:305, 364 367. SEG 32:503 (genitive θαμυριδδόντ ν, line 2), ca. 400 350 BCE. Cf. Cayla 2001:79 80. The present participle θαμυρίδδοντες (rather than αμυριστ ν) indicates a temporary function, probably an o ce they were the presidents of the association’s assembly (A. Chaniotis, SEG 55:562). 234 Praising Kinyras competition itself).97 They evidently presided over a hero-cult for Thamyris himself in the valley of the Muses. 98 This argument for en rist s Apollo as the one who celebrates Kinyras is not incompatible with a concurrent interpretation as the in ra-player’.99 A kinyrist venerated Kinyras precisely by playing the instrument from which the Cypriot king took his name. The title recalls our attention to the l re itself ust as the Ugaritian pantheon text makes plain, through its determinatives, that Kinnaru’s esh was wood.100 This con ation accords perfectly with the phenomenon of divini ed instruments. One e ected the god’s epiphany by playing the in ra in the appropriate ritual setting and so assuming the role of en rist s of Kinyras himself. He thereby gives voice to, and receives it from, the instrument, which is thus as central to the celebration as its player. If we seem to have come a long way from Pindar, recall the apostrophe of Pythian 1, where the lyre is virtually personi ed and celebrated for powers one might rather attribute to the lyrist: Golden h rmin Apollo’s and the dark-tressed Muses’ oint possession whom the dance-step heeds, the beginning of festivity, And singers obey your signs When thrumming you fashion beginnings of chorus-leading preludes.101 Only change h rmin to in ra and one arrives at a fundamental aspect of the Cypriot celebrations about Kinyras to which Pindar alludes. 97 98 99 100 101 Wilson 2009 has argued that this gure’s negative treatment by Homer and later authors was generically motivated, with Thamyris representing a rival regional tradition of considerable anti uity, closer perhaps to Aeolic lyric. Ford 1992:90 101 views the contest in terms of agonistic poetics and the singer’s relationship to the tradition (represented by the Muses). Wilson 2009:51 52 ( uotation), with additional evidence for a local cult of Thamyris in n17 (adding Clay 2004:87 and 153, and noting especially Durante 1971 1974 2:202); further observations in Power 2010:208 209. Wilson suggests that the name probably combined the sense of the gatherers’ with that of Thamyrists’, looking to Hesykhios s.v. θάμυρις πανήγυρις, σύνοδος κα δο ς θαμυρ ς τ ς λε όρους and θαμυρίζει ἀθροίζει, συνάγει. That θαμυρίζ may mean celebrate the cult of Thamyris’ was recogni ed by P. Roesch (SEG 32:503). For a possible connection with Tacitus’ Tamiradae of Paphos, see p405 406. As Cayla 2001:79, rightly notes. RS 20.024, 31: see p5. Pindar Pythian 1.1 4: ρυσέα όρμιγ , πόλλ νος κα οπλοκάμ ν / σύνδικον οισ ν κτέανον τ ς ἀκούει μ ν άσις ἀγλα ας ἀρχά, / πείθονται δ ἀοιδο σάμασιν / γησιχόρ ν πόταν προοιμί ν ἀμ ολ ς τεύχ ς ἐλελιζομένα. For the comparable personi cation in the Homeric mn to ermes, see p6n32. For Kallimakhos Hymns 2.18 21, see p318n233. 235 Chapter Ten Caught in the Act: Two Model Shrines The idea of Kinyras in performance’ becomes much more tangible when confronted with the rich music iconography of Cyprus, which extends our chronological hori ons far beyond the literary record. We may begin with two model-shrines showing lyre-players in clear cult contexts.102 Both pieces are thoroughly Cypriot, incorporating older stylistic elements going back to comparable LBA specimens of both the Levant and Aegean. Their provenance is unknown, with no compelling reason to assume a special Paphian connection.103 After all, the goddess had many other cult centers throughout the island Amathous, Kition, Golgoi, Idalion, Tamassos, Lapethos, and Salamis, to cite only the more prominent.104 The models therefore indicate that hieratic lyre-playing was a general feature of Cypriot cult. The presence of Aphrodite’ is especially clear in the rst model, from perhaps the seventh century (Figure 18).105 At the center of this complex composition is a tapering, fenestrated pillar surmounted by birds. Its general shape evokes the aniconic representation of the Paphian goddess that appears on coins of the Roman era (also apparently adorned with birds, perhaps representing sculpted ornaments).106 The pillar’s identi cation as a dove-cote’107 lets it be con dently linked with Aphrodite’, whose sacred birds are well known.108 This conforms to a wider regional pattern, which Lucian also attests for his Syrian Goddess’ of Hierapolis (Manbog), in whose cult doves were held to be 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 The careful description and initial observations of Boardman 1971 were brilliantly expanded by Mlynarc yk 1983, whose interpretation I develop here. But note that Mlynarc yk 1983:113 115 does argue for dove-apertures in the architectural remains of the Paphos sanctuary, comparing those of the rst model shrine (see below). For these and numerous minor cult-places, see Kypris. Louvre AO 22.221: Ridder 1908:120 124 no. 106, pl. 20.106 (more intact than presently. He considered the lyrist female, and described the now-lost instrument’s shape as trape oidal, 123); Boardman 1971:40, g. 4, pl. III.1; Mlynarc yk 1983:111 g. 2; CAAC I :III i 10 and pl. L II:9 (Karageorghis associates with Kinyras); Paleocosta 1998:49 50, pl. ; Dunn- aturi 2003:109 110 (dating to late seventh or early sixth century). See p481n129. This depends on a close parallel from Kition, another conical structure with apertures attended by birds and now a female gure ga ing from a doorway a feature familiar from many houseshrines of Cyprus and the Levant (Boardman 1971:38 with further references in n2; 39 g. 1). Two such specimens from Idalion an important cult-site of the goddess (Kypris:179 189) have rows of apertures on their upper walls, evidently for birds. Sources for Aphrodite’s doves, and at Paphos in particular (cf. Martial 8.28.13, Pa hiae colum ae), are collected and discussed by Blinkenberg 1924:17, 20; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:415 417. For Aphrodite’s doves on Paphian coins (Timarkhos and an early Alexandrine): BMC Cyprus:lxxvi viii and pl. III.8 10, pl. II.6, 8 9; HC:73. 236 Praising Kinyras Figure 18 Model shrine with dancers and lyrist. Unprovenanced (seventh century?), Louvre AO 22.221. Drawn from Ridder 1908 pl. 20.106 and CAAC IV pl. LXXVII:9. sacred or even divine.109 On Cyprus, they are linked to Kinyras himself through the aetiological myth of Peleia/Pelia.110 Four gures have been placed around the pillar. Three dancers occupy half the perimeter, facing the shrine. Opposite is a lyrist, whose back is to the pillar. et he stands so close that his interest’ in it is clear, and this is reinforced by a cauldron at his side, presumably containing an o ering. The con guration has several e ects. First, the pillar-shrine is clearly the primary ob ect of adoration. et the lyrist himself en oys secondary focus, since, with his back to the 109 110 Lucian n the rian Goddess 14, 33, 54 with comments of OSG:513 514; cf. GR:153. Servius Auctus on ergil clo ues 8.37: for this passage, see p290. 237 Chapter Ten Figure 19 Model shrine with lyrist and spectators. Unprovenanced (eleventh–seventh century), Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. B 220.1935. Drawn from Boardman 1971 pl. XVII.1–V. dancers, and indeed the pillar itself, they become background for his performance. He controls the viewer’s entrance into the cultic circle a Master of Choral Ceremonies who mediates between audience’ and god. The second model has been variously dated between the eleventh and seventh centuries (Figure 19).111 It is a rounded, rectangular house-shrine, with three windows, damaged door, and missing roof. Against one of the inner walls sits the lyre-player. Near the opposite wall is a broken stump, probably the base of an o erings table. Two rough gures on the outer walls peer through window and door, as though glimpsing a sacred mystery; two more have been lost, and another probably peeked through a vent above.112 Their collective ga e shows that here too the ob ect of veneration is the shrine itself and the deity for whom it stands.113 But the composition, like that of the pillar-shrine, serves to isolate the lyrist within a sacred space, which he alone is worthy to enter. In both scenes then the lyrist is a secondary focus, so that while he is as an intermediary to the divine, his own numinosity must not be underestimated. Boardman aptly applied the Homeric expression divine singer’ (the os aoid s) to these musicians: 111 112 113 Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. no. B 220.1935: Dikaios 1961:205n54 (seventh or sixth century); Boardman 1971, pl. II.1 ; Mlynarc yk 1983:111 g. 1; dated to CG I (ca. 1050 950) in CAAC II:III LGB with g. 69 and pl. III; Paleocosta 1998:48 49, pl. I .1 3; As ects:103 104 no. 78, g. 90 91 (dated simply CG). One may note here various sources that refer to the rites of Aphrodite as mysteries’ (Kypris:53 54), although these typically relate to allegations of temple prostitution’, or may be dismissed as poetic conceit in the context of love elegy (e.g. Ovid Art of o e 2.607 608). No birds are to be seen, though the lost roof would have provided an appropriate perch. 238 Praising Kinyras His isolation with the table in the Nicosia model, his place in the de Clerc model and the generally religious association of all the other models mentioned, may lend support to his identi cation either as divine or as an important servant or familiar of the deity he l re la er lac s a name still ut erha s this too ill one da e re ealed in the island or the east (my emphasis).114 It was left to Mlynarc yk to connect these shrines with Kinyras and the Paphian kings in their role of High Priest of the ueen. 115 But we must not forget Boardman’s intuition about the lyrist’s o n divinity. 114 115 Boardman 1971:41. Mlynarc yk 1983:112 113. 239 11 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus P indar, su lemented t e sc olia and other relevant texts, has established a musical Kinyras some ve centuries older than Our en rist s Apollo at Roman Paphos. Three initial forays into Cypriot iconography have indicated earlier hori ons still, although such pieces, being mute, can never prove that Kinyras himself ’ is intended. Nevertheless the abundant visual evidence for early Cypriot lyre culture can hardly be ignored, given its contextual details and deep anti uity. It goes far beyond Greco-Roman literary sources to converge with documentary and iconographic evidence of the larger BA Near East. Fortunately, Kinyras’ very name connotes sympathies with the SyroLevantine sphere and its musical cultures. This provides a welcome rst roadsign for traversing the lyric landscapes of early Cyprus. We shall see that the path from Syro-Levantine lyre morphology to the Cypriot term kinýra is not entirely straightforward. But patient exploration will clarify key historical and cultural issues, ultimately establishing the LBA as a viable period for Kinyras’ genesis on the island a proposal that can then be re ned in subse uent chapters. The Current Picture The general dearth of LBA musical evidence presents a considerable obstacle to satisfactory analysis of the island’s ethnomusical history, and especially its transition through the ma or cultural developments of the rst millennium. Conversely, that of the latter period, so much more conspicuous and abundant, is potentially misleading. In fact the earlier material votive gurines (see below), rattles, scrapers, bron e cymbals, cylinder seals with dance scenes, and two outstanding bron e stands showing harpers is ultimately uite illuminating for the Kinyras uestion, and will have to be considered in due course (Chapter 15). But rst we must trace the history of lyres speci cally, so far as possible. Ancient Cypriot music iconography has never been completely assembled, thanks to hundreds of rst-millennium terracotta- and limestone-votive 241 Chapter Eleven musicians in collections around the world (Figure 27).1 Found in IA sanctuary contexts throughout the island, these gurines include many groups of dancers around a central musician, typically lyre or double-pipes an arrangement that, I have already noted, resonates clearly with Pindar’s portrait of Cypriot voices around Kinyras. 2 That the medium itself goes back to the LBA is shown by two well-preserved female gurines, one playing frame-drum and the other perhaps clapping, dated to ca. 1450 1200.3 Some hundred such gurines were also found at the sanctuary of the Ingot God at Enkomi, going back to pre-Greek levels. Although these are so fragmentary that speci c instruments cannot be identied, the superabundant IA specimens make it very likely that some or many of them were arranged in circular compositions around a central lyrist or doublepiper.4 This point has been neglected, so far as I have found, in previous surveys of Cypriot music iconography.5 Several past studies have focused on a basic morphological dichotomy observable in the IA evidence, which has been linked to Aegean and Phoenician immigration and/or coloni ation. The two groups are: 1) round-based lyres rst attested in an eleventh-century vase painting (Figure 25 5.5k: see below), and then regularly in vase painting, votive gurines, and other media; these clearly resemble (n.b.) early Aegean 1 2 3 4 5 General iconographic surveys: Aign 1963:60 74; Karageorghis 1977:216; Hermary 1989:387 393 (Louvre sculptures); Meerschaert 1991; Karageorghis et al. 2000:148 151 no. 227 237, 239 (coroplastic, Cesnola Collection, including some not in CAAC); Aspects:78 84, 101 113, 140 152, 217 218; Fariselli 2007 (Phoenician material); Knapp 2011. Lyres: CCSF 1:33; Monloup 1994:109 112 (female terracottas, Salamis); DCPIL:49 51; Kolotourou 2002; Paleocosta 1998 (lyre-iconography). Double-pipe and other winds: Flourent os 1992. Frame-drums/percussion: Averett 2002 2004; Kolotourou 2005; Kolotourou 2007. Dance: Lef vre-Novaro 2007 passim; Fariselli 2010 (Phoenician focus). General studies (use with caution): armas 1975; Jager 2000. These musician gures may be noted for future research: CAAC, II (Late Cypriot CyproGeometric): A(vi)1 2, GD1 6, LGA iii 5 7, LGB1, LGC1, LGC9; III (Cypro-Archaic): no. 174; I (Cypro-Archaic): I v 1 8, I vi 1 7, I vii 1 19, II iv 5, III i 1 10 (ring dances); a (Cypro-Archaic): I vii 1, I ix 1 36, I x 3, I xi h.60 66, I xi i.67 80, II xiii 2, 4 5, II xiv 1 5, II xv 1 71; b (CyproArchaic): Ch. I, 59, Ch. II, Ch. III i 1 3, III ii 4, III iii 5 54. Many more are in individual museum collections and site publications, including: Myres 1914:338 339 no. 2241 2256 (ringdances, Cesnola collection); Monloup 1984:134 no. 512 513 (Archaic frame-drummers, Salamis); on and Caubet 1988a:4 5 no. 10 12, pl. II (female lyrists, Lapethos); Monloup 1994:109 117 (Classical female lyrists, Salamis); andervondelen 1994; SAM:164 166 no. 128 130 (Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem). CAAC II:A(vi)1 2 and pl. II.2 3, dated LC II III. See also Aspects:84 no. 60 61, g. 70 71; Knapp 2011:122. Both gurines belong to the type Standing Nude Female Figure with Bird’ Face. Figurines from Ingot God sanctuary: Courtois 1971:326 356 (note especially 348, g. 145); CAAC II:64 65, dating to end of LC III or beginning of CG IA; so too Webb 1999:102 113, especially 112 and Webb 2001, especially 76, 79. See further p398. 242 Figure 20 Map of Cyprus showing distribution of iconography discussed in text. Chapter Eleven specimens from the LBA to ca. 400 and sporadically beyond (see Figures 4 and 5);6 2) at-based, often asymmetrical lyres appearing in the CyproPhoenician symposium bowls (phiálai)7 between ca. 900 600 (Figure 29); these adhere to the Syro-Levantine knr-types discussed in Chapter 3 (with Figures 4 and 5). This apparent coincidence of chronology and morphology was systematically elaborated by B. Lawergren as follows: The lyres of Cyprus deserve special mention. Like Palestine sc. in the Philistine EIA , Cyprus had both Eastern and Western lyres. Roundbased lyres ourished ca. 1100 800 B.C.E. in the wake of Aegean in uences The round-based lyres were followed by thin lyres i.e. knr as a result of Phoenician in uences beginning ca. 850 B.C.E, but a few Western lyres continued through this period. Strong Greek in uences reemerged in the second half of the sixth century B.C.E. and a very large number of round-based lyres were represented during the fth century.8 Lawergren tacitly begins from a (presumed) lack of pre-Greek representations, but prudently avoids de nite conclusions about the LBA island.9 Deger-Jalkot ky more boldly suggested that lyres, previously unknown, are an ethnic marker of Aegean in ux (for her other morphological criteria, see below).10 Similarly, Maas and Snyder treated the Cypriot lyres as a variety of Greek stringed instruments. 11 Fariselli, in her valuable recent study of Phoenician music and dance, also assumes a basic contrast between Phoenician and Aegean types in discussing the symposium bowls; but what Aegean’ means in eighth-seventh century cultural terms, and within the iconographic repertoire of the phiálai, is not determined.12 Closer investigation shows that the current picture is too reductive.13 A lyre-less pre-Greek Cyprus is a priori unlikely given the many third-millennium 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 This rough terminus re ects the advent of the κιθάρα in its classical form. Pi-a-la (φιάλα) is inscribed on one of the Kourion bowls: PBSB:73 (Cy11); I.Kourion 4. DCPIL:49, with the East/West dichotomy building on Lawergren 1993. But Greek in uences reemerged does imply that the earlier western’ morphology was absent from the pre-Greek island. Deger-Jalkot y 1994, especially 21 22. SIAG:8, making the point that they are only representations from the Dark Age. Fariselli 2007:13 n15 16, 19, 23, with further analysis of dance in Fariselli 2010. This discussion supersedes Franklin 2006a:44 45; Franklin 2006b. 244 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Syro-Levantine and Mesopotamian specimens, especially since second-millennium lexical evidence shows the word knr extending beyond the Syro-Levantine heartland (Mari, Assur, Hattusha, Egypt). That the same could be true of LBA Cyprus is supported in a general way by the large percentages of Semitic and Hurrian names born by Alashiyans in texts from Ugarit and Amarna, since various forms of knr had been current among these linguistic groups for centuries before the Greek in ux.14 It would fully accord with the pre-Greek island’s cosmopolitanism, which, we shall see, nds clear musical expression in the Mesopotamiani ing harps on the aforementioned bron e-stands (thirteenthcentury).15 These very instruments, admittedly, have been contrasted with the round-based IA lyres in attempting to distinguish two phases of Cypriot ethnomusical history.16 The Kourion stands certainly do give a vital glimpse of preGreek musical conceptions, and bear importantly on Kinyras.17 et it need not follow that lyres per se were a novelty of the IA. Clearly even a single lucky nd could alter the picture signi cantly. And as it happens, a key piece of evidence has been overlooked. In what follows, I shall present this lost daughter of Kinyras,’ thus documenting at least one lyric dimension of pre-Greek Cyprus. I next reassess the Aegeanness’ of the island’s round-based lyre-representations. We can then consider the implications of our new evidence and interpretations for understanding, in broad cultural terms, the morphological confrontation’ seen in the symposium bowls. Finally, we shall see what this material contributes to the linguistic prehistory of the word kinýra, thus returning us full circle to Kinyras himself. A Lost ‘Daughter of Kinyras’ in the Cyprus Museum A lovely but broken faience dish, unprovenanced but dated by stylistic criteria to the fourteenth thirteenth century (LC II), has been on display in the Cyprus Museum for decades (Figure 21).18 It was tersely described by P. Dikaios in the 1961 guide: Remarkable whitish faience bowl covered with blue-green gla e, probably a local imitation of an Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty prototype. Painted ornamentation on the interior: two human gures, one 14 15 16 17 18 See p53 55, 98 99 . See p241. Sherratt 1992:336 (see below). See p383 392. Nicosia, Inv. G63; height 4.2. cm, diameter 13.2. The best image known to me is Karageorghis 1976a:178 g. 137; also Dikaios 1961:153 154 no. 6, pl. III.5; Peltenburg 1968:303, includes it among his unpublished specimens (vii). 245 Chapter Eleven Figure 21 Kinyrístria and dancer. Fourteenth-century Egyptian(izing) faience bowl from Cyprus (unprovenanced). Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Inv. G63. Drawn from auto y and arageorgh 19 a fig. 13 . dancing and, to their left, Bes; in the eld, conventional trees, below, bird and sh. Fourteenth century B.C.19 The bowl belongs to a larger class of Egyptian or Egyptiani ing pieces consist ing chie y of blue green or white shallow bowls and scenes with roughly drawn sh, boats, dancing and instrument-playing gures, hieroglyphs, and lotus owers. 20 They are variously held to be Egyptian imports, Egyptiani ing ob ects from a Canaanite workshop, or local Cypriot imitations 19 20 Dikaios 1961:153 154. Foster 1979:50 and n316. By instrument-playing gures she must mean the lute-player bowls (see below). 246 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus of Egyptian styles and scenes.21 Some see this elusiveness as their most striking feature, with the more than 130 faience vases and fragments re ecting the cross currents of cultural in uences on the island during this period of eclecticism as no other single body of material does. 22 Dikaios declined to identify the left-hand gure, whose interpretation is made di cult by several breaks in the bowl.23 Degradation of the gla e along the shard-edges has endowed them, and hence the oin lines, with a darkish color very close to the lines of the gure itself, over which they crisscross confusingly. Nevertheless, patient observation and continual reference to the underside of the dish, where the breaks may be clearly distinguished, enable a con dent, if not entirely complete, reconstruction.24 She is in fact a musician who plays for the dancing gure, while Bes, patron of much professional music, especially involving dance, oversees the performance.25 She is a kinyrístria’, wielding a lyre of Syro-Levantine type.26 Parts of the soundbox can only ust be detected. Two give away details, however, are uite clear. First is the slight incurve to the arms where they oin the crossbar. There is also a largish, bird-head nial on the right end of the crossbar, and perhaps faint traces of another on the left; there are close parallels in Hittite and Egyptian art, one of the latter featuring a lyre-girl with a Bes tattoo.27 Two tassels are attached to the yoke, like those found on lutes in Akhenaten’s harem and Hittite/Neo-Hittite representations.28 Our lyrist has a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See especially Peltenburg 1986:155 161, noting lack of stylistic deviations which might betray Cypriot manufacture; he challenges their critical reception as poor, local copies of Egyptian work (Peltenburg 1972:131); Levantine workshop(s) are considered possible, but less likely (contrast Peltenburg 1968:143 151). But certain types can be attributed to a Cypriot faience industry: Foster 1979:49 55; Karageorghis et al. 2000:62. Peltenburg 1972:129. Cf. Peltenburg 1968:304 (bowl no. 5d): To the left a female with calf-length billowing robes. She seems to hold something over a papyrus which grows from the boat, but the brown designs are too fugitive here to make it out. I thank G. Fawkes for sharp observations and drawings during a museum visit on May 17, 2012. The dish is displayed vertically, so both top and bottom may be examined. Bes and music: Hickmann 1954a:35 38; MgB 2/1:36 39 g. 15 17; MMAE:48 g. 26, 57 58 and g. 32, 110, 116 119 passim, with g. 72. For this word, see p216. Hittite: Inandik vase. Egypt: MgB 2/1:32 33 g. 9; MMAE:48 g. 26 (Nineteenth Dynasty, Bes tattoo, bird- nial one end only), 108 g. 64 (Twenty-First or Twenty-Second Dynasty); HKm, pl. 18 no. 52.1, 52.3 4. Musicians with Bes-tattoos are otherwise known: Hickmann 1954b:276; Hickmann 1954a:37 38. Egypt: MMAE:86 g. 50. Hittite/Neo-Hittite: HKm, pl. 4 no. 11 and 15, 7 no. 26, 9 no. 29, 11 no. 35, 12 no. 37 38. With lutes the uestion may arise whether these tassels are not rather the ends of strings. Even when their position at the end of the neck makes this possible, they are su ciently long that one must suppose that they have been worked into an adornment (cf. HKm:59). In other cases the tassels come from the middle of the neck. 247 Chapter Eleven short cape, paralleled by female musicians on a Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl and the cognate musical procession/dance scene of a ninth- or eighthcentury North Syrian ivory pyxis from Nimrud (Figure 31).29 She also holds her instrument hori ontally, again as usual in Canaanite and NK representations.30 The exact position of the player’s arms, and indeed whether both are shown, have eluded our repeated autopsy and comparison. This musical reading is corroborated by several closely related bowls. One, said to be from near Idalion, is well preserved and shows another Egyptian(i ing) female gure, in diaphanous dress, playing a lute against a background of lotus-blossoms (Figure 22).31 A very similar dish in Leiden has a lute-girl with a Bes tattoo on her thigh.32 A third lutenist, from a tomb at Maroni and heavily e aced, may be reconstructed through a close parallel from Egypt itself.33 While all these scenes are Egyptian(i ing), the Levantine lyre shows that the corpus is to be associated speci cally with the international musical groups cultivated in the NK.34 Wherever these bowls were actually manufactured, our kinyrístria or at least her instrument is ultimately from’ the Syro-Levantine world. The cautious will warn that pots are not people’ that the dish was perhaps valued for its exotic imagery, and so need say nothing about contemporary Cypriot music. But the dishes’ relevance to musical reality is vividly supported by the processed tortoise shells found aboard the fourteenth-century Uluburun wreck.35 R. Eichmann and S. Psaroudakes have concluded that these were intended for Egyptian-style lutes like those of the faience dishes.36 The shells corroborate, materially, the circulation of musical technology implied by iconography and the lexical evidence. They oin the ship’s cargo as a microcosm of LBA palatial exchange recalling that Cyprus was, if not the ship’s origin, at least a ma or point of call. Moreover, faience vessels were generally not mere exotica on Cyprus, but often employed in local cultic environments as though ritually e cacious 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 owl: PBSB Cy13 (Kourion), where the rightmost musician of a trio (probably double-piper) clearly has the cape; Culican 1982:15 and n6 detected one on the second (lyrist) as well, and noted the Nimrud bowl. Canaanite: Megiddo, Figure 11 4.1p; Kamid el-Lo : DCPIL g. 1o my Figure 4.1o. Egypt: MMAE:43 g. 21, 86 g. 50, 89 g. 52, 91 g. 54 (twice); also Wegner 1950, pl. 7a, 9a b (the dimensions of 9b being close to our lyrist). The vertical position is seen in MMAE:48 g. 26, 53 no. 30. New ork, MMA 74.51.5074 Cesnola 1903, pl. C III no. 4 Myres 1914:274 no. 1574 Karageorghis et al. 2000:63 no. 99. Also Aign 1963:61 g. 26; Peltenburg 1968:307. RMO Leiden, inv. AD 14, Eighteenth to Nineteenth Dynasty. London, BM (18)98.12 1.145, from Maroni, tomb 17: Johnson 1980:24 no. 136, pl. I.136 Peltenburg 1986:158 no. 35 Peltenburg 2007, g. 5b. See p105 111. For the wreck generally, see below p326 with references. The shells are unpublished. I thank Eichmann and Psaroudakes for a group email discussion with C. Pulak (November, 2008). 248 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 22 Female lutenist. Egyptian(izing) faience bowl from near Idalion. New York, MMA 74.51.5074. Drawn from Karageorghis et al. 2000:63 no. 99. precisely by virtue of their precious ualities. Along with other, often imported luxury items (ivory, glass, alabaster, and ostrich eggs), the vessels occur most fre uently in urban cult buildings, where they probably served as votives and containers of oil, perfume, incense and other substances used in the cult. 37 This pattern of cultic imports provides one motivation for the arrival of the knr itself to Cyprus in this international age. Of course, our new kinyrístria is ust as readily connected with scenes of secular music-making and the collecting of exotic female musicians.38 But a cultic role for female kinyrists is clearly seen in the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, which, though later, perpetuate LBA guildic traditions (as known from Ugarit).39 And con uering kings, in taking over the musicians of their van uished rivals, must often have brought home cult-performers. Recall the foreign musicians employed for religious festivals in second-millennium Egypt, and the pervasive sacral ambience of Akhenaten’s 37 38 39 Webb 1999:243. See p75, 105 111. See p258 272, 273. 249 Chapter Eleven palace.40 These customs provide, I believe, the best explanation for a myth reported by ps.-Apollodoros: Kinyras’ daughters, having o ended Aphrodite, slept with foreigners and ended their lives in Egypt.41 Music, Memory, and the Aegean Diaspora Our lost daughter’ is the clearest proof one can reasonably expect that preGreek Cyprus was not a lyric blank canvas. et by reminding us that the absence of evidence is a risky foundation for historical constructions, she bids us wonder whether she herself represents but one contour of a richer and perhaps older landscape that remains as yet otherwise undiscovered. As noted above, it is not unlikely that some of the smashed votive gurines from Enkomi were indeed lyre-players.42 And with several LBA cylinder seals showing in nite processions or ring-dances, one readily assumes musical accompaniment that is simply not depicted.43 Now it does seem clear that several IA round-based lyres from Philistia and Cilicia other areas of the twelfth-century Aegean diaspora do indicate an Aegean ethnic presence and/or cultural memory.44 In the Levant especially, an unambiguous Aegean interpretation becomes much more compelling, given that eastern’ knr-type lyres are otherwise so dominant. I have already mentioned the cult-stand from Ashdod with its Canaanite orchestra’ where, however, the lyre is not the Canaanite form one expects.45 The piece adds valuable nuance to the monochromatic representation of Philistine religion in the Biblical narratives, which do not distinguish it from the surrounding Canaanite environment.46 A tenth-century seal from the same site shows a seated musician 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 See p107 111. Apollodoros Library 3.14.3, with the parallel in Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18. See further p504 and n60. Others would connect this myth with traditions of sacred prostitution’ at Paphos (HC:71n1), but this leaves the Egyptian facet unexplained. See p242. See p397. Locally produced LH IIIC Mycenaean’ pottery appears in considerable uantity in Cilicia at this time (most conspicuously at Tarsus, with nearly 900 shards, but at Mersin and Ka anl as well). This material is often dismissed on the pots are not people’ argument (e.g. anschoonwinkel 1990:190 192). But Birney 2007 has shown that the shapes are consistent with domestic use, not mercantile activity, a conclusion supported by other nds of domestic application. It is therefore clear that there was early Aegean settlement here. See p157 and cf. AMEL:99 100. See generally Machinist 2000. 250 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 23 Lyre-player seal, Ashdod, ca. 1000. Jerusalem, IAA 91-476. Drawn from Dothan 1971, pl. XLIX.7. also with round-based lyre (Figure 23),47 and another such instrument is held by a terracotta gurine from the same site, about a century later.48 E ually remarkable musical evidence is found in the reliefs of Karatepe, the eighth-century Cilician site whose inscriptions celebrate the restoration of the House of Mopsos to power over the Danunians in a kingdom called Hiyawa. The latter name is a normal Luwian truncation of Ahhiyawa, and is to be connected somehow with the Aegean/Mycenaean state of this name with which the 47 48 Dothan 1971 1:138 139, 2:162 163 and g. 76.1, pl. 69.7; Keel 1997:666 667 and g. 15, with further bibliography. Dothan 1971 g. 62.1, pl. 55.1; Dothan 1982:249 and pl. 35; SAM:159 no. 123. 251 Chapter Eleven Figure 24 Juxtaposition of ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ lyres. Orthostat relief, arate e, ca. 25. Drawn from urga 19 2 fig. 1 2. Hittites periodically clashed in western Anatolia.49 The bilingual inscriptions50 record two forms of the name Mopsos Luwian Muk a and Phoenician Mp which exhibit divergent outcomes of a more ancient labiovelar; this allows reconstruction of a name that is indeed found in Linear B texts as Mo-qo-so (/Mokusos/). Whether this is Greek or Anatolian in origin, it was certainly at home in the Mycenaean world. The simplest explanation is therefore that the later Greco-Anatolian traditions about the migration of Mopsos/Moxos to Cilicia and Syria, even as far as Phoenicia do accurately re ect population movements at the end of the LBA.51 Given this, it is most striking to see, in a ban uet scene symboli ing renewed political harmony after civil war, a round-based lyre 49 50 51 See above p13n64, 348n63. The Luw. aphaeresis of Ahhiyawa Hiyawa is already attested in a LBA text (Singer 2006:242 262, especially 251), and recurs in an eighth-century inscription from inek y, Cilicia (Tekoglu and Lemaire 2000, especially 968 972). For the Karatepe texts (KAI 26; ANET:653 654; CS 2 no. 21 and 31), see now W. R llig in ambel 1999:50 81 (cf. 108 110) for the Phoenician text (with philological commentary supplementing Bron 1979), and Hawkins 2000 no. I.1 for the Luwian text (with extensive earlier bibliography). Strabo 14.4.3: το ς δὲ λαο ς μετ ου τὸν α ρον περθέντας το ς μὲν ἐν αμφυλί μεῖναι το ς δ ἐν Κιλικί μερισθῆναι καὶ υρί μέχρι καὶ οινίκ ς. Whether or not Mopsos was an historical individual is another uestion. Representative recent discussions are Finkelberg 2005:150 152; Jasink and Marino 2007; Oettinger 2008; Hawkins 2009:165 166; L pe -Rui 2009. Most of the primary sources are collected in Houwink ten Cate 1961:44 50. 252 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus uxtaposed with a model of Syro-Anatolian type (Figure 24).52 There seems little doubt that the former derives from Aegean tradition in the region, among the people whose designation Half-Achaeans (Hypakhaioí) was already obsolete in the time of Herodotos.53 These Aegean lyres in diaspora contexts are not merely potent symbols of ethnic memory. They were an essential tool for its preservation. The Karatepe reliefs powerfully illustrate what is anyway a natural supposition that Aegean migration deeds were sung not only or even primarily in Greece, but on the ground’ within and between diaspora communities. A comparable situation on Cyprus must account for at least some of the many legends about migration to the island after the Tro an War; Teukros at Salamis and the Arcadian Agapenor at Paphos are two of the more compelling examples (see Chapter 14). I shall therefore begin surveying the island’s round-based lyres from what is at once the earliest such representation, and that which permits the most viable sub-Mycenaean interpretation. Even here, however, Greek’ and Cypriot’ cannot be entirely distinguished. So this case will also serve as an a fortiori caution against overly Hellenocentric readings of the abundant later material. Cypriot Lyres between East and West The piece in uestion is an eleventh-century kalathos from Kouklia/Old Paphos, roughly the same date and place as the Opheltas obelós that rst documents Greek on the island.54 In one frame, a warrior with a sword holds a round-based lyre and parades or dances (Figure 25). In another, a man probably sacri ces a goat or ram on an altar by a tree. The vase belongs to a group of eleventh tenth century pictorial pottery used (among other ob ects) as status symbols in Mycenaean-style tombs of the period.55 Figurative painting alternates with geometric decoration; on the whole the lack of precise Aegean parallels for their iconographical repertoire makes it best to describe them as Cypriot’. et a subset contains representations of warrior or hunter gures, armed and engaged in activities described as macho or heroic, and novel with respect 52 53 54 55 HKm 73 and pl. 14 15 no. 43 44. The Syro-Anatolian lyre is well paralleled by an instrument from the incirli reliefs: HKm pl. 13 no. 39, and the Hittite precedent in pl. 9 no. 28.3. Hypakhaioí: Herodotos 7.91. Cf. Lanfranchi 2005:482; Oettinger 2008:66n9. Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7, proto-bichrome kalathos, LCIIIB: CCSF 1:5, 2:1 3; Iacovou 1988:72 (Cat. no. 29), g. 66 70. For the obelós, see p14. Coldstream 1989, especially 330 331 (eleventh-century chamber-tombs with long drómoi have higher concentration of status symbols than other burial types, and appear in areas of later Greek-speaking kingdoms); cf. Rupp 1985:126 127; Sherratt 1992:330. 253 Chapter Eleven Figure 25 Warrior-lyrist. Proto-bichrome kalathos from Kouklia, eleventh century (LCIIIb). Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7. Drawn from CCSF 1:5, 2:1–3. to earlier Cypriot iconography.56 One striking case shows a man drinking from a kylix and holding a gure-eight body shield an armament that was uni uely Aegean with a history of apparently potent symbolism, since it had gone out of actual use centuries earlier.57 Sherrat attractively reads this is a symbol of a speci cally Aegean, Greek-speaking past being used to analogise and de ne the present. 58 The Kouklia kalathos may well convey a comparable message, resonating with a traditional topos of Greek poetry, and especially epic the bifurcation and/or con ation of warrior and singer, familiar from Achilles singing kléa 56 57 58 Sherratt 1992:332 333. Iacovou 1988:71 (Cat. no. 15), g. 34; Sherratt 1992:335 ( uotation). Sherratt 1992:336. 254 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus andrôn on his lyre and Odysseus stringing his bow like an expert lyrist his instrument.59 This vase is the best evidence we are likely to get of a sub-Mycenaean epic tradition ourishing in Cyprus.60 et its Aegean aspects are not incompatible with Coldstream’s apt comparison to Kinyras himself on the strength of the vase’s Paphian provenance.61 Sherrat uali ed this by stressing stylistic di erences from other LBA Cypriot musical representations (the harps on the Kourion stands: see Chapter 15) and the instrument’s presumed Aegean morphology. If he is intended to represent Kinyras, she wrote, then it is a uite di erent Kinyras the more recognisably Greek version of himself the appropriation and transformation of an element of common Cypriot history’ into something intended to be identi ed as peculiarly Greek-Cypriot. 62 While Sherrat’s emphasis on hybridity o ers a useful way forward for considering Cypriot lyre morphology more generally, note that even her reading begs the uestion of whether these round-based instruments were, or were not, a novelty of Aegean immigration. S. Deger-Jalkot y saw a further Aegean marker in the tassels on the Kouklia musician’s sword, comparing a similarly adorned weapon on a potsherd (LH IIIC) from sub-Mycenaean Lefkandi on Euboea.63 et much the same streamers grace the lyrist on the eleventh-century Orpheus ug’ from Megiddo (Figure 13) and another non-musician gure from the same site. Any Philistine/Aegean explanation of the Orpheus ug must account for the even stronger Canaanite elements of its style and iconography. Not least is the knr-shape of the instrument itself, which makes this gure more obviously a kinýras’ than his counterpart at Old Paphos.64 A third Aegean lyre-marker proposed by Deger-Jalkot ky, not found in the Kouklia kalathos, is the ig ag’ arms of several Mycenaean-Minoan images,65 and two EIA Cypriot representations. One is on a late tenth-century vase from the necropolis of Kalori iki (Kourion area), which in another panel shows the 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Homer Iliad 9.189 (with Plutarch On Music 1145f), cf. 13.730 731; Odyssey 21.406 411 (for which see p387 and n99); Terpandros 5 (Gostoli); Arkhilokhos 1 West IEG; Alkman 41 PMGF; Pindar Olympian 1.1 12; Euripides fr. 759a.1622 1623 TGF; cf. Plato Laws 804d; Plutarch Lykourgos 21.4; Moralia 238b; etc. For the motif, see further Moulton 1977:145 153; Thalmann 1984:170 184; Goldhill 1991:1 68; Franklin 2003:297 301. It is still found in one version of the medieval epic Digenes Akrites (4.396 435, Grottaferrata codex: Mavrogordato 1956): the hero λαμβάνει καὶ κιθάραν κάλλιστα δ’ ἐπεπαίδευτο ἐν μουσικοῖς ργάνοις (397 399), κτλ. Franklin 2014:214 216. Coldstream 1989:330 331; cf. Paleocosta 1998:56. Sherratt 1992:337. Deger-Jalkot y 1994:21 and 18 g. 4.3. This gure did not necessarily carry a lyre. See p159 161. Deger-Jalkot y 1994:18 g. 4 (cf. already Aign 1963:352); SIAG:16 g. 2b (Chania), 18 g. 3b (Tiryns). 255 Chapter Eleven same (or similar) gure pouring a libation; together the images indicate a ritual involving music and drinking, whether symposium, funerary rite, or some combination (Figure 5.5n and 20).66 The other is the famous Hubbard amphora (Famagusta district, ca. 800), a longtime centerpiece of the Cyprus Museum (Figure 26 5.5p).67 Markoe convincingly explicated the funerary symbolism of its scenes, in which the deceased, enthroned amid symbols of death and rebirth, is honored by a lyric choral ritual.68 This is a striking parallel to the R p’iu text from Ugarit, with its innāru-led musical ensemble regaling the underworld king who is closely associated with royal ancestor cult.69 The Hubbard vase, with its well-paralleled Syro-Anatolian and Egyptian iconographic elements going back to the MBA, o ers little contextual purchase for interpreting the musician’s instrument as Aegean’ rather than Cypriot’. Indeed, two southeastern Anatolian cylinder seals, not noticed by DegerJalkot ky, also show lyres with both round base and ig ag arms (Figure 4.5d, 5e).70 These seals are now dated to ca. 1800, and can no longer be explained through Aegean diaspora.71 Clearly the combination of round-base and ig ag arms was an early areal attribute spanning the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean.72 Note too several further third-millennium Syro-Anatolian lyre-representations whose bases are rather indeterminate between round and at; or which seem at-based while having slightly ig ag arms (Figure 4.1c, 1e f, 5a c). Their relationship to the more rigidly de ned ground of East’ and West’ is anything but clear.73 Do they constitute a chronological transition from one to the other A geographical one Both Their temporal and geographic distribution makes it perfectly possible that some at least went by a form of the word knr, despite not closely resembling the (mainly second-millennium) instruments we normally associate with that word.74 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Nicosia, Kalori iki Tomb 11 no. 5: Dikaios 1936 1937:71; Rutten 1939:442; CCSF 1:33, 2:97 98 (no. I .1). Hubbard amphora: Nicosia, 1938/ I-2/3: Dikaios 1936 1937; CCSF 1:8 9, 2:7 9. Markoe 1988. RS 24.252 KTU/CAT 1.108. See p134 141. For these seals and their interpretation, see p517. Collon 1987:43 no. 148 (correcting Porada 1956:204). The challenge these posed to an exclusively Aegean interpretation was recogni ed by SIAG:9 (even on the basis of their former dating to ca. 1200). Li Castro and Scardina 2011; similarly DCPIL:47 49: The trait began already at Tarsus and Mardin before its association with the Aegean, i.e., this trait was integral to round-based lyres at their very their inception. DCPIL:47, is appropriately agnostic on their a liation. Li Castro and Scardina 2011:211 (with g. 13 15) decline to address them as being too vaguely rendered. I include here the Hattic/Hittite form in z- and cognates: p55, 89 90. 256 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 26 Hubbard amphora, Famagusta district, ca. 800. Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, 1938/XI-2/3. Drawn from CCSF 1.8–9, 2.7–9. And so while Lawergren’s distinction between eastern’ and western’ lyremorphology remains broadly valid, it is not clear ust where the line should be drawn. Cyprus falls precisely within the disputed’ area. If we persist in e uating western’ with Greek/Aegean and eastern’ with Canaanite/Phoenician, the island becomes a passive matrix for the implantation of foreign lyric identities an idea not merely politically ob ectionable, but inherently implausible. To be sure, there must indeed have been a time when lyres were new to the island. But given the high anti uity of chordophones in the Aegean, Anatolia, and larger ANE, we cannot de nitely conclude that lyres rst arrived only in the fourteenth-century (our lost daughter’), or that their morphology was only ever that of the Levant. For all we know, some more rounded shape had been current well beforehand, and even went by a name pre guring kinýra. At this point, all options must be kept open. 257 Chapter Eleven While an Aegean musical presence on EIA Cyprus is certainly not to be denied, and an important sub-Mycenaean lyric’ component is perfectly plausible,75 the round-based lyres are not as diagnostic as generally supposed. Contextual details of the Kouklia kalathos can indeed con rm an Aegean cultural perspective. But even here we must resist segregating Greek from preGreek. And the Anatolian seals gravely undermine an Aegeocentric explanation of the IA Kalori iki and Hubbard lyrists, which are ust as likely to perpetuate an old insular tradition with broader areal connections. We must seriously consider, therefore, whether the round-based lyres of IA Cyprus were in fact, morphologically and culturally, Cypro-Aegean hybrids; and whether similar instruments already inhabited the pre-Greek island. This hypothesis solves several problems in a stroke. First, it accounts for the early ubi uity of round-based lyres in the popular medium of votive- gurines.76 Second, it allows for the rich non-Aegean iconographic and cultic elements in the relevant representations (Hubbard amphora and the pieces discussed in Chapter 10). Finally, while these lyres would no longer be unambiguous Aegean ethnic markers, they would remain compatible with early Aegean cultural expression in a colonial’ environment, if other elements ustify the reading (Kouklia kalathos). Ethnicity and Musical Identity in the Cypro-Phoenician Symposium bowls Our new kinyrístria also complicates the eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician phiálai. Did Levantine morphology disappear in the less cosmopolitan EIA, to return with ninth-century Phoenician coloni ation Or was there a continuous tradition, as yet unrepresented archeologically Here the early votive- gurines are again important, but di cult to interpret (Figure 27a d). Their soundboxes, though roughly-formed with a small band of clay, are on the whole distinctly round. et their arms vary between perpendicular (as in Aegean instruments) and divergent (as often with Levantine). Are these di erences mere habits of 75 76 Franklin 2014. The best discussion known to me of lyre-playing female gures is Monloup 1994:109 117, on those from Salamis. But I disagree with her view that the rounded Cypriot lyres normally represent tortoiseshell instruments; the clearer lines of limestone sculpture show that this is generally not the case. Tortoiseshell-lyres are indeed occasionally attested, but most of these are comparatively late; and while examples include votive gurines (e.g. Cesnola 1894, pl. I no. 285), they are often found in fairly clear Greek iconographic contexts (imported Attic black- gure, white-ground lekythos: Karageorghis 2002a:126 no. 146; limestone statue of Apollo, Salamis, ca. 450: on 1974:21 25 (no. 5), g. 12 and pl. 3; Cesnola 1885, pl. L I , 476 479 (sympotic sarcophagus scene, ca. 500 450) Myres 1914:226 229 no. 1364 Karageorghis et al. 2000:204 206 no. 331 Aspects:210 211 no. 208, g. 224; cf. Karageorghis 2002a:154 155 no. 192; Sophocleous 1985:157 and pl. II.3 4, with further references. 258 27a 27b 27c 27d 27e Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 27 y r ot ot e figur ne w th ar ety of yre ha e ca e not un form . 27a (Cypro-Archaic, unprovenanced) = London, bM 1876/9-9/90, drawn from CAAC IV:I(v)4. 27b (Cypro-Archaic, Lapethos) = London, bM 1900.9-3.17, drawn from CAAC Va:I(xi)i.67. 27c (Cypro-Archaic, unprovenanced) = Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. b192a, drawn from CAAC Va:I(xi)i.71. 27d (Cypro-Archaic, Kourion) = University Museum, Philadelphia no. 54-28-109, drawn from CAAC IV:I(v)3. 27e (Hellenistic, Cythrea), MMA accession no. unknown, drawn from Cesnola 1894, pl. XXXIV no. 282. Chapter Eleven workshop production, or do they re ect signi cant ethno-musical distinctions In at least one case a de nite s uiggle has been introduced, presumably corresponding to the ancient ig ag element discussed above.77 Other examples, rather indeterminate between round and at bases, could be dismissed as aberrations of mass production.78 Coming down to the Cypro-Archaic period, a handful of examples from Lapethos, an area with Phoenician associations, have clearly divergent arms (Figure 27b, c).79 In other cases, including more carefully crafted votives of the Cypro-Classical period, one does nd a few examples with uite rectangular frame, and/or with arms aring outwards (Figure 27d).80 All told it would appear that we must allow for ongoing Cypro-Levantine hybrids alongside Cypro-Aegean. Whether these can be pushed back across the period ca. 1200 900 is not entirely clear, though it would not be surprising in light of our new kinyrístria. What is certain is that the island had developed distinctive instruments by the ninth-century, when Phoenician colonists brought their own contemporary models, as shown in the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls (phiálai). These ob ects, manufactured from ca. 900 600 BCE, have been found far and wide, including Cyprus, Greece (especially Crete), Ira (Nimrud), Italy (especially Etruria), Iran, and Israel.81 Despite the lack of examples from Phoenicia itself excavation has been minimal at most ma or sites early production centers must have been located there.82 It has also been possible, especially by comparison with the Nimrud ivories, to distinguish broadly between Phoenician and North Syrian traditions (in this and other media) on stylistic and technical grounds with the former more obviously Egyptiani ing and favoring more 77 78 79 80 81 82 CAAC II:LGA iii 5, pl. .5, classi ed here as CG I (ca. 1050 950), but apparently re-dated in Aspects:101 by association with LGA iii 6, which is moved to CG III (900 750). CAAC a:II xiv 1 and 3; b: III iii 19, 21. See also Monloup 1994 no. 406, with comment on 110 about probable distortions introduced by the moulding techni ue. See for instance CAAC a (Cypro-Archaic), female lyrists: I xi i.67, 70 and 77 (Lapethos); 71 73 (unknown provenance); on and Caubet 1988b:4 5 no. 11, pl. II (female lyrist, Lapethos). An earlier possibility is CAAC II: LGC1, a sidesaddle lyrist-horseman from Palaipaphos-Skales (CyproGeometric II III). Coroplastic examples are CAAC I :I v 3, Cypro-Archaic, Kourion, sanctuary of Apollo l t s; the lyre, which is carefully rendered, has a at-base and tapering arms. Also n.b. my Figure 18 (autopsy 7/2015). In limestone, Hermary 1989:388 no. 791 (Louvre AM 2987), Golgoi, female, ca. 575; also 388 no. 792 (Louvre N 3522), female, ca. 550 (note the nearly hori ontal playing position, typical of the Levant). Cf. Monloup 1994:111 and n2, possible Syrian in uence here and the close parallel of the Canaanite gurine from Kamid el-Lo : DCPIL, g. 1o my Figure 4.1o. I follow Markoe’s catalogue numbers in PBSB where possible. The literature is enormous. A good doxographic survey is Neri 2000:3 13; cf. Falsone 1988:95. Falsone 1988. 260 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 28 Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl from Idalion, ca. 825. New York, MMA 74.51.5700. Drawn from PbSb Cy3. symmetrical, balanced compositions.83 There are, however, a number of intermediate examples.84 Establishing more precise geographic origins for speci c bowls is famously di cult, with many factors in play. Plunder, deportation of craftsman, and willful hybridity underlie the rich, complex evidence from Nimrud. Itinerant/immigrant craftsman and local imitation are often supposed, especially for Crete and Italy/Etruria.85 And the bowls were sub ect to wide circulation through the usual 83 84 85 Barnett 1939, etc.; Winter 1976:6 11; Falsone 1988:80 81 with references. Cf. Winter 1987, identifying an intermediate South Syrian’ style of ivory carving, which she convincingly connects with Aramaean Damascus. Neri 2000:3 13; Markoe 2003; Falsone 1988:94 95. 261 Chapter Eleven mechanism of elite exchange and desire for luxury imports.86 But some broad correlations are possible between distribution and known historical phases. Winter’s vision of an exclusive ninth-century Greco-North Syrian market87 was clouded by early new nds from Lefkandi (ca. 900) and Crete, which indicate parallel Phoenician activity.88 It remains the case, however, that the devastations of Sargon (722 705) e ectively terminated the older North Syrian trade westward.89 The more symbiotic Assyrian policy towards the coastal cities enabled the Phoenician schools to continue their development and circulation. This later phase coincides with Phoenician colonial ventures in the West, the regular appearance of bowls in Italy and Etruria, and the use of Spanish silver for the phiálai.90 It has long been recogni ed that some portion of the bowls must have been produced on Cyprus.91 Not only have many been found there, but some depict known items of Cypriot material culture, including ceramic vessels (Figure 28)92 and wheeled vehicles.93 Moreover, several contain Greek inscriptions in CyproSyllabic script. While inscriptions might be added secondarily to imported bowls, in one case (Cy11, Kourion) the owner’s name was clearly engraved at the time of manufacture, accommodated by the surrounding imagery.94 Last but not least, Cyprus is the only area that has produced nds, in both votive and funerary contexts, throughout the lifecycle of the bowls.95 With this we may turn to the substantial subset of bowls containing musical scenes (Figures 29, 30). The basic motif is generally seen as a celebration of Astarte/ Aphrodite’,96 representing a multi-stage festival involving choral song by cultic groups around a divine image.97 The singers supported by the fourth-century Astarte temple at Phoenician Kition are a muchcited comparandum.98 One nds various combinations of god, altar, and/or 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 ella forthcoming. Winter 1976:11 22; more broadly Winter 1988, especially 356 365. Falsone 1988:106; Popham 1995; Neri 2000:12; Markoe 2003:211. Winter 1976:17 20. Falsone 1988:105 106; Neri 2000:4 5. G erstad 1946; PBSB:6 9; Falsone 1988:94 95. See G erstad 1946:5, 7, diagnosing Cypriot pottery and dress in Cy3 (Idalion, his Proto-Cypriote I class, which otherwise exhibits clear North Syrian stylistic traits: Falsone 1988:96) and Cy5 (Kourion, G erstad’s Proto-Cypriote III). Culican 1982:14 (vehicles in outer band of Cy13). G erstad 1946:12 16. Neri 2000:4 5 with her table. PBSB:59 (but cf. Winter 1990:241); Neri 2000:4 5; Fariselli 2007:13 14. G3, however, also appears to depict a male deity (PBSB:204). Fariselli 2007:13 (comparing cultic costumes of Cr7 and G8); Fariselli 2010:14 16. Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1 (p103 126). 262 OJA Comp 7 Cy3 U6 Cr11 G8 Cy6 Figure 29 ‘Eastern’ lyres in the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 900–600. Drawn from corresponding photos in PbSb. G3 Cy7 Cy5 Cy5 Cy13 Figure 30 ‘Western’ lyres on the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, ca. 750–600. Drawn from photos in PbSb. Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus o erings-table (Cr11, Cy3, G3, G8, U6); a procession of usually female99 musicians; dancers (Cr7, Cy3, G3); dancing musicians (U7, drummers); and o eringbearers (Cr7, Cr11, Cy3 , Cy5, Cy6, Cy7 , G3, U6). All elements are rarely found together (G3 , Cy3); usually the scene is more or less abbreviated.100 Where the goddess scene merges with royal and/or elite ban uet (Cy5, Cy6), a hierogamic reading does seem plausible.101 That interpretation is more elusive when the context is ban uet alone (Cy13, second band), although one might still fall back on sacred festival’.102 Sometimes a fragmentary context makes closer interpretation ha ardous (Cy7, Cy13, outer band).103 It will be seen from the clearly cultic scenes that the makeup of the orchestra’ is in principle very consistent, the full complement being lyre, double-pipe,104 and hand-percussion (usually frame-drum). This combination has clear a nities with Levantine traditions going back to the LBA; compare the musician guilds of Ugarit, the R p’iu text, and the musical prophets met by Saul.105 Considerable variation in the order of musicians suggests that this element is insigni cant. Emphasis is achieved rather by duplication and omission. Thus U7, by showing only dancing drummers, spotlights this aspect/phase of ritual; but the orchestra is probably implied. From the remaining bowls, it is clear that lyres en oyed some prominence. As Table 1 shows, lyres alone appear in every other clearly cultic case. Often more than one is depicted, recalling the massed inn r groups of the Jerusalem temple (and, I shall argue, the kinyrádai of Paphos).106 By contrast, the double-pipe is never certainly 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 As female cult scenes, see e.g. Karageorghis et al. 2000:187 188, on no. 306 (Cy3) Aspects:112 113 no. 84, g. 97. Their gender is uestioned by Burgh 2004:131 133 (on Cy3), who suggests intentional ambiguity; cf. Knapp 2011:125. Karageorghis 1999a:16 believes that, of the two mirrored groups now known to have graced the presumed royal ban uet of Cy6, one was female and the other male. Fariselli 2007:11 12n10 notes the male pipers on Cy5 and Cy13 (third band: reclining symposiast). Note the suggestion of Fariselli 2010:16 that the o ering-bearers of Cy6 are also dancing. The argument for Cy5 hinges upon Κυπρομέδουσα ( She Ruling Cyprus’) over the female gure; with king’ perhaps over the male: Karageorghis 2002b:156 (with g. 322), 177. Cy6 depends upon the addition of orgiastic-sympotic imagery: Karageorghis 1993. Neri 2000:3 4; Fariselli 2010:13 14. In these two cases, where mythological narratives are suspected, the musical processions may evoke an underlying ritual reality. Mar uand 1887:225 226 wished to interpret the scenes of Cy7 as the adventures of Kinyras himself, and its musical element as Adonis-like lament. Fariselli 2007:11 and n6 would see single-pipes on Cy5 and Cy7. But these are surely double, simply shown in parallel (as often in Greece); this seems guaranteed by Comp7, where the pipes diverge ust enough to prove their doubleness. Her nal single-pipe example (Cy13, inner band) is more persuasive; but here the exceptional rustic context (played by stable-boy) only proves the rule that the more sophisticated cult-music used double-pipes. RS 24.252 KTU/CAT 1.108; 1 Samuel 10:5 6. See further p421 424. See further p134 135, 156 157. Is it signi cant that no western’ lyres are duplicated Or is this due to the late, abbreviated iconography of those particular bowls 265 Chapter Eleven multiplied,107 and is sometimes omitted altogether. This cannot be coincidence, and we must conclude that lyres were especially prominent in the cult. Recall that the innāru alone was divini ed at Ugarit. Bowl108 OJA Comp7 Cy3 U6 Cr11 G3 G8 Cy6 Cy7 Cy5 Cy13 Find Spot Lefkandi Golgoi, Cyprus Idalion, Cyprus Luristan ( ) Mt Ida, Crete Olympia Sparta ( ) Kourion, Cyprus112 Kourion, Cyprus Salamis, Cyprus Kourion, Cyprus Phase109 I ca. 900 10th century I ca. 825 I ca. 825 II III II before 725 II before 725 III early 7th III early 7th I later 7th I later 7th Ensemble110 /L/L/P P/D/L D/L/P D/L/L/P L/L/L P/D/L L/L/D/L D/L/P L/P/D( ) D/P/L /L/P( )114 Lyre Type111 E E E E E W E E W W113 W115 Table 1. Lyre-Ensembles in the Cypro-Phoenician Symposium bowls 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Fariselli 2007 (11 and n6, 12 and n12) would see two pipers in Cy7, seemingly misreading the drawing in PBSB; a photograph (Karageorghis et al. 2000:186 187 no. 305) shows clearly that the leftmost gure has a round-based lyre, as Mar uand 1887:326 328 already saw (for its telltale oral decor, see below). Cy13 (second band) may have had two pipers; but the following gure is broken, and could have been lyrist or drummer. Even so, the bowl is very late, and we are at some remove from the basic cultic scene; the context is strongly sympotic, which accounts for the oddity of a reclining male piper and seated female drummer in the third band. By catalogue numbers in PBSB, except for OJA Popham 1995. Markoe’s dating scheme in PBSB (used here) is, after close inspection, fundamentally compatible with G erstad 1946. Both are based on an assumed typological development towards greater complexity. But the reliability of this criterion is partially undermined by the existence of multiple workshops/sub-traditions, some potentially more conservative than others: Culican 1982:22; also the criti ue of Winter 1990. Back to front: L lyre; P double-pipe; D frame-drum. I retain Lawergren’s eastern’ (E) and western’ (W) without e uating western’ and Aegean’ (see above). The Kourion’ bowls come from Cesnola’s notorious horde, suspected of being a sensationalist assemblage by Cesnola himself; but Kourion may still be the general area of origin: PBSB:176 177. The instrument played by the hetaíra ( ) on the l n is uite ambiguous; but that of the processional orchestra does seem round-based. See Culican 1982:15. Fariselli 2007 (17n40) states that Culican 1982:15 detected a distinctly Assyrian character to the lyre in the outer band of Cy13; hence she groups it with other eastern’ examples (Cr11, Cy3, U6). But Culican’s phrase particularly Assyrian features applies only to the player an important distinction. That the lyre is in fact western,’ as suggested by his drawing, is con rmed by its vertical orientation. 266 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Figure 31 Ivory pyxis with lyre ensemble, Nimrud, North Syrian school, n nth e ghth century. Baghdad D1 2. Drawn from Ma owan 19 fig. 1 8. As it happens, only the lyres exhibit clear morphological variety, between Lawergren’s eastern’ and western’ types. This evidence has been neglected in previous typological analyses of the corpus, even though when neighboring cultures share the same symbols yet choose to represent them very di erently, those di erences should be culturally signi cant. 116 Conversely musicologists have extracted the organological data from their larger iconographic contexts, without considering how the instruments support, complicate, or contradict prevailing classi cation schemes. The round-based lyres open analytical areas that evade the binary distinction between North Syrian and Phoenician schools (the instruments of these traditions being apparently too similar to di erentiate).117 116 117 Winter 1976:20. Since minor variations are always attributable to di erent workshops. But this uestion may reward closer scrutiny: cf. p268 and n118. 267 Chapter Eleven Figure 32 Sixth-century Egyptianizing limestone statue from Golgoi (?). ew or , MM .51.2509. Drawn from ect fig. 138. Note rst that the eastern morphology dominates the early phases of Markoe’s typological scheme. With one exception (G3: see below), the Aegean (including Crete) has produced only eastern specimens. Cy3, also with eastern lyre, is again of North Syrian derivation, its instrument strikingly similar to that of the ivory pyxis from Nimrud (Figure 31), although its depiction of Cypriot vessel-forms strongly suggests an insular workshop.118 Of Phoenician or intermediate style are OJA, Cr11, G8. 118 See p262n92. Nimrud pyxis (ND1642): Mallowan 1966:216, 218 g. 168; assignment to North Syrian group: Barnett 1935:189. U6 is closely related to Cy3, but travelled to Iran. 268 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus By contrast the four western’ examples (G3, Cy5, Cy7, Cy13) come from phases II I , suggesting a secondary development. It can hardly be coincidence that three have been found on Cyprus itself. Here we must accept the sane principle that, all other factors being e ual, a trait or artifact type probably originated somewhere near the center of its distribution. 119 This is con rmed by the presence of kypriaká in Cy5 and Cy13.120 Moreover, the instrument on Cy7 (Figure 30) has a decorative element on one of its arms that must correspond to the oral (papyrus ) detail found on lyres in the more re ned limestone statuary of the Cypro-Archaic and -Classical periods for example an Egyptiani ing sculpture (ca. 575) said to be from Golgoi (the arm is topped by a lion or gryphon head: Figure 32).121 These oral lyres are a vivid indication of a vibrant insular tradition going back to the Archaic period and doubtless beyond,122 and call to mind early Cypriot singers like Stasinos and Stasandros.123 Note too that these Cypriot lyres are apparently smaller, by and large, than those in Archaic representations of clear Greek provenance. The same seems true of the Hubbard lyrist, whose instrument might otherwise appear somewhat inexpertly rendered.124 These impressions are corroborated by countless terracotta votives of the Cypro-Geometric and -Archaic periods, which invariably show uite small instruments. It is thus possible that their pitch-range was often somewhat higher than Greek models.125 The way they are held is also distinctive, almost cradling’126 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 L. R. Binford, uoted by Winter 1990:14. See 262n92 93. MMA New ork inv. no. 74.51.2509 (45.2 cm high): Cesnola 1885, pl. II; Myres 1914:198 no. 1265; Karageorghis et al. 2000:132 no. 198, where the instrument is misidenti ed as a triangular harp (also Myres 1914:199 no. 1264; Aspects:147); Lawergren 1984:152n4 rightly recogni ed a roundbased lyre with only the front portion sculpted. A comparable α λ ς-player, probably also from Golgoi, was perhaps a companion piece: MMA inv. 74.51.2517; Myres 1914:198 no. 1264; Karageorghis et al. 2000:133 no. 199. A rather similar gure and lyre, but lacking the oral details, is Hermary 1989:284 285 no. 577, also dated to ca. 575. Note that oral/papyrus motifs are also seen in Egyptian instruments (see AEMI s.v. Decoration oral); one, dated to the rst uarter of the rst millennium, is peculiar for its round base, and might be related to the Cypriot instruments: see AEMI:87, 91. Other Cypriot oral lyres: mould-made female gurine, possibly from Lapethos and dated to ca. 600 480 (Karageorghis et al. 2000:148 149 no. 227). Another such gure (tomb, Idalion) apparently held a oral-post’ lyre; unfortunately the instrument is broken (Cesnola 1894, pl. no. 29; cf. pl. I no. 287). An especially interesting example from the Hellenistic period shows the in uence of the Greek kithára and/or contemporary Levantine specimens: see p278 and Figure 34. See p211 and further Franklin 2014:229 231. Cf. SIAG:9: its si e cannot be taken literally. Cf. Monloup 1994:111. This is not to be confused with the term cradle kithára’ (Wiegenkithara) which M. Wegner introduced to describe the shape of round-based instruments in Attic art ca. 550 400 which apparently perpetuate the earlier so-called phórminx even as the at-based concert kithára became 269 Chapter Eleven Figure 33 Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowl, before ca. 725. Olympia, Greece. Athens NM 7941. Drawn from PbSb G3. This clear evidence of local Cypriot preference in the phiálai should be compared, and contrasted, with the numerous nds from Italy/Etruria where the cult-music type-scene is strikingly absent.127 Its retention and development on Cyprus through the nal typological phases must be due to the funda- 127 the normal instrument of professionals (Wegner 1949:30 32; cf. SIAG:139). The insu ciency of this as a blanket term was noted by Lawergren 1985:27 et passim (cf. Lawergren 1984) in distinguishing a species common to Attica, Etruria, and (western) Anatolia, which he dubbed the cylinder kithára’ on the basis of the small round discs which appear to be wedged between body and arm-bases. This feature is generally lacking from Cypriot lyres, which accordingly must be recogni ed as yet another species. This should be added to the evidence there for local preferences in iconography, adaptation to new materials, and reorientation of use/ideology: synopsis in Neri 2000:3 13, noting e.g. 270 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus mental importance there of Aphrodite’/Astarte cult.128 This also accounts for the confrontation’ of western’ and eastern’ morphologies within an otherwise constant iconographic repertoire. For, while the Cypriot and Phoenician versions of the goddess were readily identi able in broad terms (hence the shared iconography),129 the respective cultural spheres maintained separate senses of identity (whence the variation of detail). Undoubtedly the morphological distinction implies complex social perceptions that developed and shifted, on a regional basis, with changing Phoenician political fortunes and other demographic trends. While most such nuances now escape us, they should be recogni ed as known unknowns’ that can at least help us frame relevant uestions. What should we make, for instance, of Cy6, which, though presenting an eastern’ instrument, carries a Greek inscription in the Cypro-Syllabic script, while its nd location (Kourion) is not especially distinguished as an area of Phoenician settlement Is it signi cant that the later typological phases are represented on Cyprus by only a single eastern specimen Should the presence of an early eastern’ example at Idalion be connected with Levantine metal-hunting in the Troodos foothills Should we associate the unusual model from Golgoi with the undeciphered language there 130 Or does elite exchange render any such regional analysis futile within the island After all, while the iconographic distinction between contemporary Cypriot and Syro-Levantine lyres is clearly intentional and culturally signi cant, each bowl en oyed a life of its own, and there is no practical basis for segregating one ethnicity from another in a bowl’s after-market existence. On the contrary, Cy6 suggests a uite general intermingling of Cypriots of all ethnic backgrounds in the context of elite drinking rituals during the eighth and seventh centuries. The Olympia bowl (Figure 33) is the only western’ lyre found in Greece itself. But this is no evidence of local manufacture for Aegean Greek consumption. Who would argue this for the other Aegean nds with eastern’ lyres Cr11, one should note, contains a Phoenician owner’s inscription, and of course we now know that there was an important Phoenician presence on Crete at Kommos. To be sure, the Lesbian poet Alkaios (ca. 600) knew of the Phoenician lyre’ ( h ni , presumably in a sympotic context). But it is precisely the exotic nature of both bowl and instrument that best accounts for their presence in the Aegean and the poetics of Alkaios (see further below). The Olympia bowl is 128 129 130 emphasis on martial themes and exclusively funerary nd-contexts; Markoe 2003:213 215 (materials/media). For which see generally Karageorghis 1977; Karageorghis 2005. A third-century Phoenician inscription from Paphos commemorates some dedication to Paphian Astarte ( ‘štrt pp ): Masson and S nycer 1972:p81 86; Bonnet 1996:160; Lipi ski 2004:106; Kypris:42. See p339, 350. 271 Chapter Eleven therefore most economically explained in the same terms, with the exception that it must be traced to an extra-Aegean source where round-based lyres were indeed established. Once again the obvious candidate is a Cypriot workshop. Stylistically the bowl seems to stand midway between the North Syrian and Phoenician schools.131 That it is inscribed with an Aramaean name is not problematic, given that Cy3, though produced locally, adheres to the North Syrian style (see above). Moreover, the island has produced a number of early (eighthseventh century) inscriptions in non-Phoenician Semitic languages, attesting the strong interaction among peoples on the island. 132 The bowl then came through elite circulation to Greece, where the lyre’s broad similarity to contemporary Aegean instruments would have made it both exotic and familiar though of course how it passed from Aramaean hands to its nal deposition at Olympia remains a mystery. Thus, in the symposium bowls too the western’ lyre-morphology presents a distinctly Cypriot aspect. With their temple-orchestra deployment, these instruments are a world apart from the Aegean. But despite the clear kinship of this performance tradition with the Levant, we need not dismiss its insular manifestation as secondary and derivative; nor assume that it dates only from the Phoenician colonial period. This may well be a mirage of the phiálai and novel iconographic fashions. Historical connections with Syro-Levantine cult practice, in my view, must be traced to the LBA (see Chapter 15), although one may allow a syncretic reconvergence in the ninth-eighth centuries. The Second-Millennium Adaptation of Kinýra The natural implication of our new lost daughter’ is that one or more preGreek forms of the word knr was/were already current on the LBA island, and persisted into the IA as Greek-Cypriot kinýra. There would remain a certain dissonance between the dominant round-based Cypriot morphology and the Syro-Levantine shapes with which one usually associates knr. Some may therefore suspect that both morphology and word disappeared from Cyprus after the LBA, to reappear with Phoenician settlement in the ninth century. Nevertheless, I believe this hypothesis of double importation’ can be con dently re ected, at least as regards the word. 131 132 Phoenician: Egyptiani ing gures, vertical partition of space (cf. Falsone 1988:101). North Syrian: rendition of god(dess)/o ering table motif, and central design (Frankfort 1970:327 328). Smith 2008:264 266 ( uotation), with references. Of course we must remember that eighthcentury Cilicia has also produced examples of western’ lyre-morphology in the Karatepe reliefs (see p251 253) and the Lyre-Player Group of Seals, which present complex interpretive challenges (Chapter 21). Nevertheless, a Cypriot origin for G3 remains the best explanation given the parallels of Cy5, Cy7, and Cy13. 272 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus Certainly the symposium bowls leave no doubt that a proper’ Phoenician dialect form with ( inn r) was known on Cyprus from at least ca. 900.133 Accordingly, some scholars believe this was when kinýra rst came into Greek,134 ust as Lawergren saw here the rst arrival of Levantine lyres to the island. Proponents of these views also connect both Gk.’ kinýra and Phoen. inn r (as opposed to Heb. inn r) with a rst-millennium Phoenician Shift’, whereby the inherited sound of the Canaanite Shift (ā ) further developed to in various dialects; the evidence for this is a recurrent oscillation between and in the Assyrian, Greek, and Latin representation of Phoenician words and names.135 But neither of these points is decisive. First, the bowls are misleading. Consider that, if one were to udge from iconography alone, the bowls would suggest that ensemble playing was an innovation of the ninth century. But the R p’iu text from Ugarit proves that this was not the case.136 A novelty in artistic representation need not imply a corresponding novelty in what is represented. Nor can the Phoenician Shift be so rigidly applied. The evidence for LBA Canaanite vocali ation is ambiguous, since neither the cuneiform of the Amarna letters (with transcriptions of Canaanite words and names), nor the special semi-syllabic Egyptian orthography used in the second millennium for writing foreign words (especially Canaanite), possessed separate signs for distinguishing from .137 Therefore it is impossible to establish an exact value between and during the LBA, and it may in any case have varied by dialect. A valuable parallel here is Gk. hr s s ( gold’), already attested in Linear B as ku-ru-so. The long upsilon reveals that this was borrowed from a Canaanite dialect form ar u , by contrast with Akk. and Ug. urā u.138 The Mycenaean form indicates that the Canaanite sound was closer to than , since these two values were distinguished in the Linear B syllabary. Even if this word entered Greek indirectly, with an intermediary language introducing an ad ustment of towards , hr s s remains a clear case of the sound of the Canaanite Shift 133 134 135 136 137 138 See p56 57. So Neil 1901:8; Albright 1964:171n47: Greek kinýra itself a loan from Phoenician kinnûr ; cf. GC:144n91. GC:144n91. For the phenomenon generally, Friedrich and R llig 1970 86; Friedrich et al. 1999:41 42 ( 79); Krahmalkov 2001:30 31 2b (conditioned by stress and syllable-closing). See p134 135. SL 21.3 and 21.9; cf. Huehnergard 2008:264. The Can. form ar u is reconstructible from a PN at Ugarit ( a ru e en ni, with Hurr. su x: Gr ndahl 1967:140; Sivan 1984:228) and vocali ation of the Heb. cognate ār . See S emerényi 1964:53 54 (viewing the reduction of the rst syllable in Greek ar - χρυσ- as a postMycenaean development, with Lin. B. ku-ru-so representing rather χυρ σ ς); Emprunts:37 38; S emerényi 1968:195 196; Priebatsch 1980:317; S emerényi 1981:116; SL 65.6; CAD s.v. urā u; DUL s.v. r . 273 Chapter Eleven reappearing elsewhere as already in the LBA. And this makes a contemporary adaptation of kinýra perfectly possible. With kinýra, however, the Semitic original’s long penultimate vowel has been reduced this time, certainly, due to the phonetic impact of an adapting language.139 This would naturally occur in a tongue for which, unlike Greek, vowel length was not phonemic (that is, did not contribute to distinctions of meaning). Such was probably the case with the pre-Greek language(s) of the Aegean.140 Whether the same was true on pre-Greek Cyprus is unclear, but E. L. Brown has reasonably suggested that kinýra could be due to a mere underdifferentiation of the o vowel in a Cypro-Minoan model. 141 Cyprus would indeed seem the obvious place for the adaptation, thanks to the prominent position occupied there by Kinyras and now Our en rist s Apollo. 142 Is it coincidence that Gk. mýrrha has also lost its Semitic vowel-length, and is so closely associated with Kinyras and Cyprus 143 ital support for the LBA chronology proposed here comes from the PN Kinyras (ki-nu-ra) at Mycenaean Pylos; I shall explore the contextual details fully in Chapter 17, showing that a derivation from knr is indeed probable, and perfectly compatible with the special Cypriot associations I have proposed. So I nd no positive linguistic reason to exclude a pre-Greek antecedent of kinýra from LBA Cyprus, and good circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis. Moreover, it can be corroborated by an independent line of argument. As mentioned above, Alkaios (ca. 600) is our earliest source for an instrument called h ni , the Phoenician (instrument)’. This and several related forms (phoiníkion, lyrophoínix, lyrophoiníkion) are mentioned by Herodotos, Aristoxenos, the Aristotelian Problems, and an array of later historiographical and lexical sources. Some kind of lyre is de nitely intended, and the ancient authors draw connections with Phoenicia, Syria, and Libya (presumably vis-à-vis the Punic colonies in north Africa).144 Now a general Greek awareness of Phoenician 139 140 141 142 143 144 For the geminate -nn-, see p213 214. Beekes 2009:xx, xxxii 6.2. Brown 1981:397 398. Cf. Brown 1981:397 398. Baurain 1980b:11 12 rightly stresses that Eteocypriot must have had a more important impact on Greek’ Cypriot words than is generally recogni ed; but obviously I cannot agree with his derivation of Kinyras’ from a hypothetical Eteocypriot form that was accidentally homophonous with WS knr, giving rise in later times to a false etymology from the lyre (8). See p191n71 and 477. The surprisingly numerous sources are assembled by AGM:59 (for the accentuation φοίνι , vs. φοῖνι LSJ , cf. Naoumides 1968:272; West 1990:7). Those bearing most closely on the present discussion are Alkaios p. 507 oigt Campbell 1982 1993, 1 fr. 424A; Herodotos 4.192; Athenaios 637b (Phoenician origin, citing Ephoros FGH 70 F 4 and Skamon FGH 476 F 4); Juba FGH 275 F 15 274 Lyric Landscapes of Early Cyprus instruments in the Archaic period is not in itself surprising. The discovery of the bowls in Aegean contexts is but one of many signs of an ongoing Phoenician cultural presence. Besides the stereotyped representation of the Phoenicians by Homer,145 Sappho’s colorful description of Hektor and Andromakhe’s arrival at Troy amidst mingling myrrh, cassia, and frankincense aromatics often imported via Phoenicia is a good parallel for her countryman Alkaios’ familiarity with the h ni .146 The pu le is rather that Greek sources never use kinýra in an unambiguously Phoenician context. Foreign instruments, admittedly, often received Greek nicknames (for instance paktís and tr nos, applied to harps arriving from points east).147 Nevertheless one would really expect kinýra to have been mentioned somewhere among the numerous late Classical and Hellenistic sources that attest a general Greek interest in foreign instruments.148 After all, the Phoenician nábla(s), sibling to the knr, en oyed a vogue in the fourth-century, appearing several times in the fragments of Attic comedy, apparently as a novelty.149 Kinýra, however, is missing even from the long list of foreign instruments drawn up by Aristoxenos around this same time in which, however, he does include phoínix!150 We must conclude therefore that, by h ni , Alkaios and other Greeks meant precisely what a Phoenician would have called inn r and not only Tyrians and Sidonians, but Phoenician Cypriots too. The absence of kinýra from Phoenician contexts, therefore, is strongly marked, and re uires explanation. The word was somehow unavailable for designating the Phoenician instruments with whose name it was nevertheless cognate. Evidently kinýra 145 146 147 148 149 150 ( Syrian’ origin); Hesykhios s.v. λυροφοίνι ε δος κιθάρας. It is tempting to connect Herodotos’ statement that the instrument’s arms were made from Libyan antelope horns with the eastern’ lyres of the Cypro-Phoenician bowls. This could explain rst not only the pronounced curls of the arms, but also why they are often asymmetrical and di erent from bowl to bowl. Admittedly, these curls can be readily fashioned in wood, as one sees in the six surviving Levantine-style lyres from Egypt (see p106). It may still be, however, that nely worked wooden instruments reproduced the lines of more rustic prototypes, ust as a Greek concert kithára’s curving back sometimes evoked the humble tortoise whose carapace was used in early and amateur lyres. Winter 1995. Sappho 44.30. Phoenician link: Herodotos 3.111.2, cf. 3.107.1. For the origins and routes of these spices, Miller 1969:42 47, 102 105 (frankincense and myrrh), 153 172 (cassia/cinnamon). Similarly one nds κλε ίαμβοι and ἐννεάχορδα in Aristoxenos’ list of foreign instruments (fr. 97 Wehrli). By the later fourth century, the Greek formation αλτ ριον ( plucking instrument’) emerged as a generic term for harp’ (AGM:74, with evidence for harps on 71 73), but could also be used to translate Heb. inn r: see p47n14, 194n43, 312n188. he Archaic vogue for harps was seemingly stimulated by an Assyriani ing fashion in Lydia: Franklin 2008, especially 197 198. See especially the important surveys in Athenaios 174a 185a, 634c 637f. For the σαμβ κ , νάβλα(ς), πανδο ρα, γίγγρας, and variants, AGM:75 80. Nábla(s): Bayer 1968 (Greek sources, 108 110); AGM:77. Cf. p53, 58. Aristoxenos fr. 97 Wehrli Athenaios 182f, reappearing at 636b in a discussion uoted from Phillis of Delos (FHG 4:476 fr. 2). 275 Chapter Eleven was already established in the Greek mind with di erent cultural associations, although of course this lexical situation must itself be sought at the edge of the Canaanite/Phoenician linguistic sphere. The solution to this pu le is that the Cypriot kinýra, though distinct from the Greek kithára, was Greek enough’ not to call for special comment.151 If it seem strange that Alkaios and others be so attuned to intra-Cypriot organological nuances, consider that the CyproPhoenician symposium bowls present ust such a careful distinction of Cypriot and Phoenician lyre-types. In other words, any awareness of Phoenician lyres in Archaic Greece (Alkaios, phiálai) will have been matched, a fortiori, by familiarity with models current among Greek-Cypriots. This is hardly surprising given the ongoing musical interaction between Cyprus and the Aegean, discussed above.152 It follows that kinýra was current on Cyprus prior to ca. 900, as already predicted. The round-based instruments whose popular Cypriot character is guaranteed by countless early terracotta votives, many predating the Phoenician colony period these will be the lyres anciently known as kinýra.153 There remains the discrepancy between these EIA Cypriot lyres and the shapes scholars usually associate with knr. But semantic/morphological shifts are uite common in the history of instruments. Many lyre names, for instance, persisted unchanged despite the almost universal transition to lutes in late anti uity and the early medieval period.154 I have also emphasi ed that LBA Cyprus could easily have housed wider lyric variety than is yet attested, with older insular shapes akin to the traditions of EBA MBA southern Anatolia and North Syria the lands around Cyprus. As I stressed at the outset,155 we must not be too categorical in assigning knr to one particular morphology. Its general applicability to the core Syro-Levantine types of the second and rst millennia is of course undoubted. But we do not know how the correspondence of name and shape may have uctuated along the cultural interfaces of the periphery at di erent periods. Conclusion This investigation, though raising many uestions, has reached some de nite conclusions. Considerable minor variations in the early iconographical record attest both the internal diversity of the island’s lyric culture, and its overall distinctiveness as an insular tradition. There is no doubt that Aegean 151 152 153 154 155 For this same yet di erent’ uality of the pair, see further p47n18, 195n48, 215n64. See p211 213. Kinýra must therefore supersede the lyre-cithare used by Monloup 1994, Chapter 3, of Cypriot round-based lyres. See Appendix D. See p53. 276 Figure 34 tatue of fema e yre ayer w th ate ora o t yre, o go , Hellenistic. New York, MMA 74.51.2480. Drawn from Cesnola 1885 pl. cii no. 676. Chapter Eleven and Levantine in uences were important determining factors. But the island was more than a receptive matrix. While the pre-Greek period remains largely a blank, we must not rule out an early lyric tradition here which had already di erentiated itself from the Levant before the fourteenth century and our long lost daughter of Kinyras’. She, in any case, now makes it as certain as can be that the pre-Greek island had its own lyric tradition(s), and that some form of knr was already established in Cypriot usage, being applied to instruments of contemporary Levantine morphology and very possibly earlier insular types. Whether the Aegean in ux induced a general transformation from eastern’ to western’ morphology, or whether round-based instruments were already established on the pre-Greek island alongside Levantine shapes, this pre-Greek lexical forerunner of kinýra persisted into the IA as the standard Greek-Cypriot word for lyre’, being applied to the characteristically Cypriot instruments of the early votives; it thus resisted absolute identi cation with the models brought by Phoenician colonists ca. 900. et, given the vigorous display of contemporary Phoenician tradition in the symposium bowls and the Phoenicians’ ongoing cultural presence, one should not be surprised to nd traces of Levantine lyremorphology enduring into later times. I would therefore conclude by noting, besides the occasional votives mentioned above,156 a particularly ex uisite sculpted instrument of the Hellenistic period that maintains the Archaic tradition of oral decoration (Figure 34).157 One could attribute its at base to the Greek kithára’s impact, but that outwardly aring arms make ongoing Levantine in uence e ually likely or more so. 156 157 See p260 and n80. Cesnola 1885, pl. cii no. 676; Myres 1914:190 no. 1238. For the tradition of oral decor, see p269. 278 12 Kinyras the Lamenter I n t e Gudea C linders, the court’ of Ningirsu included two separate balang-gods, one overseeing music to make the temple happy, the other to banish mourning from the mourning heart. 1 This dichotomy, re ecting basic aspects of human experience and their musical expression, is also found in the evidence for Kinyras. We have seen that Kinyras was a performing guise for the Cypriot kinyrists’ who played praise-hymns both in his own honor, and in the service of his master-god, the Cypriot Aphrodite.’ Now we must consider Kinyras’ connections with lamentation-singing, speci cally an early Cypriot threnodic tradition using and sometimes perhaps purposefully eschewing the kinýra. Those more familiar with the Greek world must recall that in Mesopotamia lamentation-singing was not always a personal a air responding to a speci c event like the death of a child or spouse. It was also used to soothe a wrathful or grieving god, both apotropaically and in a crisis. The prophylactic mode was tied to regular calendrical occasions, but could also be dictated by speci c events, including the building of temples and creation of cult-ob ects two examples relevant to the Kinyras material.2 The closest analogy in the Greek world, we shall see, are the seasonal threnodies allied to certain festivals and hero-cults. The rst evidence for Kinyras the Lamenter comes from a set of mournful predicaments in icted on and/or su ered by him and his children. These tragic plights typically yield some substance, ob ect, or process connected with Cypriot cult a clear indication that we are still a world apart from the Aegean, as was also suggested by the temple-orchestras of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls. We must then assemble material that lets the kinýra and its cognates be linked to threnody, as this is the practical medium that must have produced the lamentable Kinyras myths, and to which they allude. This tradition can then be further illuminated by a passage of Herodotos, who refers to lamentation-songs 1 2 See p26 33. See p29 30. 279 Chapter Twelve of Cyprus, Phoenicia, and Egypt which were essentially the same’ as the Aegean Linos-song’, for which we have much and early evidence. When kinýralamenting has been clari ed as far as possible, we can complete our examination of the Homeric variant discussed in Chapter 9, and see what is implied by having Phoinix petition Achilles as though lamenting to the kinýra’. I close with a note on the lyric threnody for Antinoos from Kourion (ca. 130/131 CE). Kinyras and His Cult Family Key evidence linking Kinyras to lamentation comes from Ovid’s ever-surprising Metamorphoses.3 Athena, in the weaving contest against Arachne, frames her web with four mythological competitions between mortals and gods, to show what reward to expect for such mad daring. 4 One alludes to an otherwise unknown Cinyras’ episode in which the king laments his daughters, who have been metamorphosed into parts of a temple: Bereft the corner holds Cinyras; And he, embracing temple steps his own daughters’ limbs Is seen to sob while lying on the stone.5 Although Kinyras does not weep explicitly (n.b.) in any extant Greek author, the very idea depends upon a Greek etymological association of Kinyras with in resthai and/or kinyrós both of which were connected, one way or another, with kinýra in late sources like Eustathios and the lexica.6 A key contribution of Ovid, therefore, is to guarantee the anti uity of the etymological complex, which accordingly goes back to his Hellenistic models at the latest. Actually we may be uite sure that the essential associations are much older still. For two persistent themes in the mythology of Kinyras’ children angered or grieving gods, and metamorphoses into ob ects or processes of cult echo far earlier conceptions relating to the professional functions of ritual lamenters in Mesopotamia. We may begin by considering the motive and outcome of the transformation ust cited. Like Athena’s other three scenes, the fate of Cinyras’ daughters should result from a speci c challenge to divine prerogative. There is no hint about the crime; but the probable Cypriot setting makes Aphrodite’ most likely to have 3 4 5 6 This passage was noticed by Ribichini 1982:500. Ovid Metamorphoses 6.83 85: ut … exemplis intellegat … / quod pretium speret pro tam furialibus ausis / quattuor in partes certamina quattuor addit. Ovid Metamorphoses 6.98 100: Cinyran habet angulus orbum; / isque gradus templi, natarum membra suarum, / amplectens saxoque iacens lacrimare videtur. As Boccaccio construed the Latin, Cinyras himself is changed to stone: Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.51; hence Bustron p. 14. See p187 189. 280 Kinyras the Lamenter been slighted, as with several of Kinyras’ other children.7 The closest parallel for the actual metamorphosis is also found in Ovid, the Propoetides of Amathous (a city whose connection with Kinyras and Eteocypriot culture we shall see). These girls, having denied the divinity of enus’, were made to prostitute themselves until turned to hard int’ (in rigidum … silicem) by lack of shame.8 This is presumably an aetiology for some feature of the goddess’s temple in that city. Scholars have thought variously of betyls, stelai, or a statue-group.9 There is to be sure the story of the stony-hearted Anaxarete of Cypriot Salamis, transformed into a statue for refusing the love of Iphis.10 et Lat. silex more naturally suggests architectural members, as in the Cinyras episode.11 A further parallel has been sought in the myth that Kinyras’ daughters Orsedike, Laogore, and Braisia were forced by an angry Aphrodite presumably they neglected her cult or vied with her in beauty to sleep with foreigners, nishing their lives in Egypt.12 Some would relate both tales to allegations of sacred prostitution on Cyprus,13 but this would not account for the second’s connection with Egypt, nor is there any mention there of prostitution; I have alternative explanations to o er.14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 That the second and third exempla concern Juno occasioned the guess (so rightly B mer 1969 1986 3:34) of ps.-Lactantius Placidus that here too Juno was o ended, and that hers was the temple where Kinyras’ daughters served as steps (Summaries of Ovidian Tales 6.1: Cinyrae, regis Ass riorum raeterea lias o insolentiam a eadem dea in radus tem li sui la ide mutatas). This view was followed by Engel 1841 2:127 128, assuming that fty daughters were in uestion. Ps.-Lactantius is evidently also the origin of a distinction between Ovid’s rst Cinyras as king of the Assyrians and the poet’s explicitly Cypriot second Cinyras. The idea was elaborated by Theodontius (who used ps.-Lactantius elsewhere) and so passed into Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.51 and Bustron p14; this explains why the rst Cinyras was ignored altogether by tienne de Lusignan (see p559 and n19). Ps.-Lactantius probably took his Assyrian Kinyras from Hyginus, a regular source for the Narrator’ (Cameron 2004:6 7), even though Hyginus himself was treating the Myrrha story, and makes Cinyras son of Paphos despite the Assyrian’ setting The distinction of an earlier and later Cinyras probably en oyed some specious support from the large interval that separates the episodes in Ovid. et both are free of the poet’s overarching chronological scheme, being embedded in other narratives (Athena’s web and the song of Orpheus, respectively). Ovid Metamorphoses 10.238 242. HC:80n2, thinking of some group of statues at Amathous; Kypris:78 79; Papantonio 2012:274 (betyls or stelai). Ovid Metamorphoses 14.698 764. A variant on the story is Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 39 (from the third-century Hermesianax). See OLD s.v. 1b. Apollodoros Library 3.14.3 4. Engel 1841 2:127; HC:71 and n1. See also p250n41. It is worth noting that, according to Justin (Epitome 18.5), the one-o pre-marriage prostitution of Cypriot maidens was meant to appease Aphrodite prior to a life of monogamous modesty. See p250. The ps.-Apollodoros passage is probably also related to a peculiar version of the Adonis tale recorded in Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18, where again there is no idea of prostitution: see further p512 516. 281 Chapter Twelve A di erent approach is suggested by the Mesopotamian material discussed in Chapter 2. We saw in the Gudea Cylinders that elements of Ningirsu’s temple, and attributa of the god himself, were mythologi ed as his family members or court intimates (one son, for instance, was the dei ed door of the hall of ustice).15 To understand how such conceptions begat actual myths, recall A. Livingstone’s observation that Babylonian ritual was mythogenic through its use of statues and other embodiments of deity, including divini ed cult-ob ects.16 The image of Kinyras weeping while lying on and embracing his step-daughters’ can be explained by the role of ritual lamenters in the fabrication and repair of temples, divine statues, and cult-ob ects. The purpose of such singing was to avert any divine anger that may have caused a repair to be necessary, or which might be aroused through construction or modi cation to an existing element. While much lamentation-song transpired on a regularly scheduled basis before a god’s statue, repairs called for performance at the location a ected (temple roofs, gates, and walls), or at a sacred workshop in the case of statues or cultob ects. Such a background satisfactorily accounts for every certain element of Ovid’s otherwise peculiar vignette. A second myth that ts this pattern, also in the Metamorphoses, is treated by Ovid at much greater length. This is the terrible tale of Myrrha (or Smyrna), whose seduction of her father earned Kinyras here Cinyras his principal place in the western canon.17 Once again, cultic aetiology is combined with lachrymosity. But this time the tears are those of Cinyras’ daughter. Myrrha embodies myrrh (Ug./Phoen. mr, Gk. mýrra), the resinous arboreal sap imported to the Levant from East Africa (Punt) and coastal Arabia from the second millennium onwards, and probably known earlier still in Egypt.18 It was used for incense-o erings, perfumed-oils for anointing statues and kings, embalming the dead (Egypt), as an additive to wine, and in a variety of medical applications.19 Myrrh was an important element of Ugaritian ritual, 15 16 17 18 19 See p27. See p25. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.298 502; further brief allusions at Art of Love 1.285 288 (already emphasi ing tears), Remedy for Love 99 100, Ibis 361. For the tale’s medieval and Renaissance reception, see Flinker 1980, discussing allegories of Myrrha as the irgin Mary (impregnated by the father’ and begetting Adonis, e uated with Jesus). Dryden used the myth for a satirical political allegory of the Glorious Revolution’ (1688): Lee 2004; also Hopkins 1985. Groom 1981; Miller 1969:104 105, 108; RlA 8:534 537 (Karg/Farber, Myrrhe). Lexical material and semantic analysis: Emprunts:54 56; B mer 1969 1986 5:114; CAD s.v. murru (but the word was applied to other local aromatic plants in Akk.). The typology and distribution of early censers is being exhaustively treated by immerle forthcoming. See further Emprunts:54 56; Groom 1981:1 21; Ribichini 1981:50; Miller 1969:108; Detienne 1994:6 7, 148n6 with references. 282 Kinyras the Lamenter where it is the only aromatic explicitly named an indication of its prestige.20 The anthropomorphosis of Myrrha suggests that myrrh too was once divini ed in a still unknown mainland pantheon for instance Byblos, where the myth is often located (Chapter 19). A strong parallel for this is the Divine Censer of the Ugaritian pantheon texts, immediately ad acent to the Divine Kinnaru.21 For Fra er the myth’s incest motif derived from early attempts to control matrilineal royal succession.22 B mer saw here rather a re ection of the Paphian princesses’ duties in the cult (not necessarily sexual), over which their royal father presided as high priest.23 Capomacchia argues that the incest motif simply re ects Greek ideas of the Orient as a place where normal behavior is inverted.24 This may be, but speci c ritual contexts or theological constructs relating to myrrh itself must have helped shape the myth. Thus Grottanelli, shifting the focus to Myrrha and the perfumed Adonis, rightly looks to royal salving rites like those attested in Hittite, Egyptian, and Biblical sources, incense o erings in royal ancestor cult, and the use of myrrh in royal burials (including an epigraphic example from fth-century Byblos).25 A further suggestive analogy is found in a N-A mystic ritual enacting the descent of Tammu to the underworld: one section de nes the substances used as body parts of the kidnapped god , with myrrh called his semen.26 Myrrh’s aphrodisiac uses must be relevant.27 Given Kinyras’ connection with the perfumed oil industry, the Cypriot Myrrha was probably linked with mýron—oil infused with myrrh, frankincense, cassia, and/or sa ron.28 This was used among other things for smoke-o erings, as must have featured in the Kinyrad cult of Old Paphos with its bloodless altar of 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See RCU:275, restoring myrrh in RS 1.003.20 (KTU/CAT 1.41) from RS 18.056.22; also RS 13.006.5. These are respectively texts 15A, 15B, and 30 in RCU. See p5, 103, 121, 124. Fra er 1914 1:43 44. See p174. B mer 1969 1986 5:113. Capomacchia 1984. Grottanelli 1984, with reference to Adonis’ associations with perfume (for which see Detienne 1994), Jeremiah 34:5 (incense and laments for dead kings), anointing imagery in the Song of Solomon, etc.; the Byblian inscription is discussed on p. 55. For The Rites of Egašankalamma, see Livingstone 1989:95 98 (no. 38); cf. also Jacobsen 1975:72 73. The relevant passage is rev. 5 20, with myrrh in 13. Note also the closing formula at 20, which shows that this was a mystic ritual: Secret lore of the great gods. An initiate may show it to another initiate ; the uninitiated may not see it. The esoteric symbolism was thus formulated by a priestly cli ue for practical application. Fulgentius Mythologies 3.8 (citing Petronius). Myrrh appears in erotic contexts also in Proverbs 7:17; Song of Songs 5:13. Cf. Lykophron Alexandra 829: μ ρραν θεν καὶ τὸ μ ρον καλεῖται. For the elusive etymological relationship between these words, see Frisk 1960 s.v. μ ρρα; Chantraine 1968 s.v. μ ρον (folk etymology). 283 Chapter Twelve Aphrodite,29 and provides apt employment for the perfumed-oil-worker (mu-rowo-ro-ko = myroworgós) of a sixth-century inscription from the nearby sanctuary of Rantidi.30 In a remarkable travesty of Kinyrad icons, Antiphanes, the fourthcentury comic poet, puts mýron in another context describing a Paphian king as smeared with scented-oil from Syria so that, as he dined, sacred doves would hover about and fan him with their wings.31 Dramatic epiphany The story of Myrrha/Smyrna was known in Greece from at least the fth century, when it was treated by Panyassis, the epic poet and kinsman of Herodotos, who made the father Theias king of Assyria’ Kinyras’ doppelganger normally connected with Byblos.32 Some would see the Kinyras version of the tale behind the sexual struggle of Kinesias ( Kinyras) and Myrrhina ( Myrrha) in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata,33 but I nd this unlikely. Kinyras did feature in the lost poem on lamentable romantic predicaments by Antimakhos of Colophon ( . ca. 400), and this may have touched upon Adonis’ tearful conception.34 A tragedy of unknown authorship, in which both Kinyras and Myrrha died, was playing at the Macedonian royal court when Philip was assassinated in 336.35 Kleitarkhos cited the Theias/Byblos version of the myth in connection, presumably, with Alexander’s Phoenician campaign,36 and the tale, with or without Kinyras, remained popular throughout Hellenistic and later times.37 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 See p413. Myrrh and other spices’ in smoke-o erings: Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food 2.5.3 5 Theophrastos On Piety fr. 2 P tscher (584A Fortenbaugh); cf. Detienne 1994:38 39. Mitford 1961b:13 14 no. 6.1, with discussion and parallels (including - οργ ς compounds in Lin. B); SEG 20:225; I.Rantidi 2.1; DGAC:768 no. 171.1. Antiphanes fr. 200 PCG ( Athenaios 257d), especially 5 9: ἐρριπί ετο / πὸ τῶν περιστερῶν / δειπνῶν βασιλε ς / λείφετο / ἐκ τῆς υρίας ἥκοντι τοιο τῳ μ ρῳ. This passage is discussed by Grottanelli 1984:48 49, arguing for its relevance to Syro-Levantine royal ritual beneath the caricature. For Aphrodite’s doves, see p238 and n108. Panyassis fr. 22ab EGF fr. 27 PEG Apollodoros Library 3.14.4. For Theias at Byblos, see further p466 468. Ahl 1985:218 223; Detienne 1994:63 64. Since Antimakhos with lamentations lled his sacred / scrolls (Hermesianax 7.45 46 CA: γ ων δ’ ἐνεπλ σατο βίβλους / ἱράς), his account of Adonis as son of Kinyras (fr. 92 Matthews 1996) must have treated his death and lamentation. Tragica Adespota 5d TGF; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 19.94; Suetonius Caligula 57. Discussed by Tsabl 2009:237 243. From around this same time comes an Apulian red- gure pelike, showing Aphrodite and Demeter competing for Adonis in the main register, and perhaps Myrrha and her nurse on the neck: LIMC s.v. Myrrha no. 2. Kleitarkhos FGH 137 F 3; Stobaios Anthology 40.20.73. See p492. For the version of Theodoros (SH 749), see below n43. The story was also treated by the Cypriot ἱστορικ ς enophon (Suda s.v. ενοφῶν), for whom see further Appendix G. Other sources: Theokritos Idylls 1.109; Lykophron Alexandra 828 830 (Byblian setting, see ad 829, 831); for Cinna, see below; Lucian On Dancing 58; Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 34 (from Panyassis Nikandros Papathomopoulos 1968: ix xix, 146 148); Apollodoros Library 3.14.4; Hyginus Fabulae 58, 242, 251, 271, cf. 248, 275; Nemesianus Cynegetica 26 29; Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18, Aeneid 5.72; Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.460, 32.30, 220, 42.346, 48.267; Hesykhios s.v. 284 Figure 35 Myrrha ee ng, utt ng ewer n o t on of nyra . oman fre co from or Maranc o, ca. 150 250 , after e en t c or g na . at can, a a de e o e do rand ne. Drawn from L M . . Myrrha no. 1. Chapter Twelve Cinna, drawing perhaps on Parthenios, introduced the story, with Cinyras, to Rome. His Zmyrna, a neoteric tour-de-force nine years in the making (ca. 65 56) coinciding with the Roman takeover of Cyprus (58) was so recherché, and su ciently popular, that a commentary was produced by Crassicius Pansa in Augustan times.38 That the ma ority of certain artistic representations of Myrrha are from the Roman period may owe as much to Cinna as to Ovid (Figure 35).39 As it happens, one of the Zmyrna’s few fragments mentions the heroine’s tears, predicting the central role of this motif in Ovid.40 This element must have been traditional, sap-drops being so described by botanical writers as early as Aristotle and Theophrastos doubtless adapting a popular usage of considerable anti uity.41 This and other details from Cinna’s masterpiece presented Ovid with intertextual opportunities too good to s uander; like the poet of the ergilian Ciris, he engaged with the Zmyrna closely.42 But Ovid was never slavish, and may have incorporated elements from one or more other versions available in the fashionable transformation-anthologies of the Hellenistic period.43 38 39 40 41 42 43 μυρίκ ; Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Isaiah 2.3 (PG 70:440C); Fulgentius Mythologies 3.8; Mythographi Vaticani 1.60. Nine-years: Catullus 95; uintilian Institutio Oratoria 10.4.4; Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 9.35. Pansa’s commentary: Suetonius On Grammarians 18. See further Wiseman 1974:48; B mer 1969 1986 5:111 112; Wiseman 1985; Courtney FLP:218 220, 306. That Cinna was in turn alluding to an Adonis poem by Parthenios is suggested by Catullus’ mention, in praising the Zmyrna, of the Satrachus/Setrakhos, a rarely attested river with which Parthenios also dealt (the name otherwise appearing only in Lykophron Alexandra 448; Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.459): see Lightfoot 1999:183 on her fr. 29 (SH 641), and below p500 501. Atallah 1966:48; LIMC s.v. Myrrha no. 1, 4 5 ( Adonis 3 4), ca. 70 250 CE. Cinna fr. 6, 8 Courtney FLP. The tears of Myrrha/Smyrna may often be implicit in descriptions of myrrh as tears’ of sap: Homer Iliad 19.5; Aristotle Metaphysics 388b18, 389a14 (cf. Alexandros of Aphrodisias ad loc., Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics 3.2, p220.22); Theophrastos History of Plants 4.4.12, 7.6.3, 9.1.2, 4 (with perhaps an allusion in Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food 2.5.1 2 Theophrastos On Piety fr. 2 P tscher, 584A Fortenbaugh , but cf. 2.6.4); Posidonius FGH 87 F 114; Diodoros Siculus 2.49.2; Ovid Art of Love 1.285 288; Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 196; Columella On Agriculture 10.1.1; Dioskourides On Medical Material 1.24.1, 64.1, 66.1; Plutarch Moralia 384b; Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 6.22.4; Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 34.4; Oribasios Collectiones medicae 12 35, 57; Fulgentius Mythologies 3.8; Paul of Aegina 7.3.10. Note also Pindar fr. 122.3 Athenaios 574a, of frankincense. For uotations and allusions to Cinna’s version in ergil Ciris (e.g. 238 240), see Lyne 1978:39 44, 185 186 et passim. Lyne shows that Cinna is the common source for ideas and diction shared by Ovid’s Myrrha and the Ciris. We may deduce, for example, that Cinna’s heroine ed to Arabia, given Ovid’s palmiferos Arabas Panchaeaque rura relinquit (10.478) and the nurse’s allusion at Ciris 237 238: ei mihi, ne furor ille tuos invaserit artus, / ille Arabae Myrrhae quondam qui cepit ocellos. For further such proposals see Thomas 1981:371 373. For Cinna’s legacy generally, see Wiseman 1974:56 58. An attractive candidate here is Theodoros, who dealt with transformations in epic verse (Suda s.v. ε δωρος). Relatively little is known about him (Forbes Irving 1990:240; RE 5 1934 , 1809 286 Kinyras the Lamenter Ovid has Myrrha driven by a Fury to fall in love with her father, who exempli es all that is good and noble. The poet elaborates Myrrha’s inner torment, harping on the continual tears that determine her transformation.44 The fatal opportunity comes when the girl’s mother Cenchreis45 is absent, and abstinent, at a nine-day festival of Ceres’.46 A conniving nurse successfully proposes to Cinyras an anonymous tryst with a beauty she describes as ust his daughter’s age, and very similar in looks.47 Cinyras is all-too-willing. With a possible reminiscence of Aeneas’ katábasis to Anchises,48 the nurse leads Myrrha in darkness to her father’s chamber. For Cinyras it was fun while it lasted. But overcome with curiosity on the nal night, he discovers his mysterious partner by lamplight and, enraged, whips out his sword (with an Ovidian double-entendre).49 Myrrha ees and wanders through the palm-bearing plains of Arabia and the districts of Panchaea and nally the Sabaeans that is, through the historical and legendary lands from which myrrh came, or was believed to.50 Half dead, half alive, she begs the gods for release. Her prayers answered, Myrrha is 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 18 ). But his collection contained a version of Kinyras/Myrrha (SH 749 Plutarch Moralia 310f Stobaios Anthology 4.20.71), and we are told that Ovid, in treating the myth of (H)alcyon (Metamorphoses 11.410 748), combined the versions of Theodoros and Nikandros: Probus on ergil Georgics 1.399 (SH 750: in altera sequitur Ovidius Nicandrum, in altera Theodorum). For Ovid’s sources in the Metamorphoses more generally, see Cameron 2004:268 274. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.360 (su undit lumina rore); 361 362 ( in ras flere etat); 387 (tum denique flere aca it, of the nurse); 406 (lacrimantem); 419 (lacrimisque … obortis); 500 501 (flet tamen et tepidae manant ex arbore guttae. / est honor et lacrimis etc.); 509, tears in childbirth (lacrimisque cadentibus umet); 514: Naïdes impositum lacrimis unxere parentis (baby Adonis anointed with his mother’s tears). For speculation about this name, Engel 1841 2:126 127 (extension of the mythology binding Cypriot and Saronic Salamis); similarly Stoll in Roscher Lex.:1190; B mer 1969 1986 5:113 114. Ovid has the women robed in white, o ering grain-wreaths as rst fruits, and nine days chaste. This setting is uni ue (Fra er 1914 1:43n4 looked to Theodoros), but has a genuine Cypriot avor. A decree from Amathous (n.b.) records a sacri ce to Aphrodite for the fertility of crops (GIBM 4:2 975; HC:78), which can be connected with Hesykhios’ reference to a fruits-o ering for Aphrodite in the same city (s.v. κάρπωσις θυσία φροδίτ ς ἐν μαθο ντι) and to Demeteri ing’ on Cyprus more generally (s.v. αματρ ειν τὸ συνάγειν τὸν μ τριακὸν καρπ ν. Κ πριοι). A high priestess of Demeter for the island is also known, her cult-center probably at New Paphos (Mitford 1990:2182, with LBW 801). A temenos of Demeter and Kore is attested at Kourion (fourth century: I.Kourion 6), and our Kore is invoked in the loyalty oath to Tiberius (see p205). Cf. Apuleius Golden Ass 11.2, where Ceres, enus, and Paphos appear among the many names by which the ueen of Heaven (regina caeli) was known. There is also the myth that Adonis was shared by Aphrodite and Persephone for six months each: Theokritos Idylls 3.48, cf. 1.109; Apollodoros Library 3.14.4; Hyginus Astronomica 2.6; Ailianos On the Nature of Animals 9.36. Antoninus Liberalis Metamorphoses 34 calls the nurse Hippolyte: cf. Papathomopoulos 1968:146. Dyson 1998 1999. For the sexual word play, see Ahl 1985:223. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.476 480. For the (semi-)legendary treatment of the spice-lands, Detienne 1994:5 36. 287 Chapter Twelve transformed into the myrrh-tree; the baby Adonis, busting out at end of term, is anointed with his mother’s sappy tears. Although Ovid’s two Cinyras scenes are obviously unrelated, the poet used the rst to preview his greater attraction. Embracing temple steps, his own daughters’ limbs and lying on the stone would readily assume an incestuous avor for readers primed by Cinna. And while Kinyras himself does not lament in the Myrrha episode, the earlier vignette makes ironic his re uest that she not weep during their lovemaking. The mournful Kinyras is also implied by the description of Myrrha as virgo Cinyreïa ( Cinyreian maiden’), where the patronymic clearly suggests Gk. kinyrós ( mournful’).51 Being a child of Cinyras means familiarity’ with tears and mourning. Several variants in the Myrrha tale may be noted. According to Servius, Myrrha was driven to seduce her father by the anger of the Sun (no further details are given).52 This may be related to the sun’s imagined role in the production of myrrh,53 or perhaps one of Kinyras’ semi-solar lineages (Chapter 21). For Hyginus, Myrrha’s obsession was brought about by her mother’s boast that her daughter was lovelier than enus; after the a air the anguished Cinyras, here king of Assyria’, kills himself.54 Elsewhere Aphrodite is angered by Myrrha/ Smyrna’s claim to have better hair.55 aguer sources agree that Myrrha’s lust was caused by some failure to honor the goddess.56 Every case involves divine 51 52 53 54 55 56 Ovid Metamorphoses 10.369. Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18. Krappe 1941 1942, in an outmoded solar reading of the myth (spurned by Atallah 1966:50), suggested a connection between Kinyras’ double Theias (see p466 468) and Theia, wife of Hyperion and mother of Helios, Selene, and Eos (Hesiod Theogony 371 374, cf. 134 135). But Theia’ is a rather bland name, perhaps coined by Hesiod for its rhyme with Rheia in 135 (West ad loc.). Fulgentius, after telling the tale of Myrrha without naming her father, proceeds to read it as an allegory for myrrh production; Myrrha’s infatuation for her father is her love of the Sun, since he is father of all things (Mythologies 3.8; resumed by Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.52). Cf. Groom 1981:143 146; Detienne 1994:6 9. Hyginus Fabulae 58, 242 (who follows Ovid in naming the mother Cenchreis, and in making Kinyras son of Paphos); the same motive is found in Lactantius Placidus Summaries of Ovidian Tales 10.9. Kinyras also kills himself in the anonymous Hellenistic tragedy (see p284) and in Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 34.4. Theokritos Idylls 1.109. This may explain the mirror held by Myrrha in the fourth-century vase mentioned in n35 above. Aphrodite’s anger was mentioned by Theodoros (SH 749); Apollodoros Library 3.14.3 4 (κατ μῆνιν φροδίτ ς ο γ ρ α τ ν ἐτίμα; but note that Smyrna appears here as the daughter not of Kinyras, but Theias, for whom see p466 468); cf. Hyginus Fabulae 251 voluntate Veneris. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.311 314 blames the episode on a Fury; the possibility of divine anger is broached at 396 399. The use of magic to soothe the gods in ergil Ciris 258 262 is probably based on a scene in Cinna’s Zmyrna: see Lyne 1978 ad loc. Detienne 1994:64 seeks the o ense in Myrrha’s spurned suitors, but both Ovid and Antoninus Liberalis make it clear that her re ection of them is due to a preexisting love for her father. 288 Kinyras the Lamenter anger and a tearful outcome. But a nal variant, probably original to Cyprus and perhaps late and popular, linked Myrrha not with myrrh but myrtle (mýrtos), a plant often associated with Aphrodite and not obviously tearlike.57 Several other familiars of Kinyras may be connected with cult-ob ects or processes, although the motifs of divine anger and tearfulness are not always so clearly emphasi ed as with Myrrha or Kinyras and his temple-step daughters. The myth of Pygmalion, Cypriot king and sometimes Kinyras’ grandfather or father-in-law, is clearly relevant. His love for a statue either brought to life by Aphrodite, or of the goddess herself must re ect the divini ation of cult images, a practice known throughout ANE history. Some form of hierogamy is also suggested by versions in which Pygmalion lay with the statue itself.58 These thematic similarities may have inspired Ovid to devise the succession Pygmalion-Paphos-Cinyras, not attested in any other ancient source.59 We saw that a wrathful Apollo destroyed Kinyras in a musical contest, leading to the metamorphosis of the king’s daughters into halcyons. This I suggested aetiologi ed threnodic female choruses like those that appear in the Cypro-Phoenician bowls.60 Note that birds chased from a temple, or a city destroyed through a god’s anger, are a common image of Mesopotamian Emesal prayers/laments.61 A possible son Amaracus, connected with perfume-making, was metamorphosed into mar oram; according to tienne de Lusignan he too like Adonis, Myrrha, and Cinaras’ was numbered among the gods. This tale, as scantily preserved, does not mention an angered or grieving divinity (Lusignan’s version is euhemeri ing); rather it is the boy’s confusion’ or shame’ that ends in his transformation. But the link between Amaracus and Kinyras is not certainly ancient.62 A nal group of myths relates to the death of Kinyras’ son Adonis, and the annual lamentations instituted as a result. The father-son relationship itself re ects an aspect of ritual poetics (see below), though we now shift from occasional lamentation (construction of temples, cult-ob ects) to periodic, calendrical performances. Whether on Cyprus such laments were exclusively tied to Adonis is another uestion, for Kinyras is not attested as his father before 57 58 59 60 61 62 Servius Auctus on ergil Aeneid 5.72 (cf. 2.64: Paphiae … myrtus); cf. Detienne 1994:63. The statue as Aphrodite herself, with which Pygmalion lays: Philostephanos FHG 3.31 fr. 13 (from the ερὶ Κ πρου); Arnobius Against the Pagans 6.22. Aphrodite brings statue to life: Ovid Metamorphoses 10.243 297. Divini ation of statues in the ANE: Matsushima 1993. See further Appendix F. See p191. PHG:32. See p331 332. 289 Chapter Twelve the later fth century.63 Adonis himself is a complex gure, e ually locali ed at Byblos with and without Kinyras where his death and rebirth shaped an annual ritual cycle involving death, lamentation, and perhaps a kind of resurrection (see Chapter 19). Of the innumerable sources, the most relevant here, found in Servius, aetiologi es not only Aphrodite’s establishment of Adonislaments, but her sacred apples and doves.64 All of these elements are integrated into Kinyras’ family circle: This is the story about how the apple-tree (melus) took its name in Greek (mêlon/mâlon). A certain Melus, born in the island of Delos, forsook his homeland and ed to the island of Cyprus where at that time Cinyras was king, having Adonis as his son. Cinyras bade Melus be a friend to his son, and when he saw that Melus was of a good nature, gave him one of his relatives to marry, called Pelia Gk. Péleia , who was herself a devotee of enus. From them was born sc. another Melus, whom afterwards enus, being gripped by love for Adonis, ordered to be raised among her altars as if he were the son of her beloved. But after Adonis was killed by the wound from the boar, the senior Melus, unable to endure his grief for the death of Adonis, hung himself from a tree and so ended his life. It is from this man’s name that the apple-tree is so called. And his wife Pelia died in turn by hanging herself in this tree. enus, driven by pity for their death, established perennial mourning (luctum) for Adonis, turned Melus into the fruit-tree of his own name, and transformed his wife Pelia into a dove. As to the younger Melus, who alone survived of Cinyras’ line, when enus saw that he had reached manhood, she ordered him to gather a band of men and return to Delos.65 63 64 65 Adonis as son of Kinyras: Plato Comicus fr. 3 PCG (with Athenaios 456a); Antimakhos fr. 92 (Matthews 1996, with comments on 256 257) Probus on ergil Eclogues 10.18 102 IEG. Other sources include Theokritos Idylls 1.109; Dionysios the Periegete 509 (FGH 758 F 3a), where the mother is Thymarete; Ailianos On the Nature of Animals 9.36; Apollodoros Library 3.14.3, with mother Metharme. For Thymarete and Metharme (doublets), see p497 498, 512. Aphrodite is shown holding apples from the Archaic period onwards: LIMC s.v. Aphrodite no. 61, 89, 172, 237, etc. Doves: see p236 and n108. Does the passage between Cyprus and Delos that begins and ends this myth re ect some communication between the cults of Kinyras and Delian Apollo (cf. Engel 1841 2:129) Are Delo/Delum errors for Melo/Melum (see Thilo’s ap. crit.) The story concludes: And he the younger Melus , after reaching the island Delos and making himself master of the situation there, founded the state of Melos. And when he rst ordained that sheep be shorn and cloth be made from their wool, it was right that they be called mêla from his name (since sheep are called mêla in Greek). Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 8.37 (ed. Thilo): unde melus graece traxerit nomen, fabula talis est: Melus quidam, in Delo insula ortus, relicta patria fugit ad insulam Cyprum, in qua eo tempore Cinyras re na at ha ens lium Adonem hic elum sociatum Adoni lio iussit esse cum ue eum ideret esse 290 Kinyras the Lamenter The recurrence in these tales of an angered or grieving Aphrodite is striking in view of the Mesopotamian charter-myth that Enki created the lamentation priest (gala/kalû) to assuage Inanna’s grief.66 It can hardly be coincidence that Kinyras is the personi cation of the knr, de ned as the divine Inannainstrument’ in second-millennium Mesopotamian scribal tradition; and that versions of this instrument, including the Cypriot kinýra, are associated with lamentative contexts (see further below). While Kinyras’ role as Aphrodite’s priest and lover accords with the Mesopotamian pattern of cult-ob ects as familiars of their master-god, there is an analogous relationship between Kinyras and his own cult-ob ect children. He is the hub of a miniature myth-cycle, the king within whose realm’ their metamorphoses transpire. These relationships should re uire, by the Mesopotamian parallels, that Kinyras himself be a god, even if his own worship was subordinated to the goddess. This second-in-command’ status must re ect the controlling role of kinyrists in the cult, as is also implied by the title Kinyradai at Paphos.67 Between ong and ence Ovid’s portrait of Kinyras weeping suggests not only the posture of a lamentation priest, but a grieving god who himself needs calming. Here we must recall the remarkable Ishtar ritual and lamentation oratorio’ Uru’amma’irabi, performed at OB Mari and focused on the divini ed balang Ninigi ibara which is called the goddess’s spouse or lover.68 The balang somehow represented Ishtar as she mourned for, among other things, the death of Dumu i and the destruction of her balang.69 If Ninigi ibara was not itself played, as Gabbay suggests, this would suit the divine mood and the conceit of the instrument’s loss; in this scenario, the balang was rather the target of song by lamentation priests and groups 66 67 68 69 indolis bonae, propinquam suam, dicatam et ipsam Veneri, quae Pelia dicebatur, Melo coniunxit. ex quibus nascitur elus uem enus ro terea uod Adonis amore teneretur tam uam amati lium inter aras raece it nutriri sed ost uam Adonis a ri ictu e tinctus est sene elus cum dolorem mortis Adonis ferre non osset la ueo se ad ar orem sus endens itam nit e cuius nomine melus a ellata est Pelia autem coniu eius in ea ar ore se ad endens necata est enus misericordia eorum mortisducta Adoni luctum continuum praestitit, Melum in pomum sui nominis vertit, Peliam coniugem eius in columbam muta it elum autem uerum ui de in rae enere solus su ererat cum adultum idisset collecta manu, redire ad Delum praecepit. qui cum ad insulam pervenisset et rerum ibi esset potitus, Melon condidit ci itatem et cum rimus o es tonderi et estem de lanis eri instituisset meruit ut eius nomine o es μῆλα vocarentur; graece enim oves μῆλα appellantur. See p29. See Chapter 16. Recall the apparent use of lyre-music during o erings to cult-ob ects in one Hittite text: p94n23. See p291. See p291 292, and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, Section 2c, 2d, 4a, 23f. 291 Chapter Twelve of male and female musicians. In any case, the ritual would lead the goddess herself back from dolorous silence, with Ninigi ibara somehow e ecting this in the divine realm. These remarkable oppositions of song and silence in ritual and/or ritual poetics provide an ancient real-world background for examining the relationship between the lamenting Kinyras trope and the actual role of the kinýra in threnody. Eustathios, we saw, states plainly that the verb in resthai referred to singing songs over/for the dead (epì toîs keiménois) using the kinýra.70 But what exactly is envisioned And is this more than guess work In the Greek world, funeral rites consisted of three stages: próthesis, the laying-out and preparation of a body for burial; ekphorá, carrying the body to the gravesite; and the actual interment. A principal ceremony of próthesis was indeed the singing of laments, which our sources divide into two types. Góoi were spontaneous yet patterned wailings in which the deceased’s nearest kin, especially female, articulated grief and anger about their loss and dark future.71 These were interspersed with, and sometimes responded to, thrênoi—more formal songs by professional threnodes.72 The locus classicus for this dichotomy is the funeral of Hektor in the Iliad: And alongside Hektor’s body they set singers (aoidoús), Leaders of dirges (thr n n e r hous) who sing sorrowful song; They began to sing the dirge (ethr neon), and the women added their groans.73 Homer goes on to give us lengthy styli ed representations of the góoi of Hekuba, Andromakhe, and Helen,74 while the songs of threnodes are left to the 70 71 72 73 74 Eustathios on Homer Iliad 17.5 (for the Greek text, see p188n7). Recall that any linguistic kinship between kinýra and in resthai must be indirect, given their uantity-di erence in the second syllable; Eustathios is following the umbrella’ usage of kinýra: see p213 216. Reiner 1938:8 61, especially 53 56. Iconography indicates an unbroken if evolving tradition going back to the LBA. See Alexiou 2002:4 23 passim; cf. GR:192; Burke 2008, stressing however that the Mycenaean material is not monolithic, and exhibits greater variety than Archaic representations. Reiner 1938:4 5, 8 9; Alexiou 2002:10 14; Nagy 1979:36n103, 112, 170 177; Garland 2001:29 30; Holst-Warhaft 1992, 111 112; Olivetti 2010, 1 71 (further magical nuances of góos). Battle eld conditions account for the lament of Patroklos by Achilles and the Myrmidons (Homer Iliad 23.12-13), who must replace female next-of-kin: Holst-Warhaft 1992:108 110. For the tradition of female lamentation speci cally see, besides Alexiou and Holst-Warhaft, Lardinois 2001; Dué 2006, especially 30 46; papers in Suter 2008. Homer Iliad 24.720 722: παρ δ’ ε σαν ἀοιδο ς / θρ νων ἐ άρχους, ο τε στον εσσαν ἀοιδ ν / ο μὲν ἄρ’ ἐθρ νεον, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες. There is some uncertainty as to syntax and readings (Diehl 1940:112 113), but the sense is clear. See the analysis of Reiner 1938:8 11 with further references. Nagy 1979:112. 292 Kinyras the Lamenter imagination. It is grammatically clear that these specialists were male; and aoidoí and exárkhoi indicate that they were probably lyrists.75 But the Odyssey’s description of Achilles being mourned by Nereids and Muses, whose performances correspond to góoi and thrênoi, respectively, strongly suggests that threnodes could also be female.76 This was true in the Biblical world,77 and is supported by Sappho’s Adonis fragments.78 It may well also be that the female groups of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls should be related to Adonis’ lamentation in the cult of Astarte/ Aphrodite’.79 Pindar and Simonides, who composed thrênoi, were of course male lyrists, though whether these particular songs were accompanied by the instrument is another uestion. One of the more informative sources on these points is Lucian’s satirical On Funerals, which, though so much later, is broadly compatible with Homer. Here the expert in dirges’ (thr n n so hist n), certainly male, acts as a kind of choral producer’ ( hor s); he leads with his own songs, drawn from a large repertoire of ancient misfortunes’ (palaiàs symphorás), which were punctuated at certain intervals by the family’s own outbursts.80 This scenario agrees with the laments for Hektor, and the Muses’ alternating threnody with beautiful voice at Achilles’ funeral.81 Thrênoi and góoi were thus an integrated performance; the former were truly musical (mélos in Lucian), drawing on chronic’ mythological repertoire to provide a framework for the expression of acute’ personal grief. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Reiner 1938:8, 61 62 (apparently) and Alexiou 2002:12 rightly considered these threnodes male; thus ο τε and ο μέν are contrasted with γυναῖκες; Holst-Warhaft 1992:205n40 argued anyway for a female interpretation, but while ἀοιδ ς is sometimes used of women in later poetry (LSJ s.v. 2), this is unparalleled within Homer. Homer’s ἀοιδ ς normally (but not invariably) implies a lyre-singer (not excluded by Reiner 1938:67n5). αρχος suggests the same: Athenaios 180d states that leading o ’ was proper to the lyre (τὸ γ ρ ἐ άρχειν τῆς φ ρμιγγος διον), and discusses passages from Homer, Hesiod, Arkhilokhos, and others. But the verb is also used of Achilles, Thetis, and Andromakhe as they lead o ’ γ οι (Homer Iliad 18.51, 316 cf. 23.12 ; 24.723). Homer Odyssey 24.58 61 with Pindar Isthmian 8.56 62 and Nagy 1990:36n103, 204. Cf. Reiner 1938:56 59 for the limited evidence of professional female mourners in the Greek world (though his emphasis here is on góoi). Jeremiah 9:17, 20; cf. Holst-Warhaft 1992:205n40. Lardinois 2001. Another γυν ἀοιδ ς sings an Adonis-song in Theokritos Idylls 15.100 143. Mar uand 1887:336. The same trio of pipes, lyre, and frame-drum appears in Isaiah 5:11 12 in (probably: McLaughlin 2001) the context of mar ea In his commentary on the passage, Basilios of Caesarea (fourth-century CE) interprets the music as threnodic (Reiner 1938:68n3), but with a twist makes its target the feasters themselves (Commentary on Isaiah 5.155 Trevisan PG 30:373). Lucian On Funerals 20: ἀλλ’ μως οἱ μάταιοι καὶ βοῶσι καὶ μεταστειλάμενοί τινα θρ νων σοφιστ ν πολλ ς συνειλοχ τα παλαι ς συμφορ ς το τῳ συναγωνιστ καὶ χορ γῷ τῆς ἀνοίας καταχρῶνται, π ν ἐκεῖνος ἐ άρχ πρὸς τὸ μέλος ἐπαιά οντες ( The simpletons wail themselves and, summoning some expert in dirges who has collected many ancient misfortunes, employ him as a fellow actor and a choral-producer of their folly, adding their Alas ’ to the melody however he directs them to ). Homer Odyssey 24.60 61: ἀμειβ μεναι πὶ καλ / θρ νεον. 293 Chapter Twelve Notwithstanding Lucian’s valuable testimony, our understanding of the threnodic tradition is rather obscured by sixth- and fth-century legislation instituted in several cities, including Solon’s Athens, aimed at curbing the political in uence of clans by limiting the public visibility of funeral rites and the political potential of heroi ing the dead.82 Henceforth at Athens próthesis, the principal occasion for góoi, was to be conducted indoors and by close family only, without the assistance of professional threnodes. Iconographic and literary evidence shows clearly that pipers normally accompanied funeral processions,83 but there is now little rm evidence for lyric threnody during próthesis.84 Two vase paintings have indeed been cited in support of the practice, but in both cases the lyre is held by a mourner, not actually played.85 The signi cance of this is uite clear in the famous scene of the Nereids or Muses mourning Achilles: the lyre is the hero’s own instrument, now silenced (Figure 36).86 In the second case the lyre is held, appropriately, by a aida s.87 These images are to be connected rather with the tragic trope that occasions of death and war are lyreless’ (ályros) lacking the festive ease-of-mind normally associated with lyremusic and choruses.88 The idea is well illustrated by a Corinthian black- gure plate: a man is laid out in a shroud, with his lyre suspended above.89 On the other hand, there is considerable evidence for lyric lamentations in extra-Athenian mythological contexts. Ovid has Apollo weeping in an aetiology for the Hyakinthos festival at Sparta; he will ever remember his beloved with lyre-songs (a choral context is probably assumed).90 Ovid also has Apollo mourn his son Linos with reluctant lyre in the elegy for Tibullus.91 Orpheus with his lyre moved the underworld to tears, from human shades to the very Furies.92 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 See Holst-Warhaft 1992:114 119. uasten 1930:196; Reiner 1938:67 70; AGM:23; Garland 2001:32, 142 (note to p. 30). Cf. Reiner 1938:66 67. uasten 1930:196 198; countered by Reiner 1938:68 69. Sixth-century Corinthian hydria, Louvre E 643: LIMC s.v. Achilleus no. 897; SIAG:38, 51 g. 15a. See uasten 1930:196n4. For tragic and other sources, including the words akítharis and ákhoros (‘danceless’), see GMW 1:68n38, 73n69; SIAG:80. Lyre and ε φροσ ν : Homeric Hymn to Hermes 449, 480 482, etc. New ork 06.1021.26: ermeule 1979:209 g. 31; SIAG:37, 50 g. 14e. The deceased is often interpreted as a dead poet, uite unnecessarily. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.196 219, especially 204 205: semper eris mecum memorique haerebis in ore. / te lyra pulsa manu, te carmina nostra sonabunt ( ou will always be with me, and cleave to my mindful lips. / ou our hand-struck lyre will sing, you our songs ); choral dances for Hyakinthos are mentioned by Euripides Helen 1469 1470. Grave-o erings for Hyakinthos in connection with Apollo cult at Amyklai: P ster 1909 1912:451 452, 492. Ovid Amores 3.9.23 24 (invita … lyra). Other instances of Apollo lamenting, with no lyre mentioned, are Apollonios of Rhodes 4.611 618 (among the Hyperboreans); ( Moskhos Lament for Bion 26 (Apollo and Bion); Ovid Metamorphoses 10.141 142 (Apollo and Cyparissus). Ovid Metamorphoses 10.40 49. 294 Kinyras the Lamenter Figure 36 r the of ch e , w th enced yre. or nth an hydr a, Lou re 3. Drawn from L M th century . . ch eu no. 89 . Upon his own death, the natural world, over which he had power while alive, wept for him; and his lyre itself as it drifted down the Hebros sang some tearful plaint of its own accord like a thing still living.93 That these intimations of lyric lament represent real traditions of deep anti uity is con rmed both by the evidence for Linos-song (see below), and the Minoan funerary or mortuary ritual on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, where sacri ce and libation are accompanied by male piper and lyrist, among otherwise female participants.94 This scene gives historical depth to the proverbial expression concert (synaulía) of Olympos referring to lamentation music, and as we saw the earliest context for the verb in resthai since Gk. synaulía could involve both pipes and strings.95 93 94 95 Ovid Metamorphoses 11.44 53 ( uotation 52: fle ile nescio uid ueritur l ra); cf. especially Lucian The Ignorant Book-Collector 11; also Phanokles 1.11 22 CA; Nikomakhos Excerpts 1 (MSG:266). Further sources, bringing the head and/or lyre to Lesbos, are collected by P ster 1909 1912:213n213. Haghia Triada sarcophagus and procession fresco (LM IIIA1): Paribeni 1908; Evans 1921 1936 2:834 838; Long 1974, 38; Burke 2008, 76 80. For Aristophanes Knights 8 12, see p220; cf. ad loc. ( υναυλία λέγεται ταν κιθάρα καὶ α λὸς συμφων ) and Tragica Adespota 53 TGF. Also Suda s.v. υναυλίαν πενθ σωμεν, λ μπου 295 Chapter Twelve Lamentation customs will naturally have varied by culture and period, and there is no more reason to believe that thrênoi were always lyric productions than there is to exclude the instrument entirely, despite the undoubted prevalence of pipes in funereal settings. Nevertheless the foregoing material does present a signi cant dichotomy. The lyreless grief ’ of real situations is expressed through góoi, especially by female kin. The lyric laments relate to mythological gures and archetypal su erings; their sub ect matter was still lyreless grief ’, but regarded from a commemorative future often in a recurring festival, and composed and/or led by male lyrists (hence the lamenting Apollo). Here are the ancient misfortunes of Lucian’s threnodic repertoire. Such themes will have set a present tragedy in more general historical perspective, praising the deceased and introducing him to the heroic dead. Thrênoi were thus immortali ing, e ually appropriate for subse uent memorials, often annual (a probable occasion for the thrênoi of Pindar and Simonides).96 From here one passes easily to various forms of hero-cult, including those for which lyric lament is de nitely attested (Hyakinthos, Linos).97 The genre was inherently forwardlooking, promising a return from lyreless grief. This is colorfully illustrated by a threnodic fragment of Pindar, who describes the afterlife (for the fortunate) as a perpetual ban uet with games and lyre music.98 Many such scenes are found in funerary reliefs of the Classical period, and this was not unlike the message of Orphism, with its lyre-playing prophet.99 This also explains the dedication of lyres at gravesites, or of lekythoi with images of lyres (Figure 37).100 Some 96 97 98 99 100 ν μον; Eustathios on Iliad 19.129; Theodoros Metokhites Philosophical and Historical Miscellanies p. 304 M ller: υναυλίαν λοφυρομένους λ μπου ν μον, ς κωμικ παριομία (cf. Dindorf 1835 1838 3:292); cf. Theophylaktos Simokates Epistles 32 (p. 19.1 anetto). Olympos’ association with mournful/funerary music is otherwise well-attested: Aristoxenos fr. 80 Wehrli; Ovid Metamorphoses 6.392 394; Plutarch On Music 1136c; Pollux Onomastikon 4.78 79: ν μοι λ μπου ἐπιτυμβίδιοι, cf. 4.72 75 passim for the mourning α λ ς more generally (γοερ ν, γοῶδες, θρ νῶδες); cf. Reiner 1938:71 72. One also nds συναυλία in threnodic contexts without mention of Olympos: Aiskhylos Seven against Thebes 835 839: υναυλία δορ ς ( concert of the spear ) with τευ α τ μβῳ μέλος ( I framed a melody for a tomb, 835); Philostratos Imagines 1.11.3; Libanios Orations 61.20; Gregory of Na ian us Orations 14 (PG 35:873B); Gregory of Nyssa A ainst unomi s 11 (PG 45:865D; 3.9.25 Jaeger); Synesios Epistles 4.14. See further sources in LSJ s.v.; Pearson 1917:39; Michaelides 1978 s.v. See with ancient sources Reiner 1938:4 5, 62 63. For Pindar and Simonides, Kurt and Boardman 1971:202; Nagy 1979:170 177. See P ster 1909 1912:497 498 for a catalogue of hymnic o erings relating to hero-cult. Some of these occasions must have involved styli ed lyric lament. Plutarch Aratos 53 speci es that songs were sung to the kithára by the Artists of Dionysos for Aratos’ hero-cult; while the event in uestion was treated as a festival of σωτ ρία, a connection was presumably made with the death of the hero’. Pindar fr. 129, especially 6 9. Cf. Garland 2001:70 71 with discussion of Totenmahl scenes from ca. 400 280. See Garland 2001:115 116, 119, 170 (note to p. 119) with references. 296 Figure 37 Le ytho how ng ded cat on of yre at gra e. Ber n nt uar um no. 32 2. Drawn from ua ten 1930 .3 . Chapter Twelve festivals played out ust such a return from lyreless grief to oyous life. The Adonis-rites at second-century CE Byblos, for instance, began with heartfelt wailing and threnodies, but culminated with acclamation of the hero’s resurrection.101 The women of Elis lamented Achilles at the start of the Olympic games.102 These occasions were sanctioned pretexts for lamenting one’s own woes, focused through mythological exempla.103 The transition of mood must often have been marked by shifts in musical mode’ and instrumentation: solemn pipe-dirges could be followed by more sentimental lyre threnodies, cathartically closing a complex ritual cycle.104 In such threnodic contexts Eustathios’ kinýra-lamenters must nd their place. For the ancient lexica are generally agreed that in resthai meant not simply wail’, but sing a thrênos’.105 Eustathios’ epì toîs keiménois should therefore refer not only to songs over the dead (during próthesis) but for the dead and buried (a common sense of keîmai). This will also explain the presence of in resthai in grave inscriptions.106 There is a telling passage in the Epitaph for Bion (ca. 100), where the Memnonides lament ( in rato) their brother while itting around the tomb. 107 Although this poem is highly mannered, its accumulation of mythological misfortunes, both stock and exotic, must mimic threnodic convention.108 The poetics of lyric threnody will also explain the apparent contradiction between Eustathios’ assertion that in resthai was the activity of kinýrathrenodes, and the common use of in resthai in literary and/or mythological contexts that are ályros. Lest one suspect that Eustathios has made his own false deduction, precisely the same paradox underlies Ovid’s Kinyras, prostrate and weeping for his daughters an image which remains underappreciated until one sees Kinyras as the kinyrist’, since the emotional plight and physical posture are antithetical to lyre-playing. The same opposition is assumed by passages that 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 6. Pausanias 6.23.3. Note Homer’s clear psychological explanation at Iliad 19.301 302. Such a progression may explain, for instance, the Euripidean chorus which envisions Alkestis commemorated at the Spartan Karneia which featured an important and early citharodic competition with many melodies / to the heptatonic mountain / Tortoise also in lyreless hymns (Euripides Alkestis 445 447). See further Franklin 2012:748 753. For de nitions of in resthai, see p188 and n66. See p201 202. Moskhos Lament for Bion 43: ἱπτάμενος περὶ σ μα κιν ρατο έμνονος ρνις. For the Memnonides, see p191n30. Note also its adaptation of the lyreless theme to Bucolic conceits at 51 56 and 116 126. Although one cannot sing while piping, genre re uires both Bion and the lamenting poet to be (pan) pipers, not lyrists. Thus, the poet would be an Orpheus-of-the-pipes to fetch Bion back, but lacks the skill; the superior Bion will be the Orpheus charming Persephone with his pipes to resurrect himself (i.e. his poetry is immortal). 298 Kinyras the Lamenter pointedly call Adonis son of Kinyras’ at the moment of his death, and so elicit threnodic overtones.109 This is best illustrated by a poignant sepulchral epigram of the Greek Anthology, where a bereaved father, addressing the infernal ferryman, casts his son as an Adonis: Give your hand to the son of Kinyras as he mounts the / boarding-ladder, black Kharon, and receive him. 110 Through this allusion the father himself becomes the Lamenter. Much the same idea is found in an epigram of Ausonius.111 These passages are evidently literary re ections of a threnodic trope.112 Of particular interest is Bion’s Lament for Adonis (ca. 150 100), which, by describing as in resthai Aphrodite’s mourning for the son of Kinyras’, assumes an etymological link between the Cypriot king and threnody.113 It remains the case that in resthai often seems to mean something more like góos personal expression of raw grief, with no overt lyric context.114 But there is a close parallel in the blurring of thrênos and góos (and derivatives) in tragic usage. That development is sometimes attributed to decreased awareness of formal distinctions due to the anti-threnodic legislations mentioned above.115 But this is not convincing, as professional threnody persisted for centuries in other parts of the Greek world. A better explanation comes from the realities of ritual performance itself. Thrênos would naturally grow to encompass góos since it incorporated the latter formally, and yet was itself, from the perspective of the bereaved, but a vehicle for it.116 Exactly this development lets us reconcile in resthai as de ned by Eustathios via kinýra with its commonly attested usage. One must emphasi e that, leaving aside the word’s many mannered literary occurrences, its use in actual epitaphs gives no compelling reason to re ect lyric threnody as the background context.117 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Besides the examples to be discussed, note Greek Anthology 7.407.7 (Dioskourides) Κιν ρεω νέον ρνος δυρομέν φροδίτ ( Aphrodite weeping for the young scion of Kinyras ); cf. Greek Anthology 5.289.8 (Agathias Scholasticus), a girl weeping for her lover compared to Persephone and Adonis. Adonis as son of Kinyras’ also appears in an epitaph for a slain gladiator: see p335. Greek Anthology ( onas of Sardis) 7.365.3 4: τῷ Κιν ρου τ ν χεῖρα βατ ρίδος ἐκβαίνοντι / κλίμακος ἐκτείνας δέ ο, κελαινὲ άρον. Ausonius Epigrams 62.7 (Persephonae Cinyreius ibis Adonis), cf. Letters 14.42 43 (Cinyrea proles / Veneri plorandus Adonis). Cf. Wypustek 2013:121 124, who would identify Ausonius at least as representing a no longer existing epigram tradition that heroised the deceased by identifying them with the abduction of Adonis by Persephone (124). Bion Lament for Adonis 42: πάχεας ἀμπετάσασα κιν ρετο, μεῖνον δωνι ( throwing up her arms, Aphrodite wailed Adonis, stay ’ ); 91: αἱ άριτες κλαίοντι τὸν υἱέα τῶ Κιν ραο (the chorus of Graces laments the son of Kinyras ). The two senses are also uxtaposed in several lexicon entries: see p188n6. Alexiou 2002:10 14. Cf. Reiner 1938:6; Olivetti 2010:109, 124 133. See p201 202. Alternatively one might seek a special semantic development whereby in resthai e ectively meant act as Kinyras when lamenting’, thus eschewing lyre-music. Here if anywhere one might validate Gingras said to be an alternative name for Adonis deriving from the 299 Chapter Twelve I have argued that the tearful Kinyras embodies a necessary abnegation of kinýra music. That this idea goes far deeper than Ovid himself, and is not merely a Hellenistic literary contrivance, is guaranteed by a persistent oscillation between song and silence in ANE sources relating to the knr. The Se re steles, dating to the mid-eighth century and discovered near Aleppo, o er a precious glimpse of Old Aramaic and its traditional literary gures. The text is a treaty between Mati’el of Arpad and a nearby rival, Bar-Ga’yah, and contains numerous curses for whoever breaks its conditions. In one of these, the silencing of lyre-music epitomi es the desolation in icted on Arpad if unfaithful: Nor may the sound of the innār be heard in Arpad; but among its people sc. let there rather be the din of a iction and the noi[se of cry ing and lamentation.118 There is a similar musical stipulation in the N-A vassal treaty between the same Mati’el and Assurnerari (754 745), this time combined with a typical agricultural curse: may his farmers not sing the harvest song in the elds. 119 The knr is not speci ed, but we must recall Herodotos’ testimony about a kind of seasonal Linos-song’ in the Cypro-Levantine region (see further below). Much the same motif an a icted people whose inn r is silenced occurs in several Biblical passages, in both Jewish and Phoenician contexts.120 Most famous is Psalm 137: By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered ion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land 121 118 119 120 121 dirge-pipes used to lament him as a derivative of knr, as some propose (see p201 202). The interpretation of such a Gingras as a kind of Adonis would parallel the father-son construction of Kinyras-Adonis attested elsewhere: see p312 316. Stele I, A 29 30: KAI 222; Dupont-Sommer and Starcky 1958:20, with comments on 45 46 (cf. Green eld 1965:15); Fit myer 1995:45 (translation used here), cf. 87; Hofti er and Jongeling 1995:520. Parpola and Watanabe 1988:11; cf. ANET:533 (the detail does not emerge in ARAB 1:267 756). This might suggest that the curse against the innār in the Se re stele as due to the in uence of N-A imperial rhetoric, since such peripheral responses are otherwise well documented (for comparison of the Se re texts with Hittite and Assyrian treaties, Fit myer 1995:162 166). et the Jewish parallels establish its traditional nature, and in any case the Assyrians’ own loyalty oaths apparently derive from second-millennium Syro-Anatolian conventions, coming by way of Aramaic intermediaries (Tadmor 1982:145). Besides the following passages, note also Isaiah 24:8; Revelation 18:22. Psalms 137:1 4. 300 Kinyras the Lamenter This lyreless silence responds to the captors’ demand for a song of ion. We have seen other cases of taking over an enemy’s musicians, including the Judaean lyrists given up by He ekiah to Sennacherib.122 Psalm 137 reminds us that such deportations not only provided the victor with musical variety, but denied the van uished the adornments of peace, power, and (with vassal treaties) delity.123 This agreement of IA Jewish and Aramaean tradition on the symbolic force of the knr indicates their common inheritance of a more ancient idea prevalent in the BA Syro-Levantine sphere. We have seen its positive form the knr epitomi ing a harmonious realm that makes oyous music possible in King David and the lion-lyrist of eighth-century Gu ana (Tell Halaf), and I shall argue for such a view of Kinyras on LBA Cyprus.124 Psalm 137 also returns us to the uestion of lyric lament, for here too is the tension between real lyreless grief and its appearance as a motif within a predominantly lyric genre (Hebrew psalmody). The same paradox informs a willful dissonance in Isaiah’s oracle about the destruction of Moab: In the vineyards no songs are sung Therefore my heart throbs like a inn r for Moab. 125 Moab’s silent vineyards and the undoing of its harvest are obviously akin to the curse of the Mati’el-Assurnerari treaty; but the prophet himself, at a safe remove, can envision this as a sub ect for plaintive lyre-song. These texts support lyric interpretations of various penitential and sorrowful Psalms, and even David’s laments for Saul, Jonathan, and Absalom despite the lyreless narrative contexts in which they are embedded.126 According to a ninth-century Arabic treatise, David had a stringed instrument (mi afa). When he recited, he played on it and wept, and made others weep. 127 This might be dismissed as late guesswork, but that the Dead Sea Scrolls explicitly refer to a inn r of lamentation with which to mourn the sinfulness of man, which has brought about present evils. Once delivered, god’s righteousness will be praised with the inn r of salvation and other oyful instruments.128 This imagery surely re ects real performance modes, even if instruments were not employed for psalmody at umran itself (as is sometimes suggested129). 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 See p106, 154. Conversely, a top priority of the Jewish restoration was reestablishing music in the new temple: Nehemiah 7:1, 67, 73, 12:27 47. Cf. Sellers 1941:34, 37. See p152 154 and Chapter 15. Isaiah 16:10 11. 2 Samuel 1:17 27, 18:33. Al-Mufa al ibn Salama, itā al malāh (Book of Instruments). See Robson and Farmer 1938:5 6. 1 H-a col. I (formerly I), 22a 23, supplemented by 4 427 (4 H-a) 1:4 5: DJD 29:89 90; cf. ermes 2011:249. For this issue, see Werner 1957:26 28. 301 Chapter Twelve An especially sophisticated treatment of these tropes is found in Isaiah’s oracle about the destruction of Tyre: From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a lyre, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered.130 Following the traditional idea, the kingdom’s restoration is heralded by the resumption of the inn r (or rather inn r, given the Phoenician context). But the prophet introduces a new inversion of the knr’s royal symbolism by combining it with another conventional motif, the idolatrous city as a harlot’; the royal instrument is thus cast unclean into the streets.131 The con ation probably pivots on the use of female lyrists in cult, as we saw in the CyproPhoenician symposium bowls. Note too how the prostitute’s embedded song in itself suggests a plaintive mode, as would be appropriate in the repertoire of such a kinyrístria comfort for her own troubles, and suitable for certain sympotic moods. This intuition is corroborated by the corresponding passage of the Isaiah Targum, one of the Aramaic translations of scripture that emerged during the Second Temple period and incorporated much additional material, both innovative and traditional. This expanded version reads: Your glory has been overthrown, cast out to a province, the city that was as a harlot is rejected! Turn your lyre to lamentation and your music to keening, that you might be remembered.132 While Turn your lyre to lamentation might by itself be interpreted as Put down your lyre and lament instead’, this is excluded by the original context, which unambiguously envisions the harlot’ singing to the lyre. Greek sources have also preserved traces of the plaintive kinýra.133 It is found in T et es’ retelling of an anecdote about Gelimer, last andal king in Africa 130 131 132 133 Isaiah 23:15 16. Cf. Kelim 15 (BT 17:75) on the ritual purity of the Levitical inn r versus the instruments of song, i.e. popular ones prone to impurity. Translation: Chilton 1990:46 (changing harp’ to lyre’), with expansions indicated by his italics; cf. xiii xxviii for the Targums generally; also Alexander 1992:322 323. Two MSS of Hesykhios (AS) include οἰκτρά ( lamentable, piteous’) in de ning κιν ρα, though perhaps this was detached from a de nition of the ad ective κινυρ ς. Another odd umble, presumably truncated, is Suda s.v. κιν ρα κινυρ μεθα, θρ νο μεν. 302 Kinyras the Lamenter (530 534), who de antly bade the besieging By antine commander: send me a kinýra, Belisarios that I may sing sad songs of my ill-fortune. 134 In the By antine poetic version of the Alexander Romance, the famous Theban aulete Ismenias abases himself before the Macedonian con ueror, hoping to turn him from anger to pity and so save the city by threnody: sc. Ismenias began to accompany / a pitiable melody / and himself to speak to the kinýra, / thinking, through pipes, singing, and threnodies, / to lead Alexander round to mercy he began to play (psállein), amidst the pipes, the following for the king: / Having seen that your power is the greatest, Alexander / we revere it as like to a god. 135 The poet solved a logical con ict that was variously treated in other recensions. How can a piper simultaneously play a dirge and deliver a speech Ismenias was wrenched from his historical profession, and made to sing his pleas while playing a kinýra alongside other anonymous ( ) auletes.136 The very violence of this revision shows that kinýra was willfully interpolated as being a true instrument of threnody. And note the strikingly appropriate context: one of lamentation’s essential purposes in the ANE soothing an angry god is clearly implied. Ismenias’ petition is e ectively an apotropaic version of the city-lament that ancient genre re ected in literary transmutations from Sumer down to the Biblical Lamentations, and even the Fall of Troy in Greek epic.137 134 135 136 137 John T et es Khiliades 3.77 88, lines 332 333: κιν ραν, ελισάριε, στεῖλον μοι / ς τραγῳδ σαιμι τὸ βαρυσ μφορ ν μου, replacing κιθάρα in Prokopios On the Wars 4.6.30 31: χαῖρέ μοι, φίλε άρα, καί μοι κιθάραν τε καὶ ἄρτον να καὶ σπ γγον δεομένῳ πέμπε. Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio By antina poetica (cod. Marcianus 408, ed. Reichmann), 2264 2268: ρ ατο καὶ μέλος / ἐλεεινὸν προσφθέγγεσθαι / α τὸς λέγειν μετ κιν ρας, / νομί ων, δι τῶν α λῶν, μελῳδιῶν καὶ θρ νων, / εἰς ο κτον τὸν λέ ανδρον προσαγαγεῖν κτλ; 2273 2275: ρ ατο άλλειν μετ’ α λῶν τῷ βασιλεῖ τοια τα. / Κράτος τὸ σ ν, λέ ανδρε, τὸ μέγιστον ἰδ ντες, / ἰσ θεον σεβ μεθα κτλ. Recension α, 1.46a1 9 (ed. Kroll), has Ismenias both play the pipes and beseech Alexander, consecutively. Ismenias also appears in recension β (ed. Bergson), compelled to pipe while Thebes is destroyed (1.27.10); the petition to Alexander comes rather from an anonymous piper (τις τῶν βαίων α λῶν μελῶν μπειρος ἄνθρωπος, 1.46.29), whose speech is a single line ( λέ ανδρε βασιλε μέγιστε, ν ν πείρ μαθ ντες τὸ σὸν ἰσ θεον κράτος σεβ μεθα, 1.46.36 37) a variant of which merely introduces Ismenias’ speech in the By antine poetic recension. Recension γ (ed. Parthe) again has an anonymous piper (46.38 53), while ε (ed. Trumpf) gives a rather di erent petition scene involving an aulete named Demokeus (12.6). For the interrelationships of these texts generally, see Stoneman 2008:230 232, 244. Mesopotamian city-laments are collected in CLAM. Fall of Troy as an extension of ANE/Anatolian city-laments: Bachvarova 2008. 303 Chapter Twelve he Cy r ot L no ong We must conclude that Syro-Levantine knr-players, like Greek lyric threnodes, cultivated a lamentative mode that took lyreless grief as its sub ect matter. The deep anti uity of the tradition is indicated by the BALA .DI lamenters of Ebla and their service in the royal mortuary cult.138 Also relevant, I suggested, are scenes of the underworld gods R p’iu and Nina u, featuring the innāru and annāru, respectively.139 The purposeful opposition of song and silence was perhaps central to the Ninigi ibara ritual at Mari, and we saw lyres variously silent and sounding in Hittite funerary and/or mortuary rites.140 One should also recall the rich tradition of Egyptian funerary harp-songs (see further below). Clearly then, the Hellenistic topos of Kinyras the Lamenter is a late re ection of a much more ancient art of lyric threnody. This may be readily connected with Cyprus, given Kinyras’ dominant associations with the island. But any insular tradition must be contemplated against a larger regional backdrop coterminous with the knr itself. Crucial here is a passage from Herodotos’ Egyptian logos: The Egyptians cultivate ancestral customs, adding nothing else there is one song, the Linos who is much sung (aoídimos) in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and elsewhere. Although his name varies with each people, he happens to be the same gure whom the Greeks call Linos when they sing the song. So while there are many other Egyptian matters which ama e me, one is certainly this: where did they get their Linos-song And they have clearly been singing this song forever. But in Egyptian Linos is called Maneros. The Egyptians said that he was the only son of the rst king of Egypt, and that after he su ered an untimely death he was honored by them with these threnodies, and that this was their rst and only song.141 138 139 140 141 See p67 71. See p140. See p84 85, 95 96. Herodotos 2.79 (ed. Legrand): ατρίοισι δὲ χρεώμενοι ν μοισι ἄλλον ο δένα ἐπικτῶνται ἄεισμα ν ἐστι, ίνος, ς περ ν τε οινίκ ἀοίδιμ ς ἐστι καὶ ἐν Κ πρῳ καὶ ἄλλ , κατ μέντοι θνεα ο νομα χει, συμφέρεται δὲ υτὸς ε ναι τὸν οἱ λλ νες ίνον νομά οντες ἀείδουσι στε πολλ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα ἀποθωμά ειν με τῶν περὶ γυπτον ἐ ντων, ἐν δὲ δ καὶ τὸν ίνον κ θεν λαβον τὸ ο νομα . αίνονται δὲ αἰεί κοτε το τον ἀείδοντες. στι δὲ αἰγυπτιστὶ ίνος καλε μενος ανερῶς. φασαν δέ μιν ἰγ πτιοι το πρώτου βασιλε σαντος ἰγ πτου παῖδα μουνογενέα γενέσθαι, ἀποθαν ντα δὲ α τὸν ἄωρον θρ νοισι το τοισι πὸ ἰγυπτίων τιμ θῆναι, καὶ ἀοιδ ν τε τα τ ν πρώτ ν καὶ μο ν ν σφίσι γενέσθαι. Cf. Pausanias 9.29.6 7. 304 Kinyras the Lamenter The anti uity of Egyptian culture is a commonplace of Classical historiography, and Herodotos elsewhere makes Egypt the source of Greek customs of unknown but deep anti uity.142 He seems inclined to do so here.143 Certainly the historian, and any native informants, rightly regarded lamentation-singing as extremely ancient. Despite Herodotos’ description of the Egyptian, Phoenician, Cypriot, and Greek versions as the same’, his admission of di erent identities for the lamented sub ect acknowledges substantial regional variation. Rather than dismiss his comparisons as facile and na ve, we should credit the historian with perceiving signi cant parallels in what he heard, or heard about in performance practice, calendrical occasion, aetiological narratives, and so on. To be sure, Maneros himself is probably a chimera of Greek historiography and/or folk belief. When the Egyptian funerary harp-songs were rst studied, Herodotos was often invoked. But the texts of this complex tradition, already well developed by the MK, o er no con rmation of the historian’s aetiological narrative.144 Indeed Plutarch, in his On Isis and Osiris, says that some denied that manerôs was a man’s name at all, but was rather a kind of sympotic toast.145 et even this idea has proven a dead end, eluding any convincing Egyptian etymology although it does at least approach the sub ect matter of the harpsongs, many of which draw on the imagery of feasting while emphasi ing the transience of life, and o ering visions of the afterlife.146 Nonetheless, Maneros, whatever his origin, en oyed a revealing career in the Greek imagination. Later authors compared him to the sub ects of other regional lamentation traditions, for instance in Anatolia.147 He was also treated as a rst inventor of music (Plutarch), and an inventor of farming and student of the Muses (Pollux).148 These texts introduce an interesting complication, contradicting Herodotos’ statement that the Maneros-lament was the Egyptians’ rst and only song. Rather, it implies, lamentation was invented upon the death of the rst musician. This idea has much in common with the lyreless motif discussed above, and brings us to the Greeks’ very similar view about Linos-song proper. 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 Herodotos 2.48 49. But note the opposite reading of Pausanias 9.29.7 9, who makes Greece the source of all Linossong, including the Maneros-lament. Lichtheim 1945:178 180. Plutarch Moralia 357e f. See the collection in Lichtheim 1945. See Pollux Onomastikon 4.54 55 for the Mariandynoi (the Bormos’ song: cf. Athenaios 619f Nymphis FGH 432 F 5), and Phrygians. Plutarch Moralia 357e: τὸν δ’ δ μενον ανερῶτα πρῶτον ε ρεῖν μουσικ ν ἱστορο σιν; Pollux Onomastikon 4.54 55: ανέρως γεωργίας ε ρετ ς, ουσῶν μαθ τ ς. 305 Chapter Twelve Here, fortunately, we are much better informed, as was Herodotos himself.149 We may reasonably hope that the material for Greek Linos-song, which is after all the basis of the historian’s comparisons, can illuminate the Cypriot tradition to which he alludes all the more so given the important Aegean contribution to the island’s IA culture. The crucial point of contact is that Linos like Kinyras, but unlike Maneros, so far as we know was a lyre-player. Their respective mythologies present many suggestive parallels, though naturally one cannot expect exact correspondences: the absence of any single canonical myth about Linos’ death shows that all such tales are secondary to the ritual practice of lyric lamentation per se. In one set of tales, Linos was killed with the lyre by Herakles, his frustrated pupil.150 Another has Apollo slay him for using linen strings, or for putting his music on a level with the god’s own Kinyras’ own mistake in the myth discussed in Chapter 9.151 In all variants, Linos’ death is the constant to which the laments respond.152 The interpretive key is a Hesiodic fragment that establishes the lyric, threnodic, choral character of Linos-song, and shows that it was already widespread, hence long traditional, by the seventh century: Ourania then bore Linos, her much-loved son He’s the one all men lament (thr ne sin) who are Singers and lyrists (aoidoì kaì kitharistaí), in ban uets and choruses (en eilapínais te khoroís te): Starting and ending by calling out Linos 153 Ban uets and choruses may seem an odd setting for thrênoi, but these were proper not only to festivals but funerary rites.154 Starting and ending from Linos’ rings true as a professional and distinctly lyric detail, echoing the epicletic formulas of the Homeric Hymns and con rming that Homer’s threnodes at Hektor’s funeral are indeed male lyrists.155 The ascription of Linos-song to 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 For sources and discussion, see Roscher Lex. s.v. (Greve); P ster 1909 1912:194 195, 220; RE 13 (1926), 715 716 (1, Abert); Reiner 1938:109 113; AGM:28 29, 45 46; Stephens 2002; PEG II/3: I III with literature; Olivetti 2010:141 186; Power 2010 index s.v. Linus. Pausanias 9.29.9, citing a Theban myth of a second Linos, son of the other; Nikomakhos Excerpts 1 (MSG:266). Linen strings: Philokhoros FGH 328 F 207 ( Homer Iliad 18.570). Rivaling Apollo: Pausanias 9.29.6 7 ( π λλων ἀποκτείνειεν α τὸν ἐ ισο μενον κατ τ ν δ ν). Stephens 2002:16 17. Hesiod fr. 305 M-W ( Homer Iliad 18.570 PEG T 2): ρανί δ’ ἄρ’ τικτε ίνον πολυ ρατον υἱ ν / ν δ , σοι βροτοί εἰσιν ἀοιδοὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί, / πάντες μὲν θρ νε σιν ἐν εἰλαπίναις τε χοροῖς τε, / ἀρχ μενοι δὲ ίνον καὶ λ γοντες καλέουσιν. Note, for instance, Ammianus Marcellinus 19.1.10 11. Note also Homer Iliad 18.570: φασὶ δὲ α τὸν (sc. ίνον) τιμ σθαι πὸ ποι τῶν ἐν θρ νώδεσιν ἀπαρχαῖς. Cf. the remarks of Power 2010:210n58. 306 Kinyras the Lamenter all singers and lyrists shows that this was a fundamental, ancient repertory item. Hesiod’s universali ing assertion may well imply the same international perspective as Herodotos an awareness that lyric threnody was a general practice in and beyond the Aegean. Important here is the report that Sappho sang of Oito-Linos together with Adonis ; this is presumably related to her fragments of lyric lament for the latter, but in any case is early evidence for the threnodic tendency to compile ancient misfortunes. 156 A similarly international outlook probably underlies the mother-son relationship of Ourania-Linos in Hesiod, since Ourania’ is regularly applied to Aphrodite in her Cypriot and NE manifestations, while the Cypriot goddess could be invoked as a kind of Muse in her own right.157 Although the attribution of mystical books to Linos (and similar gures) is relatively late,158 Linos would not have become the target of forgers without the traditional reputation attested by another Hesiodic fragment, which calls him learned in all kinds of wisdom. This recalls the connection between lyrists and wisdom traditions in the ANE.159 Hesiod’s allusion to professional Linos-threnodes is eshed out by the evidence for regional Linos cults.160 In the grove of the Muses on Helicon, Pausanias relates, there was an annual rite in which Linos was revered before sacri ces to the Muses were conducted.161 Note the order of o erings: celebration of the Muses and hence other gods depended upon e cacious music, so the performance itself was rst secured by appeal to the demigod lyrist. The Thebans, Pausanias continues, had once maintained a monumental grave to Linos,162 and the Homeric scholia preserve phrases from a traditional Linos-song said to have been inscribed there.163 Two further Linos-tombs in the temple of 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Sappho 140b Pausanias 9.29.8: απφ δωνιν μο καὶ ἰτ λινον σεν (Pausanias, after commenting on Oitolinos, refers to a form of Linos-song by the Athenian Pamphos). Sappho’s Adonis fragments are 140a, 168. Franklin 2014:224 226, adding Sappho’s hymnic invocations of Aphrodite (Nagy 2007). West 1983:55 67. Hesiod fr. 306 M-W (PEG T 3): παντοί ς σοφί ς δεδα κ τα (cf. Allen 1924:130 131). Note the similar language applied to Hermes’ lyre at Homeric Hymn to Hermes 482 484, where the instrument is represented as a teacher to its player: Whoever, learned in skill and wisdom, en uires of her, she teaches, uttering all sorts of things pleasing to the mind ( ς τις ν α τ ν / τέχν καὶ σοφί δεδα μένος ἐ ερεείν / φθεγγομέν παντοῖα ν ῳ χαρίεντα διδάσκει). For this passage, see further Franklin 2006a:61 62. For Linos, P ster 1909 1912:489, cf. 213 214 for Orpheus; Farnell 1921:23 30; Power 2010:208n55. These cults provided patterns for the veneration of deceased historical poets: Farnell 1921:367; Clay 2004; Kimmel-Clau et 2013. Pausanias 9.29.6: το τῳ κατ τος καστον πρὸ τῆς θυσίας τῶν ουσῶν ἐναγί ουσι. Pausanias 9.29.8 9; Philokhoros FGH 328 F 207. See sources in PMG 800 (Carmina popularia 34); Philokhoros FGH 328 F 207. 307 Chapter Twelve Apollo Lýkios at Argos are mentioned by Pausanias,164 and there was another on Euboea.165 Eleutherna on Crete also claimed to be his homeland, and still another Linos is found among the fty sons of Lykaon, the primeval Arcadian king.166 The distribution of this material, taken together with the testimony of Hesiod and Sappho, shows that Linos-song goes back in various epichoric forms to the BA. This is corroborated by Homer himself, who includes, among the images on the shield of Achilles that typify a peaceful city and orderly cosmos,167 a cheerful vintage scene: Maidens and unmarried youths, light at heart, Bore the fruit, as sweet as honey, in wickerwork baskets. A boy in their midst, with clear-sounding lyre, played it Soulfully, singing for them a lovely Linos-song (línon d’ hypò kalòn áeide) With elegant voice while the youths, stamping time all together, With singing and shouting were following, feet skipping.168 We need not doubt the ancient belief that this scene depicts Linos-song.169 True, the setting is not lugubrious. But threnody could be highly styli ed and en oyable outside of actual funerals, on occasions of more holiday humor. Compare the Adonis festival represented by Theokritos, where the lament’ is closer to a concert, and the event much anticipated.170 Homer’s harvesters, in one or more choruses, feel a pleasant yearning at the lyrist’s moving performance (himeróen kithárize).171 Together they savor the bittersweet of waning light and another 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 One Linos was said to be the son of Apollo and Psamathe, the other was the famous poet: Pausanias 2.19.8. For Linos myth and ritual at Argos, Farnell 1921:26 29. Diogenes Laertios 1.4; P ster 1909 1912:220. Eleutherna: Stephanos of By antium s.v. πολλωνία: κγ Κρ τ ς, πάλαι λε θερνα, ίνου πατρίς (noted by Power 2010:373n164); Arcadia: Apollodoros Library 3.8.1. Hephaistos’ inclusion of earth, heaven, sea, sun, moon, and constellations (18.486 492) makes the shield a microcosm of the natural cycles that dominate human culture. See generally Hardie 1985. Homer Iliad 18.567 572 (PEG T 1): παρθενικαὶ δὲ καὶ θεοι ἀταλ φρονέοντες / πλεκτοῖς ἐν ταλάροισι φέρον μελι δέα καρπ ν. / τοῖσιν δ’ ἐν μέσσοισι πά ς φ ρμιγγι λιγεί / ἱμερ εν κιθάρι ε, ίνον v.l. λίνος: v. infra δ’ πὸ καλὸν ἄειδε / λεπταλέ φων τοὶ δὲ σσοντες μαρτ / μολπ τ’ ἰυγμῷ τε ποσὶ σκαίροντες ποντο. For μολπ as song and dance’, typically to lyremusic, see Franklin 2003:296. Homer Iliad 18.570; Pausanias 9.29.7. Theokritos Idylls 15 with Power 2010:63. For the scene’s choral uality, cf. Nagy 1990:352 353. The expression σσοντες μαρτ / ποντο is a clear indication of dance: note especially the similar language in the choral-lyric scene of Homeric Hymn to Apollo 514 517. Power 2010:210 suggests interpreting the Linos-song 308 Kinyras the Lamenter year gone primeval feelings, which, one must concede to Fra er, found widespread poetic and musical expression in ancient agrarian calendars.172 Homer’s lyre-singer is a youth’ (páïs) with elegant voice’ (le tal i h n i), a description perfectly appropriate for Linos himself before any of his untimely deaths. One should therefore still entertain a variant re ected by Aristarkhos but championed by enodotos, who preferred nominative línos for accusative línon. The reading, in enodotos’ view (or so Aristarkhos understood him), yielded not he sang (of) Linos’, but the linen(-string) sang’.173 This interpretation was probably correlated with myths of Apollo killing Linos for using linen strings, and the aílinos-song of loom-workers.174 But the variant may be more pregnant than the ancient critic(s) appreciated. For if one can follow Aristarkhos (as most scholars do) in taking accusative línon as Linos -song ’, the nominative variant can e ually be read as Linos’ in apposition to páïs. This would produce a performative picture much like what I have proposed for Kinyras on other grounds: A boy in their midst, with clear-sounding lyre, played it Soulfully, and sc. as Linos sang for them With delicate voice. Even on the traditional reading, Homer’s description shows that the youthful, delicate-voiced lyrist is somehow enacting Linos. In this circular mimesis the musician, by hymning and invoking his semi-divine counterpart, becomes a theîos aoidós the godly singer’ who is visited with god-uttered song’ (théspis aoid ) through devotion to the appropriate divinity. This musical interface between human and divine was canonically expressed, in Greek tradition, as 172 173 174 here as a prooimion to the choral molpê that is, an epicletic opening-hymn as the harvesters set down their baskets and get into choral formation. Olivetti 2010, troubled by the apparent dissonance, would derive the threnodic opening aílinon (see below) from λινος ( vine’), attractively resegmenting Iliad 18.570 from κιθάρι ε, λίνον to κιθάρι ’ λινον (177 182); this, she argues, created a need to explain λίνον in Homer’s text, which led to creation of a personal Linos, perhaps by ps.-Hesiod himself (143 145). But I feel this relies on too rigid a relationship between xed texts, and cannot account for the widespread and early Linos traditions implied by the Hesiodic fragment and cultic evidence. Athenaios 619c, citing Aristophanes of By antium, states that that the Linos-song could be sung on oyous occasions, noting Euripides Herakles, where Apollo cries aílinon’ in happy song-dance (α λινον μὲν ἐπ’ ε τυχεῖ / μολπ ), driving the beautiful-toned kithára with a golden pick (348 351). Homer Iliad 18.570 (via Aristonikos): παρ νοδ τῳ λίνος δ’ πὸ καλὸν ἄειδε’. δὲ ρίσταρχος βο λεται μ τ ν χορδ ν λέγεσθαι, ἀλλ γένος τι μνου τὸν λίνον. σπερ εἰ λεγεν παι να δεν τι τοιο τον. The semi-technical and invertible πὸ καλὸν ἄεισε/ἄειδε (Homer Odyssey 21.411; Homeric Hymn to Hermes 54, 502) supports either reading: Franklin 2003:300 301. Kallimakhos may allude to the issue: Stephens 2002:19. Loom-workers: Athenaios 681d, citing the sixth-century Epikharmos; cf. GMW 1:276n76. Linenstrings: p190. 309 Chapter Twelve a patronage relationship with Apollo and/or the Muses.175 But the Homeric Hymns show that in practice there was more exibility, since the deity invoked for inspiration is normally that to whom the hymn itself is addressed. G. Nagy, in a detailed reading of Sappho, has demonstrated much the same relationship with Aphrodite, the poet petitioning her divine patroness for assistance, and being overcome’ in performance by the goddess, with whom she engages in dialogue.176 This is precisely what I propose for Linos, Kinyras, and the lyrists who venerated them. Much the same relationship, we saw, was developed for divini ed instruments in the ANE, and between the Biblical psalmodists and ahweh. An important di erence, however, is that Linos is dead. He is literally ályros, his music stilled. The performing lyrist makes Linos and his lyre live again, reviving’ an ancient power through the ecstasy of song and dance. This suggests a similar interpretation of Pindar’s Cypriot voices around Kinyras. In Chapter 10, I analy ed that passage in terms of praise-singing, but this is e ually compatible with a threnodic reading, since thrênos itself could be encomiastic.177 After all, Pindar’s Kinyras illustrated great men’s reputations after death, and Kinyras’ grave at Old Paphos clearly indicates a kind of mortuary cult.178 Pindar’s plural phâmai will readily encompass the lamentable tales that after all are rather prominent in Kinyras’ mythology. Cypriot kinýrasingers might thus have commemorated his death at the hands of Apollo, his suicide following the seduction by Myrrha, or even his defeat by Agamemnon (a kind of city-lament ). They could also win him back from grief over his various unhappy children. The traditional cry aílinon, understood by the Greeks as Ah, Linos ’, is often thought to derive from a Semitic phrase Alas for us ’. The idea is plausible, though not universally accepted.179 Certainly Linos himself must be a backconstruction from aílinon, which would have given poets free range for tragic aetiologies. While aílinon occurs in many threnodic contexts with no clear allusion to Linos-song per se, other cases seem relevant. In Euripides’ Helen, the heroine, stranded in Egypt, calls for Libyan lotus-pipes, panpipes, or lyres 175 176 177 178 179 See especially Hesiod Theogony 94 95. Nagy 2007. Cf. Aristokles of Rhodes On Poetry, uoted in Ammonios n imilar and i erent Words 178: θρῆνος δυρμὸν χει σ ν ἐγκωμίῳ το τελετ σαντος. See p419. For the Greek interpretation, Pindar fr. 128c5 6 (PEG T 4); Pausanias 9.29.8. For the proposed WS etymology from ai lānu, alas for us’, Farnell 1921:24; Brown 1965:208n2; Hemmerdinger 1970:42; Ros l 2013:157; cf. EFH:262, suggesting rather a connection with Ialemos (another gure of Greek lament) and the WS god Lim (cf. imri-Lim). 310 Kinyras the Lamenter (phórmingas) to help lament her Ah-Linos ’ woes (ailínois kakoîs).180 This con rms the existence of lyric threnodies and Herodotos’ assertion that a kind of Linos-song was known in Egypt (though possibly Euripides is himself alluding to the historian). In the Orestes, Euripides again associates the cry aílinon with eastern threnody, this time in an Anatolian context. The Phrygian eunuch, in a campy showpiece set to eerie double-pipe melodies,181 begins his account of events inside Agamemnon’s palace as follows: Ah Linos Ah Linos (aílinon aílinon) As barbarians say At the start of a lament (arkhàn thr nou) Alas in Asiatic voice, when Blood of kings is poured to earth by swords The iron swords of Hades.182 While the poet’s genius is certainly on display the ensuing exchange with Orestes is larded with amusing orientalist slurs the Eunuch’s description of aílinon as the formal start of a lament con rms the Hesiodic testimony that threnodes (lyre-singers in the fragment) began and ended by invoking Linos. By the play’s own terms, of course, we are dealing not with styli ed, calendrical lament, but one undertaken at a de nite moment.183 But this too ts with the threnodic use of such ancient misfortunes. 184 Herodotos’ treatment of Maneros-song suggests that the historian would have viewed the lament of father for son as an intelligible mythological and performative stance for Linos-song’ too.185 This is echoed by the royal context of Euripides ( blood of kings ), whose generali ing terms e ually imply an ancient tradition. The arrangement is attested for Linos himself, who in Ovid is 180 181 182 183 184 185 Euripides Helen 167 178, especially 175 176 a di cult passage. Despite the variety of Helen’s imagined musical landscape, the realities of tragic performance re uired aulós accompaniment for her song. Euripides exploits this situation by soon having the chorus describe Helen’s song as a lyreless elegy (ályron élegon, 185). Compare Euripides Medea 190 200, where the chorus stresses the inability of festive lyre-songs to cure mortal woes. This was explicated by M. Gri th, How Should Phrygian Slaves Sing (in the Athenian Theater) , at the conference Music in Greek Drama: History, Theory and Practice, May 28 29, 2011, University of California, Santa Cru . Euripides Orestes 1395 1399: α λινον α λινον ἀρχ ν θρ νου / βάρβαροι λέγουσιν, / αἰαῖ, σιάδι φων ι, βασιλέων / ταν α μα χυθῆι κατ γ ν ίφεσιν / σιδαρέοισιν ιδα. The eunuch laments the destruction of Troy and his own enslavement another literary adaptation of city-lament. His song also prepares the way for Orestes’ own anticipated spilling of royal blood. Compare the situation in Ammianus Marcellinus 19.1.10 11, where female mourners at an actual royal funeral are compared to devotees (cultrices) of Aphrodite lamenting Adonis. Though not invariably, as this does not t Homer’s vignette. 311 Chapter Twelve mourned by his father (Apollo) with reluctant lyre’.186 Here, in di erent mythological and performative terms, is a doublet of Homer’s vintage scene the lyrist-singer commemorating the lyrist-of-song. A remarkable parallel for father-son threnody comes from an Arabic source, Hisham ibn al-Kalb (died ca. 819 821), who records a tradition about Lamk, the Biblical Lamech. After Lamk’s young son (unnamed) died, he hung the body in a tree so that his form will not depart from my eyes until he falls in pieces. When only thigh-, leg-, foot-, and toe-bones remained, Lamk modeled these parts in wood to form soundbox, neck, pegbox, and pegs, respectively, added strings for his son’s sinews, and so invented the lute in his image (by now lutes had generally displaced lyres: see Appendix D). Then he began to play on it and weep and lament, until he became blind; and he was the rst who sang a lament. 187 The instrument as an embodiment of the dead son, who thus achieves a kind of immortality in musical memory and indeed physical form as he is held by the lamenting father, is most suggestive vis-à-vis divini ed instruments. Although the son is not named, and dies at the age of ve, it is surely signi cant that it is precisely Lamech’s son (Jubal) who in the canonical tradition invents the lyre ( inn r).188 Unfortunately, the ultimate anti uity and ethnic a liation of the present tale are unclear; in the reception of Biblical stories, the musical inventions of Lamech and his family were widely adapted to local cultural conditions.189 Nonetheless, the myth, being utterly independent of Greek tradition, is vital for its corroboration, in an ANE context, of chordophonic lamentation-singing and a father-son charter-myth. We should also recall here David’s lament for Absalom.190 Although Herodotos declines to identify the mythological sub ects of Phoenician and Cypriot lament, one name he and other Greeks would certainly have o ered was Adonis. The uno cial celebration of annual Adonis festivals (the Ad ni ) was by now a xture of women’s popular culture in Athens and elsewhere.191 And Herodotos will have known Kinyras as Adonis’ father in some versions of the myth. It is assumed only slightly later by the Athenian comic poet Plato ( . ca. 420 410), whose Adonis contained a silly but intriguing oracle warning 186 187 188 189 190 191 Ovid Amores 3.9.23 24. Robson and Farmer 1938:9 (translation here). Note Lamech’s song at Genesis 4:23 24, uniformly singled out by critics as the earliest surviving sample of Israelite rhapsody (North 1964:379). Genesis 4:21. L has αλτ ριον καὶ κιθάραν. For this and other variations, see p215n164. See p454 455 and n76. The motif of blindness of course recalls the tradition of Egyptian harpers: see p110. 2 Samuel 18:33. For the Ad ni , see Alexiou 2002:55 57; GR:258; Winkler 1990:108 209; Holst-Warhaft 1992:99 103; Detienne 1994:99 101 et passim. 312 Kinyras the Lamenter Kinyras of his son’s impending death.192 Antimakhos of Colophon ( . ca. 400) paired Kinyras and Adonis soon afterwards.193 That both authors con oin Kinyras and Adonis in the context of the youth’s death cannot be an accident: they consciously avoided Phoinix ( The Phoenician’), the more canonical Hesiodic father.194 This shows that Kinyras was already understood as The Lamenter, and Herodotos very probably had Kinyras-Adonis in mind when he alleged that Cypriot and Phoenician lamentation was the same’ as the songs for Linos and Maneros.195 Like Maneros’ father, Kinyras is a primeval king and Adonis a fallen prince; if the analogy can be pressed, Kinyras becomes the fountainhead of Cypriot music, the original and most characteristic form of which was lyric threnody. But since both Kinyras and Adonis were lovers of Aphrodite, the two also appear to be mythological doublets of a sort.196 Note that Adonis is often portrayed with a lyre in the Classical period.197 While this does suit his youth and the erotic context Aphrodite also appears in these scenes there is more to it. First there are Aphrodite’s muse-like properties, especially clear on Cyprus.198 Moreover, given the lyre’s symbolism in the funerary scenes discussed above, Adonis’ instrument must e ually mark the life he is soon to lose, with the lyreless grief and divine laments that follow. This is con rmed by the lyre’s absence in contemporary scenes showing Adonis-laments, which feature rather doublepipes and frame-drums or krótala.199 I have suggested that much the same organological dichotomy may be seen in Ugaritic ritual and paramythological texts of the royal ancestor cult.200 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Plato Comicus fr. 3 PCG (Athenaios 456a): Plato in his Adonis, saying that an oracle was given to Kinyras about his son Adonis, has: O Kinyras, king of Cypriots, shaggy-assed men, / To you was born a son, the most beautiful and marvelous / In the human race; but two gods will destroy him / She who is driven by secret oars, and he who drives’. He means Aphrodite and Dionysos; for both loved Adonis ( λάτων δ’ ἐν τῷ δώνιδι χρ σμὸν δοθῆναι λέγων Κιν ρ πὲρ δώνιδος το υἱο φ σιν Κιν ρα, βασιλε Κυπρίων ἀνδρῶν δασυπρώκτων, / παῖς σοι κάλλιστος μὲν φυ θαυμαστ τατ ς τε / πάντων ἀνθρώπων, δ ο δ’ α τὸν δαίμον’ λεῖτον, / μὲν ἐλαυνομέν λαθρίοις ἐρετμοῖς, δ’ ἐλα νων. λέγει δ’ φροδίτ ν καὶ ι νυσον ἀμφ τεροι γ ρ ρων το δώνιδος). See p284. Hesiod fr. 139 M-W Apollodoros Library 3.14.4. It may even be that Herodotos used the more familiar Kinyras-Adonis material to esh out a tale for Maneros. One might make a similar point about Herodotos’ account of sacred prostitution at Babylon. Atallah 1966:313. See p145. See p307. See p145. See p141 146. 313 Chapter Twelve The historical implications of this Kinyras-Adonis doublet are somewhat elusive, thanks to the vanishing nature of Adonis himself, who, as S. Ribichini showed, originated at the Hellenosemitic interface as a half-understood pastiche of Levantine religious life.201 This generic uality is re ected in his very name, which must derive from WS ’dn ( lord’); this has proven di cult to pin to a speci c mainland god, though the Baal of Byblos is one probable reference.202 Adonis’ death while hunting does appear to recycle a Levantine mytheme.203 His pairing with Kinyras the Lamenter must also echo some early Levantine cult practice. Annual lamentations are famously attested at Roman Byblos for a god of the so-called dying-and-rising type who at that time was identi ed with Adonis/Tammu , while his father, called Kinyras and Kauthar, was said to have lamented him at Aphaka (see further Chapter 19). It seems likely that the Greek concoction of Adonis should be connected especially with Cyprus, where many sources locate him.204 The appropriate cultural conditions are probably best traced to IA Aegean settlement there, followed by ninth-century Phoenician coloni ation. et Kinyras himself, as I shall show in the following chapters, was by then an ancient xture of Cypriot life, rooted in the pre-Greek period. This suggests an historical-cultural explanation for his pairing with Adonis, since mythological relationships can encode the uxtaposition and/or coalescence of distinct cultures and analogous features thereof.205 One gure assumes a senior or dominant role, the other a unior or subordinate one, depending on speci c historical and sociological conditions. Greater mythological age’ may re ect only relative anti uity or importance within a given geographical sphere and/or cultural perspective that is dominant in some respect. I have already interpreted Kinyras as the son or beloved of Apollo along such lines.206 Given that musical syncretism, a phenomenon well known to ethnomusicology, occurs precisely around the most compatible features of two traditions,207 Cypriot Kinyras would naturally have become secondarily associated with the Phoenician cult-music which underlies the large inn r ensembles of the symposium bowls and the singers’ maintained 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 Ribichini 1981; papers in s.n. 1984. See also Dussaud 1945:366; Dietrich 1978:6; DDUPP:90, 97 98. See the review in Mettinger 2001:124 126 with references. Such an accident is recorded by Philo of Byblos for his Elioun’: FGH 790 F 2 (15): ἐν συμβολ θ ρίων τελευτ σας ἀφιερώθ . Cf. Baudissin 1911:76; Lightfoot 2004:79. Grottanelli 1984:38 compares the death of A hat while hunting. See sources in Baudissin 1911:81 82. For a comparable historical reading of Kinyras-Adonis on more general (i.e. nonmusical) grounds, cf. Atallah 1966:313 315; Baurain 1980b:10. See p226 230, cf. 410. See Nettl 1985:20 23 with further examples and literature. 314 Kinyras the Lamenter by Astarte’s temple at Kition.208 Indeed, secondarily’ does some in ustice to the situation, if indeed the Cypriot Kinyras himself originated in Syro-Levantine practices of the BA. It would be a case rather of insular divergence and reconvergence with cognate Canaanite/Phoenician ideas.209 The father-son pairing of the doublets Kinyras-Adonis would thus express this historical stratigraphy within the island, in addition to re ecting, presumably, the father-son motif that was evidently fairly typical of lyric-threnody traditions in the region. Another advantage of this scenario is that, while Adonis is most helpful for corroborating Kinyras as The Lamenter, it allows the ancient king to be connected with further lamentation sub ects in the pre-Phoenician period. This lets us explain the diverse tales with which this chapter began Kinyras’ other lamentable children, their wide-ranging connection with cult-ob ects and processes, and angered and grieving gods to soothe, especially Aphrodite’. There are also the several obscure names recorded as alternative Cypriot designations of Adonis, including Pygmaion,210 Kirris,211 Gauas, and Ao or Aoios.212 The Aphroditos’ who was honored at Amathous and elsewhere on the island recalls the gender-bending dimension of Astarte/Ishtar, and perhaps transgendered lamentation-priests (Sum. gala, Akk. kalû, surely related to the gálloi of Kybele cult).213 Also relevant is the report that, again at Amathous, Adonis was 208 209 210 211 212 213 See p116. Here one should note the lamentation scene, evidently through dance, on the sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos (KAI 1). Though Ahiram probably dates to the tenth-century, the sarcophagus itself goes back perhaps to the thirteenth-century (Frankfort 1970:271 272) and was repurposed. Cf. Fariselli 2010:17, comparing this scene to Herodotos’ Phoenician Linos-song’. Hesykhios s.v. υγμαίων δωνις παρ Κυπρίοις. This clearly relates to the Cypriot or CyproPhoenician god pmy, already attested in the Nora Stone from Sardinia (KAI 46). See DDUPP:297 306; Dupont-Sommer 1974:84. For the royal name Pumayyaton at Kition, see p244, 358. Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Κίρρις; Hesykhios s.v. Κίρις; cf. HC:70n2; Atallah 1966:315. For these last names, see p498 503. Hesykhios s.v. φρ διτος, citing Theophrastos and Paion of Amathous: FGH 757 F 1; cf. Aristophanes fr. 325 PCG; Catullus 68.51 52; Macrobius Saturnalia 3.8.2; Photios Lexicon s.v. Cf. Karageorghis 1988:195; Kypris:110 112 with further references, including the bisexual Adonis of Photios Library 151b5 7. For ANE parallels, see Asher-Greve and Westenhol 2013, index s.v. gender amalgams and gender ambiguous. For Sum. gala/Akk. kalû see p29 30. The connection with Gk.’ gálloi has not yet been fully elucidated, but the Hittite ritual material assembled by Taylor 2008 provides a convincing cultural/chronological link. Of classical sources, note especially Lucian’s description of the parallel Attis: He left o from the male lifestyle, and exchanged it for a female form and put on womanly clothing; and ranging through the world he carried out the rites and told about his su erings and sang of Rhea (βίου μὲν ἀνδρ ίου ἀπεπα σατο, μορφ ν δὲ θ λέ ν μεί ατο καὶ ἐσθῆτα γυναικ ί ν ἐνεδ σατο καὶ ἐς π σαν γῆν φοιτέων ργιά τε ἐπετέλεεν καὶ τ παθεν ἀπ γέετο καὶ έ ν ειδεν, On the Syrian Goddess 15). 315 Chapter Twelve honored as Osiris; though Egyptian, the Cypriots and Phoenicians made him their own 214 for Osiris himself was an ob ect of ritual lamentation.215 Pho n Kin r n Having established the existence of lyric threnody to the kinýra, we may resume and complete our analysis of the phrase od r menos in r n, which, according to Aristonikos, enodotos wished to read at Iliad 9.612 as if it meant singing a threnody’ (thr n n). 216 The phrasing implies that the sense of in r n was being somehow stretched. I showed that this word must mean, basically, play the kinýra’, and suggested that secondary connotations of lamentation arose from the instrument’s performance contexts. With od r menos in r n working together naturally as single phrase,217 Achilles’ rebuke of Phoinix e ectively mimes pathetic violin-music to a would-be sob story: Do not confuse my angered-resolve with this moaning to the kinýra (od r menos in r n). enodotos was uite right that the expression, which parallels the Homeric description of epic poetry as singing and lyre-music, 218 was e uivalent to thr n n. But it alludes to a distinct performance reality with colorful connotations. Achilles’ metaphor takes on special meaning given that an important use of ANE lamentation was to win back the a ections of a wrathful vanishing god’ in this case, the hero’s withdrawal with its catastrophic reversal for the Greeks. Phoinix himself makes this comparison, telling Achilles to give over his wrath, as even gods bend to incense-o erings, libations, and burnt victims.219 His cautionary tale of Meleagros involves a wrathful hero who eventually came around to save a city, but too late to en oy the goodwill gifts he was o ered.220 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 Stephanos of By antium s.v. μαθο ς π λις Κ πρου ἀρχαιοτάτ , ἐν δωνις σιρις ἐτιμ το, ν ἰγ πτιον ντα Κ πριοι καὶ οίνικες ἰδιοποιο νται. While Amathous maintained a recogni ably Eteocypriot character until at least the Hellenistic period, the city was also home to a substantial Phoenician contingent (see p16). It was presumably the latter who introduced Osiris, who was interpreted as a version of Adonis at Byblos (Parthenios fr. 42 and Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 7, with Lightfoot’s comments on both; Stephanos of By antium s.v. βλος). Fra er 1914 2:12. See p207 208. See the parallels in p208n120. See e.g. Homer Iliad 13.731 (κίθαριν καὶ ἀοιδ ν), cf. Odyssey 1.159, 21.406 (ἀν ρ φ ρμιγγος ἐπιστάμενος καὶ ἀοιδῆς); Hesiod fr. 305.2 M-W (ἀοιδοὶ καὶ κιθαρισταί); Homeric Hymn to Hermes 432 (πάντ’ ἐνέπων κατ κ σμον, ἐπωλένιον κιθαρί ων). Homer Iliad 9.497 501. The exemplum is treated in detail by Nagy 1979:103 111. 316 Kinyras the Lamenter Agamemnon’s own bribes are extraordinarily rich. But only if Achilles accepts them, Phoinix says, will the Achaeans honor you like unto a god. 221 Moreover, od r menos in r n yields vivid ethnic nuances when directed against Phoinix, whose name means simply the Phoenician’.222 To be sure, this particular Phoinix, son not of Agenor but Amyntor, is not otherwise connected with Phoenicia.223 But that merely sharpens the sting. Achilles is ordering Phoinix to pull himself together, and not act the Phoenician a people generally represented by Homer as dishonest sneaks.224 There are more ominous overtones too. In Hesiod, Adonis’ father is also Phoinix.225 And Homer has consistently characteri ed Phoinix as a surrogate father to Achilles.226 Phoinix himself uses this as leverage for his petition: I made you my son, god-like Achilles / That you might someday protect me from unworthy calamity. 227 Reading odyrómenos in r n lets Achilles take up all of these points. For Achilles’ own death is inevitable, once he has accepted Agamemnon’s peace terms and a return to battle. Against Phoinix’ claim of the protection due a father, Achilles implies that the old man, in attempting to win him over by acting the kinýra-lamenter, will nd himself in the position of a Phoenician king mourning a prince who has died unseasonably. Here one must remember the lamentations connected to hero-cults of Achilles.228 Finally, recall the tradition that Phoinix that is, the Phoenician king invented the gíngras-pipes for lamenting Adonis.229 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 Homer Iliad 9.114 161; 603: σον γάρ σε θεῷ τίσουσιν χαιοί. My interpretation of the name need not exclude concurrent possibilities (e.g. M hlestein 1981:91 associates with φοιν ς ἱκέτ ς, with reference to Phoinix’ backstory of blood-crime and his beseeching of Achilles), especially if κινυρί ων is a secondary accretion. Edwards 1979:68n64. But the story of his stepmother trying to seduce him has ANE parallels. For sources, see Gant 1993:618; comparisons are drawn by Astour 1965:144 145; Brown 1968:166 168; EFH:373; Brown 1995:65 70. Winter 1995. Hesiod fr. 139 M-W Apollodoros Library 3.14.4. See M hlestein 1981:89 for the internal evidence. This role was apparently uite consistent in epic, udging from notices about Phoinix in the Kypria and the Nostoi. According to Pausanias (10.26.4 Kypria fr. 16 EGF, 21 PEG), in the Kypria it was Phoinix who gave Achilles’ son the name Neoptolemos (re ecting Achilles’ own youth when entering the war). According to Proklos’ summary of the Nostoi, Phoinix dies during the homeward ourney of Neoptolemos, who, after burying him, is reunited with his grandfather Peleus (Proklos Chrestomathy 277 EGF:67.23 24, PEG:95.15 16) the surrogate father being now dispensable. Homer Iliad 9.485 495 ( uotation at 494 495: ἀλλ σὲ παῖδα θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ’ χιλλε / ποιε μ ν, να μοί ποτ’ ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀμ ν ς). The case of Elis was mentioned above. Lykophron alludes to similar mourning rites at Croton (Alexandra 859). In an annual Thessalian mission to honor the grave of Achilles in the Troad, the grieving Thetis was propitiated with a hymn before landing (Philostratos On Heroes 53.10). Cf. P ster 1909 1912:498; Farnell 1921:208 209; Nagy 1979:9, 114, 116 117; Dué 2006:41. There was also a cult to Achilles at Sparta by the late Geometric period: Ainian 1999:11 with references. Pollux Onomastikon 4.76; cf. p145, 190n19, 202 204, 299n117. 317 Chapter Twelve If we follow Aristarkhos in re ecting od r menos in r n as un-Homeric, we must at least recogni e that this was an inspired interpolation. But the phrase is so strikingly appropriate that I am tempted to see it as original. in r n would readily fall afoul of Aristarkhos, being otherwise alien to the lyre-vocabulary of epic, with its general preference for phórminx. But this begs the uestion of whether or not Homer intended some special lyric e ect; for singers would naturally take professional interest in parallel lyric’ traditions. The blinding of Thamyris seems to be an o hand allusion to and hostile dismissal of a competing lyric genre.230 Pe orative cross-generic implications may also inform the poet’s occasional use of kítharis and kitharízein.231 Homer’s favorable treatment of Linos-song e ually acknowledges a parallel lyric tradition distinct from his own epic art.232 Indeed, the scene of Linos-song on Achilles’ shield may be more than incidental color. The poet portrays Achilles as a beautiful young lyrist, singing kléa andrôn (when Phoinix arrives) and meditating on his basic crisis of whether or not to be epic his choice between immortality in song (kléos áphthiton), or singing about others at his tent.233 These parallels make it uite possible that Homer could have indulged in such genre-play with odyrómenos in r n And after all, he was familiar with Kinyras himself.234 ogue he nt noo Lament From Kour on I close this examination of Cypriot lyric threnody, which has necessarily relied heavily on comparative data and systematic considerations, with a welcome inscription from Kourion. It records a threnodic tribute to the late Antinoos, Hadrian’s beloved, who, after drowning in the Nile in 130 CE, was dei ed by the emperor and given cult-honors far and wide, often complete with temples, priesthoods, festivals, competitive games, and music.235 While Antinoos was identi ed with Osiris in Egypt, the Kourion hymn takes the appropriate form 230 231 232 233 234 235 See p234 235. Franklin 2011b. Stephens 2002:13 14. Homer Iliad 9.189, 413. Kallimakhos at least seems to have drawn a direct connection between Linos and Achilles in a typically dense passage of his Hymn to Apollo, where in retai is used of the laments by Thetis, and the god’s lyre itself is the ob ect of praise-singing: Even the sea keeps uiet, when singers celebrate / His kítharis or bow, the instruments of Lykoreian Phoibos. / Nor does mother Thetis bewail ( in retai) Achilles with Ah Linos (Aílina!) / When she hears hi ai on hi ai on ’ (Hymns 2.18 21: ε φ μεῖ καὶ π ντος, τε κλείουσιν ἀοιδοί / κίθαριν τ α, υκωρέος ντεα οίβου. / ο δὲ έτις χιλῆα κιν ρεται α λινα μ τ ρ, / ππ θ’ ἱ παιῆον ἱ παιῆον ἀκο σ ). One could also seek a parallel in κινυρ at Iliad 17.5, the Homeric status of which was unchallenged by the ancient critics. Lambert 1984:184 197. 318 Kinyras the Lamenter of an Adonis-lament. Its diction is predominantly lyric; the poet invokes Apollo as lyroktýpos ( ringer of the lyre’), and says of his own performance: For you I rouse the bárbita baritone-lyres , for you the kítharis / by the altar-side. 236 Given Hadrian’s in unction that Antinoos was to be mourned as a son, 237 the poet, as mourner of Antinoos-Adonis and (at least notional) lyric threnode, is probably assuming, or at least alluding to, the traditional image of Kinyras the Lamenter. That Greek lyre-names are used here, rather than kinýra, accords both with the non-Cypriot identity of the honored and the dedicator (seemingly a high-ranking o cial), and the progressive Helleni ation of Cyprus in preceding centuries.238 But en rist s Apollo at Tiberian Paphos indicates that such a threnody, elsewhere on the island, could probably still have been performed by a kinýra-player. 236 237 238 I.Kourion 104 (ca. 130/131 CE); Lebek 1973; SEG 53:1747bis: λυροκτ πος, 9; σοὶ β ρβιτα, σοὶ κ θαριν δονῶ παρ βωμ ν, 10 11. Mitford also proposed το το τὸ κιθάρι σμα in line 5, but this is rather unsure. Against his reading αἰνο μεν δ ωνιν πὸ χθ να πα τρ δ’ ἀποφ θ μενον ντ νουν λ γε μοι (7 8), Lebek (110) would supplement as θρ νο μεν (5) based on a new metrical analysis; the passage becomes we mourn Antinoos, an Adonis’ (110n12), not as we sing Adonis, tell me of Antinoos’. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 4.49.2: τί δὲ καὶ ς υἱὸν θρ νεῖσθαι προσέτα ας; See p211 213. 319 13 The Talents of Kinyras O ur anal sis of C riot icono ra and the prehistory of kinýra (and associated music) is compatible with the idea that Kinyras could go back to the pre-Greek island in some form. And after all, our best evidence for divini ed instruments is of BA date, from Kinnaru of Ugarit on back to thirdmillennium Mesopotamia. And, as it happens, while the fth-century Pindar is our earliest literary source for a musical Kinyras, the bulk of Greco-Roman notices, from Homer onwards, do connect him with the pre-Greek LBA, which was evidently remembered as a kind of Golden Age.1 The material may be divided into two parts. The rst, to be collected and contextuali ed in the present chapter, links Kinyras to Cypriot industries, which, though pursued throughout the IA, greatly ourished in the LBA, the age of Alashiya. The second group (Chapter 14) con rms and extends this view by connecting Kinyras to the island’s pre-Greek population(s), whence he is variously encountered in Aegean migration legends. Great Kingship The rst point which allies Kinyras closely to LBA Cyprus is that many sources regard him as king over the whole island.2 A political structure of comparable extent and duration did not reappear after the fall of Alashiya until the island came under Ptolemaic control.3 True, Euagoras of Salamis aimed for island-wide power and in uence in the late fth century, and even won some ephemeral 1 2 3 This was recogni ed by G erstad 1944; G erstad 1948:429 430; Dussaud 1950; Kapera 1971:132; Baurain 1980b:291 301, 303n134; Baurain 1981a:24n4; Loucas-Durie 1989. Island-wide kingship is the most natural reading of Homer Iliad 11.20 (with and a ; cf. Baurain 1975 1976:535; but contra Lorimer 1950:31n5), where Cyprus is mentioned, not Paphos; so too Pindar Pythian 2.13 20 with ; cf. Plato Comicus fr. 3 PCG ( ασιλεῦ υπρί ν); Lykophron Alexandra 831; Dionysios the Periegete 509 (FGH 758 F 3a); Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.13.4 with (but Exhortation 3.45.4 connects Kinyras with Paphos), Miscellanies 1.21.132; Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18; Suda s.v. καταγηρ σαι; Hesykhios s.v. Kιν ρας. But note that Alashiya did not necessarily control the whole island: see p11. 321 Chapter Thirteen holdings in Phoenicia. et this exception proves the rule, since Euagoras himself found it expedient to pose as a descendant of Kinyras in support of his panCypriot pretentions.4 Kinyras’ status as a Great King is already assumed by Homer, for whom the Cypriot monarch, sending Agamemnon the corselet of Iliad 11, treated on e ual terms.5 As Eustathios and the scholia rightly suggest, the verb kharizómenos ( cultivating favor’), with its connotations of reciprocity, shows that the th ra was no penalty for not serving (unlike the magical horse Aithe with which Ekhepolos of Sicyon bought his freedom from Troy Ekhepolos acted under compulsion since Agamemnon was his own king ).6 Gift-giving of course remained a fundamental practice in the IA Aegean. But Agamemnon’s clear and traditional characteri ation as a Great King ( lord of many islands ) usties seeing Kinyras’ breastplate as an epic memory of the exchange networks of the LBA Club of Great Powers’ to which, after all, both Alashiya and Ahhiyawa belonged.7 Despite Homer’s ample description, the corselet is not, like the shield of Achilles, so elaborate as to defy all reality although in the real world something this ornamental would have been for ceremonial display rather than battle.8 The poet’s ecphrasis includes details reminiscent of Canaanite workmanship; its precious materials gold, tin, and enamel (kýanos) are all attested as palatial commodities in the Mycenaean world, where the word th ra itself was also current.9 Agamemnon’s daedalic th ra shows that Homer already knew the Cypriot king both as a famous metallurge (see below) and proverbially wealthy. The riches of Kinyras are mentioned already by Tyrtaios (ca. 650), who pairs him 4 5 6 7 8 9 See further p351 359. Homer Iliad 11.19 23. See p1. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20 23 (cf. ): ιν ρης θ ρακα δ κε … χαριζ μενος ασιλῆ , κα δ ροις ο τ ς ο κειο μενος τ ν λληνικ ν ιλ αν κα ο δ που διδο ς ε ς ποιν ν ἀστρατε ας, ς τ γαμ μνονι ποτελ ν ικυ νιος χ π λος ( Iliad 23.296 297) τ ν μνουμ νην θην τ ν τοῦ γαμ μνονος ππον ἐ ἀν γκης α τ ς ο κε ασιλε δ δ κεν, να μ στρατε σηται; for the point, Wagner 1891:182. For Agamemnon’s status, see especially Homer Iliad 12.100 108 ( uotation 108), which prepares the Catalogue of Ships; cf. 3.187. For LBA gift-exchange as relevant to the Kinyras episode, Dussaud 1950:58; Baurain 1980b:291 301; Morris 1992:6 8, 104; Morris 1997:610. Homer Iliad 11.24 28, with H. Catling in Buchhol and Wiesner 1977:78 79. P Sh 736 (to-ra-ke, θ ρακες) DMG no. 296 (general discussion, 375 381). For Kinyras’ corselet as re ecting LBA Cypriot and/or Canaanite industry: Webster 1964:102 103; Brown 1965:204; Kapera 1972:192; H. Catling in Buchhol and Wiesner 1977:78 79; Baurain 1980b:295 298; LoucasDurie 1989:119; Morris 1992:8 9; Morris 1997:610. Baurain 1975 1976:535 would even connect its decorations with snake symbolism of second-millennium Cyprus. D’Acunto 2009:157 158, on the other hand, explains the ecphrasis in terms of eighth- and seventh-century Cypro-Phoenician workmanship. Homer was of course familiar with contemporary Phoenician metalwork (Iliad 23.740 750, Odyssey 4.615 619 15.115 119, cf. 15.425). 322 The Talents of Kinyras with Midas; according to the proverb, rich was Midas, but thrice as rich Kinyras ; elsewhere he is ranked alongside Kroisos and Sardanapalos.10 This facet of Kinyras echoes the large and varied treasures ne cloth, horses, chariots, ivory, ebony, gold, and very great uantities of silver which the Alashiyan kings received from Egypt in exchange for mountains of copper.11 Cyprus also heads Homer’s catalogue of lands from which Menelaos reestablished his fortune after Troy.12 Eustathios, discussing the Agamemnon-Kinyras passage, says that Cyprus’s wealth and general prosperity were bywords.13 Kinyras’ proverbial wealth epitomi es a portfolio of other traditions associating him with industries which ourished on LBA Cyprus.14 Not all products documented in the Alashiya texts, or in the archaeological record, are connected with Kinyras in literary sources. He has no legendary involvement, for instance, with worked ivory, ne cloth, or faience. et this is itself signi cant: these latter industries were not peculiar to Cyprus, but more widely cultivated (and ivory had to be imported).15 Kinyras’ dominant associations are rather with metallurgy and the sea, those archetypal Cypriot activities. But this rule was not hard and fast since, as we shall see, he was also connected with the perfumed oil industry, pottery, and building materials. It should be signaled here that Kinyras’ nonmusical powers are one sign that he underwent early syncretism with Kothar, the Syro-Levantine craftsman god. I shall treat this complex problem, with collateral phenomena from the mainland and Mycenaean Pylos, in Chapters 17, 18, and 19. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Proverbial wealth: Tyrtaios 12.6 IEG; Pindar Nemean 8.17 18, cf. Pindar Pythian 2.27 (Abel 1891), ε δαιμονέστατον Plato Laws 660e; Pap.Oxy. 1795.32 (Lyrica Adespota 37 CA): λ ιος ν ίδας, τρ ς δ λ ιος ν ινύρας; Diogenianos 8.53 (1.316 Leutsch/Schneidewin); Dio Khrysostomos 8.28; Lucian Professor of Public Speaking 11.9; Julian Epistles 82; Libanios Epistles 503.3, 515.4, 571.2, 1197.5, 1221.5, 1400.3, Orations 1.273, 25.23, 55.21, 63.6, cf. 47.31; Suda s.v. καταγηρ σαι, αρδανάπαλος; Eustathios and Homer Iliad 11.20 (ζ πλουτος); Thomas Magister Anecdota Graeca, Boissonade 1829 1833 2:212. Note also Ovid Metamorphoses 10.299 (inter felices Cinyras) and 400 (fortuna). Cf. Kapera 1972:192; Baurain 1980b:301 303. EA 33 40 passim ( uotation 35.43, trans. Moran). Homer Odyssey 4.81 89. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.21: ο α δ προς ε ς πλοῦτον κα λοιπ ν ε δαιμον αν, α στορ αι δηλοῦσιν; cf. Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 508 509; ergil Aeneid 1.621 622: o imam Cyprum. Cf. Kapera 1972:193 194; Baurain 1981a; Loucas-Durie 1989. That is not to say that the LBA Cypriot versions of these industries were not distinctive: For Alashiyan ivory-work (EA 40.7 8, 13 14), with an international style’ combining Aegean, Levantine, and Egyptian elements, see PPC:268 272. Fine cloth (EA 31, 34; Hittite texts: SHC 2 no. 39 40; E ekiel 27:7) was produced by most or all LBA palaces; but note the lovely clothes with which the Graces regularly dress Aphrodite at Paphos in Greek epic (though the motif per se probably derives from traditions about Astarte/Inanna: Richardson 1991). 323 Chapter Thirteen Metallurge and Potter With some four million tons of slag produced during Cyprus’s premodern history, the copper industry’s long-term impact on the island’s physical landscape, settlement patterns, and social organi ation was profound.16 Alashiya is rst de nitely attested ca. 1900 in the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend, discovered among the texts of the Assyrian merchant colony at Kanesh in central Anatolia. It is claimed as a con uest by the Old Akkadian emperor Sargon (ca. 2340), who had by now become a gure of legend, his historical exploits variously expanded and ad usted to suit local hori ons.17 There can be little doubt that mainland interest in Alashiya was already driven by the island’s rich copper deposits. Alashiyan copper is mentioned in eighteenth-century economic texts from Mari, Babylon, and Alalakh.18 This is also when evidence mounts for extracting and processing around the copper sources of the Troodos, where Near Eastern imports now begin to appear.19 Copper-interests also dominate correspondence between Alashiya and Egypt in the fourteenth-century Amarna letters, clearly driving the other commodities exchanged.20 That the copper trade peaked at this time explains the appearance of monumental ashlar buildings at many sites (especially in the thirteenth century). It has been well observed that Kinyras’ metallurgical associations preserve an early cultural stratum of island-wide signi cance older, that is, than the Paphian dimension which the historical Kinyradai emphasi ed, and which became conventional (as shown by many and later extra-Cypriot sources).21 To be sure, Paphos was itself a site of LBA metalworking.22 But the traditions indicate a pan-Cypriot focus. The elder Pliny states that the rst discovery of copper/bron e was in Cyprus, 23 and lists the metallurgical inventions associated with Kinyras, alongside the working of clay: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Cypriot copper industry: Catling 1963; Muhly 1986; Knapp 1986; Knapp 1988; Muhly 1989; Keswani 1993; Muhly 1996; Knapp 1997; Steel 2004:166 168. For text, translation, and previous literature, Alster and Oshima 2007; also Foster 2005:74. For the historical circumstances that produced such a work, Westenhol 2007; Westenhol 2011; Bachvarova forthcoming; more generally Michalowski 1993:89 90. SHC 2 no. 2 9 (Mari), 10 13 (Alalakh), 32 (Babylon). There is also a possibly relevant Ebla text (no. 1). SHC 2:5; Knapp 2006; Knapp 2011:252. Alashiyan copper: EA 33.16 18, 34.18, 35.10, 36.5 7, 12 14, 37.9, 40.7 8, 13 14; bron e workers: 35.14 15, 35.37. Baurain 1980b:303n134; cf. Baurain 1981a:24n4. For the Kinyradai, see Chapter 16. Cf. Karageorghis in Karageorghis and Masson 1988:36. Pliny Natural History 34.2.2: in Cypro, ubi prima aeris inventio (connected with the Kinyras passage by Heubner 1963 1982 2:35). Pliny often discusses Cypriot copper and related processes elsewhere: see SHC 1:140 155 passim. 324 The Talents of Kinyras Cinyras, son of Agriopa,24 invented clay tiles25 and copper mines both on the island of Cyprus and likewise tongs, hammer, crowbar, anvil.26 For once a r tos heuret s sounds a realistic note, since in a monarchic society ultimate control of mines and production processes will have rested in a single pair of royal hands. This rich little catalogue of metallurgical inventions is otherwise unparalleled in surviving ancient sources. It reappears, however, in tienne de Lusignan, who, while elsewhere acknowledging Pliny as an authority,27 adds several independent details. His Cinaras’ has now also discovered the mining of gold; and his clay-working abilities have expanded from tile-making to bricks, bowls, and other shaped vessels. Lusignan connects these further industries speci cally with Tamassos and Lapethos, where he states they were still cultivated in his own day.28 Now the tegulae of Pliny and Lusignan’s pottery ( asi ttili) would converge neatly in the single Greek word kéramos; but while Pliny’s dependence 24 25 26 27 28 Agriopa is otherwise unknown in connection with Kinyras ( tienne de Lusignan has Agrippa’ , perhaps a typographical error: horo ra a p. 13a 28 ). While Agriopa would seem to stand in the place of a father, Heyne 1803:324 325 considered this Kinyras’ mother, and it is noteworthy that an Agriope/Argiope is several times elsewhere connected with mythical lyre-heroes appropriately if the name means clear-voiced’ (cf. αλλιόπη) either as the wife of Orpheus (Hermesianax 7.2 CA) or the nymph-mother of Thamyris via Philammon of Delphi (Pausanias 4.33.3; Apollodoros Library 1.3.3). See already Engel 1841 2:124; Movers 1841 1856 2:275 and n50a. Alternatively, one might think of the Argiope who was known to Pherekydes as the daughter of the Nile, married by the Phoenician king Agenor: Apollonios of Rhodes 3.1186 ( Pherekydes FGH 3 F 21); cf. Roscher Lex. s.v. no. 3. Tegulae can refer to both roof and wall tiles (OLD s.v.). Baurain 1980a:9 wished to interpret tegulae as formae, i.e. molds for molten bron e ( au ris ue de donner un sens nouveau ce mot ), thereby discrediting the parallel drawn by Brown 1965:203 with the anonymous brother of Khousor in Philo of Byblos, who invents bricks (πλίνθοι); yet these are credited to Kinyras himself by tienne de Lusignan (see below and further p452 453). But note that Gk. πλίνθος can also refer to metal ingots (LSJ s.v. II.2). Pliny Natural History 7.56.195: te ulas in enit in ra A rio a e lius et metalla aeris utrum ue in insula ro item forci em martulum ectem incudem horo ra a p. 2 ( 1). Lusignan’s debt to Pliny is also clear from his making this (younger) Cinaras’ the son of Agrippa’. horo ra a p. 13a ( 28), of Lapithus’: In uesta f primamente ritrovata l’arte di far li vasi di terra, li coppi, anchora dura, ritrovata da Cinara, gliuolo di Agrippa ; p. 14a ( 37), of Tamasse’: il rame sc. f primamente ritrovato da Cinara gliuolo di Agrippa ; p. 20 ( 72): Cinara dun ue f il primo inventore in Cipro del rame dell’oro; primo inventore di far li coppi, altri vasi ttili nella citt di Lapit ; nella uale anchora persevera uell’arte ; p. 87 ( 590): Cinaria sic gliouolo di Agrippa f il primo, che ritrov l’oro il rame in Cipro (here iron is attributed to Damneo Selmente di generatione hebrei ). From the Description, p. 28, of Lapethos: Cinare ls d’Agrippe y trouva premierement l’invention de faire la bri ue ; p. 80, of Tamassos: Cinare ls d’Agrippe fut le premier inventeur en cette ville de la mine d’or, comme il avoit esté en Lapithe inventeur de la confection de la bric ue ; p. 468: sc. Cinara trova en Cypre un mine d’or d’airain. 325 Chapter Thirteen on a Greek source is undoubted (Eratosthenes ), how could such information come down to Lusignan (I shall contemplate his possible sources further in Appendix G.) The talents of Kinyras, a curious proverb used of fair and scrupulous dealings, probably also relates to the Cypriot copper industry and speci cally the oxhide’ ingots that were the standard form for raw copper distribution in the LBA.29 The scale of this trade was dramatically revealed by the fourteenthcentury Uluburun shipwreck, discovered in 1982 o the southwestern coast of Turkey.30 Its cargo is a microcosm of the LBA palatial macroeconomy, and included besides the processed tortoise shells for lutes already mentioned31 ebony, faience, ivory, amber, gold, terebinth resin, and coriander, along with other materials and goods of wide-ranging provenance (Cypriot, Canaanite, Mycenaean, Egyptian, Nubian, Baltic, Babylonian, Assyrian, Kassite). But the ship’s main haul was raw metals: 354 ingots of copper and some forty more of tin, the ma ority of oxhide shape. Because the cargo is mixed, the point-oforigin remains uncertain. But Cyprus was at least a ma or port of call, providing all the copper (as indicated by lead isotope analysis).32 This fact, and the huge uantity involved eleven tons make it uite certain that this stage at least of the ship’s voyage was directly sponsored by an Alashiyan king. This would also accord with the dominance of Cypriot pottery on board.33 Kinyras the Mariner In any case, it is clear from the Amarna letters and Ugaritian texts that shipbuilding, shipping, and timber were ma or Alashiyan industries.34 This was intimately related to the metals trade, since wood was needed for smelting and the ships that carried oxhide ingots. The extent and depth of these activities is vividly suggested by Eratosthenes, as paraphrased in Strabo’s description of Cyprus: 29 30 31 32 33 34 Makarios 7.100 (CPG 2:214 15, cf. 653): ινύρου τάλαντα ἐπ τ ν τ σον κα τ δίκαιον υλαττόντ ν; cf. Blinkenberg 1924:32. For the e uation of ingot and talent, see Muhly 1979:95; Knapp 2011:250, noting however that the actual weight of oxhide ingots excavated in the eastern Mediterranean varies considerably, from 21 39 kg. Bass 1986; Pulak 1998; Karageorghis 2002b:30 34. See p248. Muhly et al. 1980. Karageorghis 2002b:33 ( a royal trade mission on behalf of the king of Alashiya ); cf. Pulak 1998:220. Shipping interests and agents are implicit in all Alashiyan commercial transactions (royal and otherwise) with the mainland (see e.g. EA 39.10 20, RS 18.113A, 18.119). But export of shipbuilding timbers is also speci ed: EA 35.27 29, 40.7 8, 16 20. 326 The Talents of Kinyras Eratosthenes says that of old, when the plains ran riot with growth so that they were covered with thickets and could not be farmed, the island’s metal-resources were of some assistance, since people would cut down trees for the smelting of copper and silver. Moreover, he says, there was the building of eets, since the sea was already being sailed without fear and in force.35 Eratosthenes seems to allude to a Cypriot popular memory of a time when the island’s ships commanded’ the seas. Similarly, Cyprus appears in the ancient thalassocracy-lists, immediately before Phoenicia and Egypt.36 There have been various attempts to match this list’s sea-powers with historical epochs; that of Cyprus is often placed in the ninth or eighth centuries.37 Such analyses are inevitably undermined by the list’s obvious arti ciality, especially for the alleged sea-powers of earlier times. For the LBA, in particular, the thalassocratic model has been well challenged; still, it is certain that Cyprus played a key role in LBA trade between the Aegean, the Levant, and Egypt.38 If the Cypriot thalassocracy’ rests on any genuine tradition, the historical precedence’ of Cyprus over Phoenicia makes it uite possible that this re ects some popular memory of Alashiyan maritime activity. Eratosthenes certainly envisioned a very early hori on for the sea being sailed in force. In later times too, of course, Cyprus was renowned for its seamanship and shipbuilding.39 The legendary Assyrian ueen Semiramis was said by Ktesias ( . ca. 400) to have used Cypriot, Phoenician, and Syrian shipwrights to build a eet 35 36 37 38 39 Strabo 14.6.5 (Eratosthenes fr. III B 91 Berger, 130 Roller): ησ δ ρατοσθένης τ παλαι ν λομανούντ ν τ ν πεδί ν στε κατέχεσθαι δρυμο ς κα μ γε ργε σθαι, μικρ μ ν ἐπ ελε ν πρ ς τοῦτο τ μέταλλα δενδροτομούντ ν πρ ς τ ν καῦσιν τοῦ χαλκοῦ κα τοῦ ἀργύρου, προσγενέσθαι δ κα τ ν ναυπηγίαν τ ν στόλ ν δη πλεομένης ἀδε ς τῆς θαλάττης κα μετ δυνάμε ν κτλ (the passage goes on to describe a custom of granting land to any who would clear it). See also Diodoros Siculus 2.16.6; contrast Theophrastos History of Plants 5.8.1, who states that the Cypriot kings tended the forests and allowed the trees to grow to great heights. Eusebios Chronicle 1:225 Schoene Diodoros Siculus 7, fr. 11; for other authorities and analysis, Miller 1971. Note also Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 508 509, where the island’s wealth is connected with its sea-power: The Cypriots are the most blessed/richest of islanders; and they too are said to have ruled the seas one fair time ( λ ι τατοι δ νησι τ ν ο ύπριοι λέγονται δέ ποτε θαλαττοκρατῆσαι καιρόν τινα κα α τοί). Myres 1906:120 122 thought of the period before Sargon claimed control of the island, i.e. 742 709; cf. CAH2 III.1:532; HC:103 104, with further references in n4; for Miller 1971:112 113, 128-129, 170 171 the position of Cyprus was keyed to that of Phoenicia, as being the logical antecedent to the island’s con uest’ by Pygmalion, which she ties to the Tyrian annals’ (see p407n45) and the Phoenician colony period. Knapp 1993; Iacovou 2006b:33 (Cypro-Minoan signs on Mycenaean pottery suggest Cypriot involvement in the shipping of Mycenaean wares). Strabo 14.6.5; Pliny Natural History 7.56.209. 327 Chapter Thirteen with which to assault India.40 An inscription of Sennacherib (704 681), indeed, states that the Assyrian emperor used captive Cypriot and Phoenician sailors in his sixth campaign against Elam (694), sending them down the Tigris from Nineveh.41 There were also ma or Cypriot contingents at various times in the eets of Persia, Alexander the Great, and the Ptolemies.42 But the Cypriots must have been mariners since the island’s rst settlement in the seventh millennium. Two clay vases in the shape of boats, with gures of sailors and birds attached around the edge, have been dated to the MBA.43 A number of other ship models, both merchant and war, are known from the LBA and especially Cypro-Archaic period, attesting a continuous artistic tradition, which obviously parallels this dominant aspect of island life. Many examples have been found in the necropolis of Amathous.44 For some scholars, these vessels merely re ect the lifetime occupations of the tombs’ inhabitants. Others see them as symboli ing a voyage to the next world, perhaps under Egyptian in uence (model ships have also been found in Mesopotamian tombs).45 These explanations may work for burial contexts. But what are we to make of further examples from the harbor of Amathous Cesnola rst compared these to the tradition that Kinyras deceived Agamemnon with a eet of clay ships, which he cast into the sea.46 The custom is so unusual, and its coincidence with the tale so perfect, that here surely we have a Greek or Greek-Cypriot literary re ection on a distinctive practice of pre-Greek culture recalling that the Eteocypriot language long endured at Amathous, whose inhabitants were held to be the remnants of Kinyras’ men. 47 But what do the sunken ship-models mean . Karageorghis reasonably suggested that sailors submerged them apotropaically to ensure a safe voyage48 an idea that could also account for those from the necropolis, with death seen as a ha ardous voyage.49 Nor should we overlook the use of model boats in Hurrian 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Ktesias FGH 688 F 1b Diodoros Siculus 2.16.6. ARAB 2:145 319. HC:119 122, et passim. CAAC I:I WHP.I 21 22; Aspects:49 50 (no. 30). Terracotta ships from Amathous: Murray et al. 1900:112 114, g. 164 no. 10, 12, 16 20, 22, 24 and g. 165 no. 6; CAAC I :II vi 1 11; Aspects:185 189 no. 176 181. See CAAC I.189, canvassing with further references the di erent interpretations, and re ecting the symbolic afterlife voyage (again Aspects:49). For possible Egyptian in uence, see also Kapera 1970:50 51. Mesopotamia: Strauss 2006:204 and n66. For the episode itself, see p1n2 and p343 346. Cesnola 1877:4 5; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893 1:217; Kapera 1966; Kapera 1969; Kapera 1970; Kapera 1971:132; Kapera 1972:194. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103. See further p346 348. Aspects:185. Compare Odysseus’ voyage to the underworld in Odyssey 11. For the idea in ancient and modern Greek folk-tradition, see Alexiou 2002:190 193; more impressionistically, ermeule 1979:179 209. 328 The Talents of Kinyras and Mesopotamian puri cation rituals. These carried away, into the sea (often symbolically) and from the eyes of the gods, impurities arising from curses, oaths, and per uries (note that Kinyras is the liar-king’ only in this episode).50 One of the texts, known as the babilili-Ritual, derives from the same Ki uwatnan workshop’ that produced Establishing a New Temple for the Goddess of the Night.51 It is a royal ritual, addressed to an Ishtar-type (Pirinkir), and contains some twenty- ve incantations in Akkadian (West Peripheral, but deriving from an OB tradition) for calling upon the goddess. They were to be sung by a l NAR, which in Syro-Hurrian tradition, we saw, would be a kinnarist’.52 This real-world material from the LBA helps us see how Kinyras, though rooted in ritual music, could grow extra-musical associations. Other links between Kinyras and the sea include Pindar’s reference to the blessed fortune which freighted Kinyras with riches once upon a time in Cyprus-on-the-sea. 53 A character named Kinyras in Lucian’s True History is made the son of a Cypriot sailor called Skintharos: this Kinyras is of considerable interest, because he plays a Paris-like role in an alternative abduction of Helen.54 Kinyras’ also appears as a typical mariner’s name in two tasteful epigrams by Julian of Egypt (sixth century CE), both referring to a humble old sherman who has retired.55 In the rst, Kinyras devotes his nets to the nymphs a considerable sacri ce, as these are his only possessions of value. His expertise is made clear in the second: the sh will re oice, because the sea is now liberated. This aged Kinyras’ appears to be a type, recalling the 160-year lifespan that Anakreon attributed to the royal Kinyras in a lost poem.56 Proverbial longevity, incidentally, might be taken to re ect the great historical anti uity of Kinyras.57 And the lowly status of Julian’s Kinyras seems a pointed inversion of the legendary Cypriot king’s fabulous riches. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 See Strauss 2006:201 204. See p100 102. See p116. The babilili-Ritual (CTH 718): Beckman 2002a; Strauss 2006:189 215 (201 204, modelboat KUB 39.71 rev. iv.9 21 ; 192, music KUB 39.71 obv. ii.18 30, cf. HKm:167 168 ); Beckman 2010, especially 110; Beckman 2014. Pindar Nemean 8.17 18. For this passage, see above, p223 224. I shall discuss this episode in Franklin forthcoming. Greek Anthology 6.25, 26 (Julian of Egypt). Cf. Brown 1965:206. For Anakreon, see Pliny Natural History 7.48.154 (cf. notes to Anakreon 361 PMG). Note also Kinyras’ role as the father of the Laodike married to Elatos son of Arkas ve mythological generations before Agapenor led the Arcadians to Cyprus: see p365 366. Baurain 1975 1976:540n1 attractively connected Kinyras’ reported old age with his BA anti uity (cf. Ribichini 1982:496). Later he saw it as a contamination with Tithonos and/or Arganthonios due to his parallel appearance with them in proverbs (Baurain 1980b:308n153). These views are not necessarily incompatible. Ribichini 1982:497 498n71 would connect Kinyras’ longevity with the traditions of his mantic powers, citing Nestor, Teiresias, and Glaukos as parallels. 329 Chapter Thirteen Several indirect marine connections may also be suggested. First is the myth that Kinyras’ fty daughters were metamorphosed into halcyons (seabirds).58 The role of Aphrodite and Astarte as patronesses of sailors the former’s culttitles include Eúploia ( Good Sailing’) and Einalía or Pontía ( Marina’) is one of several interests Kinyras shares with the goddess he served.59 Finally the sh that appears on one of the lyre-player seals is perhaps worth noting.60 Oilman and Parfumeur The Spartan (or Lydian) poet Alkman (ca. 625), in an otherwise spare fragment, refers to perfume as the moist charm of Kinyras. 61 This elaborate periphrasis links Kinyras to another Cypriot industry stretching back to the LBA. Oil generally, and perfumed oil speci cally, are mentioned in connection with Cyprus in Linear B, Ugaritic, and Egyptian sources.62 Scented oils were exchanged between the kings of Alashiya and Egypt.63 A large oil distribution to an Alashiyan is attested at Ugarit, and an excavated depot there contained some thousand asks for the scented salves of Cyprus.64 On the island itself, the massive ashlar warehouse at Kalavasos (Building ) could store as much as 50,000 liters of oil in six-foot-high terracotta ars (recall that Kinyras also invented clay vessels).65 That Cypriot oil-processing was, like copper, under divine protection is suggested by industrial facilities associated with several sanctuary sites.66 There is a parallel from Mycenaean Pylos, where one unguent boiler is uali ed as 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 See p187 191. Aphrodite’s connection with the sea, and Cyprus, is fundamental in Hesiod Theogony 188 200; she is invoked as Κ πρις for a safe voyage in Sappho 5.18 (but the old supplement in line 1 is now known to be incorrect). Aphrodite Eúploia is attested on a coin from Knidos already in the seventh century: Head et al. 1911:615 616. Further evidence for Aphrodite Eúploia, Einalía, Pontía in Farnell 1896 1909 2:687 691; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:433 437; Budin 2003:21 23; Kypris:223 224; cf. GR:153. No. 113 uater in Buchner and Boardman 1966. For the general relevance of these seals, see p517 527. But note the use of sh in puri cation rites like the babilili-Ritual (CTH 718): Beckman 2002a:39; Strauss 2006:199 201. For this text, see further p329. Alkman 3.71 PMGF: νοτία ινύρα χ άρ ις (cf. Gallavotti 1976:56n9); Pliny Natural History 13.2.4 18 passim. Collected in SHC 2. Ugaritian and Egyptian sources: Helck 1971:415 416, 421; Muhly 1972; AP:41 42, 53; Baurain 1980b:303n135; Knapp 1991:37 40; SHC 2 no. 86 87; HUS:677 (Singer). EA 34.24, 50 51, 35.25. RS 18.42 KTU/CAT 4.352 (SHC 2 no. 53); Roaf 1990:147. South 1984:15 16, dating the site to LC IIC (ca. 1325 1225); Todd and South 1992:195; Had isavvas 1992:235; Had isavvas 1993; Keswani 1993:76 77; Muhly 1996:45; Knapp 1997:66 67. See Had isavvas 1992. 330 The Talents of Kinyras Potnian’,67 and Cypriots apparently collaborated in the perfume industry there.68 Cypriot scents continued strong into the IA. Besides Alkman, Greek epic regularly has Aphrodite slathered in perfumed oils by her graceful handmaidens at Paphos.69 Furthermore, as we saw, Kinyras is persistently linked to aromatics by his daughter Myrrha, the personi cation of myrrh (Chapter 12). We may also deal here with the perfumer Amaracus (to give the Latin form we nd), metamorphosed into mar oram (Gk. amárakos). Our oldest source for the tale is Servius: Amaracus: This prince70 was a perfume-maker who, by chance slipping while he was carrying unguents, made a greater scent from their confusion; whence the best unguents are called amaracina. Afterwards he was turned into sampsucum Gk. sámpsoukhon , which is now also called amaracus.71 The verse of the Aeneid to which this notice was attached relates to enus’ abduction of Ascanius, whom she hides in the high groves / of Idalion, where soft amaracus exhaling / with owers and sweet shade embraces him. 72 Servius and other commentators often attached gratuitous aetiologies where not really usti ed by the original text. Here, however, ergil’s intentionally ambiguous syntax and diction, which permit both concrete and personi ed readings (note especially adspirans complectitur), strongly suggest that he is indeed alluding to the Amaracus tale. If so, it would readily imply, given the setting of Idalion, that Amaracus himself was a Cypriot prince. It then becomes uite possible that he was the son of Kinyras himself. 67 68 69 70 71 72 The text is P Un 249. But note that this worker is somewhat anomalous in that he (apparently) worked at the palace, not one of the regional sanctuaries or shrines that were engaged with industrial work: see Lupack 2007:56; Lupack 2008b:119; Nakassis 2013:342. The relevant texts (KN Fh 347, 361, 371, 372) relate to the ethnics ku-pi-ri-jo (Kýprios) and a-ra-si-jo (Alásios). See the convenient resume in Gallavotti 1976:55 56 (comparing Kinyras); Shelmerdine 1985:49, 137 138. For the dual ethnics, see further below, p435 436. Homer Odyssey 8.360 366 (cf. Iliad 14.172 174, of Hera in an Aphrodisiac context, with Janko’s note ad loc., citing a Pylian tablet Fr 1225 which records an allotment of oil for Potnia); Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 59 62; Kypria fr. 4.1 6 EGF/PEG; Nonnos Dionysiaka 33.4 8. Servius’ regius puer echoes the description of Ascanius himself at Aeneid 1.677 678. Servius Auctus on ergil Aeneid 1.693: Amaracus hic uer re ius un uentarius fuit ui casu la sus dum ferret unguenta, maiorem ex [unguentorum] confusione odorem creavit: unde optima unguenta amaracina dicuntur hic ostea in her am sam sucum ersus est uam nunc etiam amaracum dicunt ergil Aeneid 1.692 694: dea tollit in altos / Idaliae lucos u i mollis amaracus illum flori us et dulci adspirans complectitur umbra. 331 Chapter Thirteen Unfortunately, this idea is not con rmed by any extant ancient source; the few other notices are clearly dependent upon Servius.73 Nevertheless, Amaracus as the son of Kinyras achieved some currency after it was presented matterof-factly by the Italian humanist Julius Pomponius Laetus ( Sabinus’) in his commentary on ergil (1487 1490).74 That it was his own deduction, and not drawn from some lost work, is indicated by his reference to Pliny, who states that the best and most fragrant sampsuchum or amaracum is in Cyprus. 75 It was certainly an inspired guess, and may even be right.76 Pomponius was presumably the source for tienne de Lusignan, whose version may nevertheless be given as being our most expansive version of the tale, with details otherwise unparalleled. Here Amaraco’, who gave himself to making ointments, is called a son of the god Cinaras and a Chirurgien ; he too, we are told, came to be numbered among the gods. Having perfected a recipe, he was bringing it to his father in an alabaster vessel (probably Lusignan’s own elaboration of Pliny77) when he dropped the batch: He did not want his father to know about it, but could not hide it, because the scattered scent gave o more odor than before. And so, being thrown into confusion, the poets say that he was turned into an elder-tree78 in a grove in the city of Idalion. But we say that, through shame, he did not let himself be seen anymore, and pretended to have been turned into that tree.79 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Mythographi Vaticani 1.34, 2.182; Isidore Origines 4.12.8, 17.9.14. The earliest edition I have been able to consult is Pomponius Laetus 1544:286. Pliny Natural History 21.93.163: sampsuchum sive amaracum in Cypro laudatissimum et odoratissimum; cf. Dioskourides On Medical Material 3.39.1 σάμ ουχον κράτιστον τ υζικην ν κα ύπριον; etc. For the varieties that grow on Cyprus, see Had ikyriakou 2007. Ancient references to such perfume: LSJ s.v. ἀμάρακον, ἀμαράκινος; OLD s.v. amaracus. an Meurs 1675 2:107 108 approved it with some reserve, noting that he could nd no ancient authority. Engel 1841 2:125 126 treated is as established. Cf. Pliny Natural History 13.19 (unguenta optime servantur in alabastris), and 36.60. Lusignan has reinterpreted sampsucum as sambucum (the closest variant in Thilo’s ap. crit. is samsucum BH ). horo ra a p. 21 ( 76), cf. 19a ( 66). The name is given here as Amaruco’, Amaruc ’ in the parallel passage of Description (p. 38a), where he is also Chirurgien. For the form Cinaras,’ see further p3n10, 199, 554 555, 560. 332 The Talents of Kinyras The Virtuous Monarch Kinyras’ multifaceted role as a Cypriot culture-hero contrasts strongly with the liar king’ tradition that was developed in one branch of Grecophone epic.80 The virtuous Kinyras was clearly the dominant paradigm. Kinyras’ virtues are further re ected in the names of his children. In Greek mythology, names often re ect the deeds or ualities of a father or grandfather. Odysseus, Telemakhos, Neoptolemos, and Megapenthes are a few ready examples.81 Such speaking-names were also used to help structure myth. There is a clear and extensive example in the legend of Battos, founder of Cyrene.82 Similarly, the drama of Achilles and Patroklos is encoded in their names.83 If one may detect this principle at work in Kinyras’ family, a son Oxyporos would celebrate the Swift-Passage’ of Cypriot ships.84 A father called Eurymedon, WideRuler’, could evoke the competitive territorialism, by land or by sea, chariot or ship, of the Great Kings.85 Daughters like Orsedike, Laodike, and Laogore should endow their father respectively with Rousing Justice’, Justice for the People’, and the ability to Assemble the People’ (and perhaps Speak to the People’).86 Unfortunately, we lack any narrative treatment of these gures that could give them the life one sees in the Battos myth though I shall attempt to reconstruct a lost tale that featured Orsedike, Laogore, and a third sister Braisia (see Chapter 21). 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 See p1n2, 343 346. According to Homer Odyssey 19.407 409, Odysseus’ maternal grandfather, having been angry with many people (πολλο σιν … δυσσάμενος), chose his name accordingly. Telemakhos, the far- ghting’, re ects Odysseus’ prowess with the bow, and/or his reluctant departure for Troy immediately after his son’s birth. Similarly Neoptolemos was so called because his father Achilles was still young’ when he went to war’ (Pausanias 10.26.4). Megapenthes, son of Menelaos by a slave woman, refers to his father’s great su ering’: Homer Odyssey 4.10 12, 15.103; Apollodoros Library 3.11.1. Herodotos 4.154.1 155.1. Following the analysis of Chaniotis 2013, Battos was the son of the virtuous Phronime ( Prudence’), whose wicked stepmother induced the girl’s father Eteoarkhos, the True King’ of Oaxos (on Crete) to do away with his daughter. A righteous’ Theran merchant, Themison, was commissioned to do the deed, but he outwitted his oath and delivered her to the renowned’ Theran notable, Polymnestos, by whom Phronime bore Battos, the stammerer’. Nagy 1979:102 115. Oxyporos: Apollodoros Library 3.14.3; Dionysios the Periegete 509. For this gure, see further p497 498, 504, 512 513, 515 . Father Eurymedon: Pindar Pythian 2.28. The name is born by many disparate gures of Greek mythology. But note the two Homeric charioteers (Iliad 4.228, 8.114, 11.620; cf. Hainsworth ad loc.), recalling the common royal pose as chariot-lord in the LBA. Poseidon is also said to be wide-ruling’ an e ually appropriate association for Kinyras the mariner (Pindar Olympian 8.31). But the name may rather indicate connections with southern Anatolia: see p489. Orsedike and Laogore: Apollodoros Library 3.14.3. Laodike: see p359 368. 333 Chapter Thirteen Kinyras recurs in other sources as a paragon of virtue. Pindar, we saw, refers to the beloved deeds or friendly acts that earned him celebration in Cypriot song, the reward of virtue. 87 In Nemean 8, when Pindar alludes to Kinyras’ maritime riches, it is a positive and pious example: his blessed wealth was so long-lived because it was planted with a god. 88 A lost Hellenistic tragedy about Kinyras and Myrrha will have portrayed the king in noble terms, to achieve a su cient reversal-of-fortune (as prescribed by Aristotle).89 Ovid’s Myrrha describes her father as pious and mindful of propriety, 90 and this will have been a feature of Cinna’s earlier treatment in the famous Zmyrna.91 A virtuous Kinyras is also attested in extra-Cypriot contexts. Besides the one good man’ of Cilicia in an epigram in the Greek Anthology, and Abdalonymos the last of the Kinyradai’ at Sidon,92 there is also a certain slave, Cinyras by name, who appears in Dictys of Crete as a member of Acastus’ household slain by Neoptolemos during the hero’s extended homecoming. While this Cinyras displays no clear connection to the Homeric gure, his description as very faithful ( er uam dus) is perhaps in keeping with other traditions about the Cypriot king’s virtues (it is notable that this otherwise unimportant character is named at all).93 An admirable Kinyras is also implied by the use of Kinyras’ as a PN.94 In three epigraphic examples, unsurprisingly, there is insu cient context to corroborate this.95 Clearer is a funeral inscription from Cos (Roman imperial 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Pindar Pythian 2.14 17 with ; cf. Woodbury 1978:286. See above, p221. Pindar Nemean 8.17: σ ν θε γ ρ τοι υτευθε ς λ ος ἀνθρ ποισι παρμον τερος. For sources, see p284n35. Ovid Metamorphoses 10.354 355: ius ille memor ue est / moris. This may be deduced from the pseudo- ergilian Ciris, where one nds a more extensive portrait of a good king, loved by the gods for his plentiful sacri ces and adornment of temples ( ergil Ciris 524 526). See Lyne 1978:39 45 for this poet’s debt to the Zmyrna, and the principle that themes shared by the Ciris and Ovid’s account of Myrrha will go back to Cinna; see also p286n42. See p497 and Chapter 20. Diktys of Crete Journal of the Trojan War 6.8: ser us uidam in ras nomine er uam dus (127.4 5 Eisenhut). The text is corrupt the MSS and o er Cymirias, Tymiras, and Cyranas (see Eisenhut’s apparatus) but the reading Cinyras does seem most plausible. Suda s.v. Κιν ρας νομα κ ριον. This probably explains Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. κιν ρα κιθάρα καὶ κ ριον νομα, although one should the maenad K who appears on an Attic red- gure vase amidst typically adorned pairs of dancing maenads and silens; her partner is Κ (Warsaw Nat. Mus. 142458, ca. 440). There seems no particular reason to interpret her name as the instrument (Κιν ρα); hence Bea ley read Κινυρά, although the context suggests not mournful’ but crooning’ (Bea ley 1928:61 64, on the names and vase generally; pl. 29.2 and 30 for vase; LIMC s.v. Kinyra). The name is found in a commemorative inscription in a cave on Acrocorinth (IG I 382: ἐμν σ θη ιν ρας τῆς θρε σης πι ανε ας, undated); indirectly as a patronymic ad ective ( ινυρα ου, genitive) in a list of names in a proxeny decree from Thessaly (Kierion), dated ca. 334 The Talents of Kinyras period), commemorating a gladiator euxis, a.k.a. Kinyras. 96 It was common practice for gladiators to assume or be assigned performing names, typically an internationally recogni ed mythological gure who matched the image he wished to pro ect, probably often for his style of ghting or other physical abilities. Names implying power, victory, and glory, are also fre uent.97 Kinyras’ has seemed an odd choice to some.98 His virtuous and kingly associations are probably relevant. But gladiators named after famous loverboys (Hyakinthos, Narkissos, Hylas, Patroklos, and Adonis) e ually suggest Kinyras’ legendary beauty.99 And since all of these youths died (or disappeared) tragically young, their names would be doubly e ective with the professional threat of death ever-present. This suggests some connection between euxis’ performing name and the trope of Kinyras the Lamenter (Chapter 12).100 Conclusion Kinyras is consistently associated in Greco-Roman sources with industries typical of Alashiya/LBA Cyprus. While these same activities continued into the IA, this was a period of political fragmentation, hence smaller-scale operations. A fortiori the Kinyras traditions, which present him as the fountainhead of these activities, should relate rst to the Golden Age of Cypriot popular memory. The various Kinyrases’ found in extra-Cypriot contexts, like those for whom a Cypriot setting is not explicit (for instance, Julian of Egypt’s sherman), nevertheless usually resonate with the Kinyras. They should not be dismissed as irrelevant for understanding the Cypriot legends.101 Since their sympathies go well beyond what is found in the portraits of Homer and Ovid, they must re ect a broader, multiform tradition of which Cypriot Kinyras is merely the 96 97 98 99 100 101 187 168 (I.Thess.I no. 15, line 5); and of a Roman freedman working as a public scribe (CIL 6 1826, no date). See also below p537n2. Her og 1899 no. 133, 2 3: ε ει τ κα ιν ρ . See generally Robert 1940:297 307; Cameron 2004:230 231. Cf. Robert 1940:44, 191, 299. For the beauty of Kinyras, Greek Anthology 16.49 (Apollonides) ; Lucian Professor of Public Speaking 11.9; Hyginus Fabulae 270; cf. Lucian A True Story 2.25 (μέγας ν κα καλός), where this underworld Kinyras, by abducting Helen, clearly draws on his epic counterpart. Kinyras’ beauty is shared with his son Adonis: Heubner 1963 1982 2:35. The superhuman beauty of Theias, Kinyras’ doublet beginning with Panyassis (see p466 468), was mentioned by Kleitarkhos FGH 137 F 9 (Stobaios Anthology 40.20.73); John T et es Exegesis of Homer’s Iliad 435.5 15 Papathomopoulos. The beauty of Cyprus’s ancient god-men’, including Cinaras’, is stressed by tienne de Lusignan: horo ra a p. 28a ( 157). Compare the epitaph-song erected by an Odysseus’ for his gladiator friend, whose beauty he compares to Hyakinthos or Kinyras’ beautiful son Adonis ( ιν ρου καλ ν υ ν δ νιν): SEG 17:599 Peek 1955:1 no. 815, 4 5; Antalya, Pamphylia, second-third century CE. As does Baurain 1980a:9 10. 335 Chapter Thirteen dominant example. The two types of material are after all linked by traditions that saw Kinyras as an immigrant to Cyprus from various parts of the mainland (see Part 3). 336 14 Restringing Kinyras T is c a ter furt er documents Kinyras’ fundamental connec- tion with pre-Greek Cyprus. I shall examine traces of popular narratives featuring the Cypriot king and his family which variously mythologi ed Aegean settlement in the eastern Mediterranean during the LBA IA transition, and the evolving relationships between the new Greek-speaking communities and the pre-Greek and later Phoenician groups with whom they shared the island. Aegean Foundation Legends and Epic Homecomings The Cypriot music-iconography examined in Chapter 11 provides a practical context for a number of Aegean migration and foundation legends, some of which must have been treated in narrative song.1 Unfortunately, what remains is little more than terse references and passing allusions.2 Some are found in, or may be reasonably posited for, lost cyclic poems like the Kypria and the Nostoi. Others are fragments, often unidenti ed, of historical and ethnographic works from the Classical, and especially Hellenistic, periods (Hellanikos, Eratosthenes, Philostephanos, et al.), extracted by lexicographers or placed in secondary use’ by poets (Lykophron, Nonnos), geographers and periegetes (Strabo, Pausanias), historians (Diodoros), biographers (Plutarch), or mythographers (ps.-Apollodoros).3 1 2 3 Cf. Franklin 2014:219 221, and p250 253. arious subsets of the sources are collected and discussed by Engel 1841:210 229; G erstad 1944; G erstad 1948:428 429; CAH3 II.2:215 216; Khat i annou 1971 2001 1:46 67; Fortin 1980; Maier 1986b; anschoonwinkel 1994; Franklin 2014:219 221. We know of υπριακά by Hellanikos (FGH 4 F 57, 756 F 1), Palaiphatos of Abydos (FGH 44 T 3), Kreon (FGH 753), and Timomakhos (FGH 754 F 1 2); there were ερ ύπρου by Philostephanos (FHG 3:30 fr. 10 14), Alexandros Polyhistor (FGH 273 F 31), and a certain Androkles (FGH 751 F 1; some would emend to Menandros of Ephesus : FHG 4:448 fr. 7; cf. Fraser 1979:335n2; note that Menandros dealt with relations between Tyre and Kition: FGH 783 F 4). Asklepiades of Cyprus (FGH 752) wrote a ερ ύπρου κα οινίκης. Amathous was the sub ect of works by Eratosthenes (FGH 241 F 25: see below, p546) and Paion of Amathous (FGH 757). The Suda reports 337 Chapter Fourteen Moreover, the underlying myths are of varying uality, not all deserving the label tradition’. As E. G erstad clearly demonstrated in a seminal article: They may be purely ctional or re ect later logographic speculations and political propaganda, but they may also be more or less clear records of an historical tradition. It is the task of the historian to distinguish the valuable material from the worthless, thus bringing forth the historic evidence.4 The basic accuracy of this assessment cannot be doubted; and while one may uestion how conclusively G erstad has executed the historian’s task on speci c points, his analysis remains admirably thorough and sensitive, despite many subse uent revisions of detail to his fundamental historical synthesis of 1948. The plasticity of such myths has been well exposed by I. Malkin’s study of Odysseus’ returns from Troy substantially remolded, and largely developed, during ninth-century proto-coloni ation to the West. The hero’s route, and the relationships established along the way, were continually reformulated by Greek colonists, merchants, and local communities to create a common, mutually comprehensible world, typically in the venue of drinking rituals (sympósia).5 On Cyprus, a comparable diachronic process, beginning several centuries earlier, will have obscured the facts of immigration, with history continuously reimagined throughout the IA. In particular, one can observe the impact of the Aeolic-Ionic epic tradition, which assigned various homecoming adventures (nóstoi) to the Greek heroes returning from Troy. This development, in which Cypriot migration gures were integrated into the emerging Panhellenic cycle, should be placed in the ninth or eighth centuries, parallel in many respects to the returns of Odysseus. This is not due to the spread of Homer per se, since the textuali ed Iliad and Odyssey did not attain canonical status until the later seventh or sixth century, to udge from the evidence of vase-painting.6 Rather, it re ects Cypriot (re-)integration with a larger Grecophone storytelling world. Homer’s poems themselves, however, must still be dated early on linguistic grounds, let us say the later eighth century.7 Given this, it is most signi cant that Homer himself assumes a developed tradition of Eastern Wandering’, from 4 5 6 7 a Cypriot στορικός named enophon as an author of a υπριακά (s.v. ενο ν FGH 755): for this controversy, see p565 567. Of course many other works contained information about Cyprus, and other Cypriot or Cyprus-based authors (like Demetrios of Salamis: FGH 756 F 1) will have discussed the island. See further Engel 1841 1:3 11. G erstad 1944:107. Malkin 1998 ( uotation 157; proto-coloni ation is also his term). See with further references Franklin 2014:227 229, 232 233. Janko 1982. 338 Restringing Kinyras a stop by Paris and Helen at Sidon en route to Troy, to the post-Troy wanderings of Menelaos, which take him to Cyprus and Phoenicia and the Egyptian people. 8 A shared poetics developed precisely around the position of Cyprus on the eastern edge of the Hellenic world.9 It is perhaps easiest to apprehend the structural variations that underlie the Cypriot founders’ by beginning with those that are most clearly arti cial and aetiological in nature. Litros ( Ledroi) and Lapethos ( Lapethos), for instance, are known only from the highly mannered epicist Nonnos (ca. 400 CE), and were perhaps invented by him for the occasion; nor does he draw any clear connection with Aegean migration.10 The population of Classical Lapethos was uite heterogeneous, even its kings bearing Greek and Phoenician names alike.11 The foundation of Idalion was attributed to a certain Khalkanor, whose name betrays an aetiological connection with metalworking at the site (and perhaps nearby Tamassos).12 Idalion itself is explained in terms of an oracle that suggests an eastward metal-hunting venture: Khalkanor was to build his city where he saw’ (id-) the sun’ ([h]álion) rising.13 The foundation of Golgoi by a certain Golgos is e ually arti cial, and his Sicyonian origin remains pu ling all the more so given the undeciphered pre-Greek language attested there.14 Both Golgos and Khalkanor the latter depending upon Greek etymology attest a desire for connection with an Achaean’ past, which, though arti cially expressed, may nevertheless be symptomatic of real, if dim, historical 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Homer Odyssey 4.83. See for now Franklin 2014:221 222n23, 231. I shall deal with the poetics of Eastern Wandering’ more fully in Franklin forthcoming. See Franklin 2014:221 224 et passim. Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.432 433. Seibert 1976:19 23; Green eld 1987:395 396; Maier 1985:35 stresses the inade uate factual basis beneath repeated scholarly assertions of dynastic changes at Lapethos due to fthcentury Persian interventions. Lapethos is called a Phoenician city by Skylax 103 (GGM 1:78). Honeyman 1938:289 suggested that Lapethos’ derives from a pre-Greek TN, given its divergent representation in Greek and Phoenician; but the correspondence of Gk. θ/Phoen. š is now known to be normal (Lipi ski 2004:62). HC:87n2. Stephanos of By antium s.v. δάλιον, πόλις ύπρου χρησμ ς γ ρ ἐδόθη που δοι αλκήν ρ τ ν λιον ἀνίσχοντα, πόλιν κτίσαι, κτλ. The tale is repeated by tienne de Lusignan horo ra a p. 16a ( 42), who attributes it to the time before the gods existed. Stephanos of By antium s.v. ολγοί π λις Κ πρου, ἀπὸ λγου το γ σαμένου τῆς ικυωνίων ἀποικίας. Cf. G erstad 1944:121. Sicyon is represented in the Catalogue of Ships: Homer Iliad 2.572. Or should we look instead to Eusebios’ primeval Sicyonian dynasty (Schoene 1967 1:173) tienne de Lusignan assigns the foundation to Pygmalion, here a Sicyonian (Description pp. 34 34a, 38, 91a 92); it is unclear how this s uares with his being the son of Cilix (see further Appendix F) For the Golgoi tablets, see p350. 339 Chapter Fourteen recollections.15 These gures were presumably inspired by emulation of other Cypriot cities for which such claims were better grounded, that is, those whose ctistic legends betray no clear ulterior motive through association with Homer and/or some powerful mother-city. Kourion’s claim to have been an Argive settlement, for instance, could be open to doubt because of the close mythological connection between Argos and Mycenae.16 It may still be, of course, that the Kourion tradition did have some historical basis. After all, the island’s ArcadoCypriot dialect indicates that the ma ority of immigrants came from sites in the pre-Doric Peloponnese. A priori it is uite likely that some groups will have come from the heartland of Mycenaean power. The point is simply that, in a case like this, it is harder to isolate the trustworthy. By contrast, two migrations are more convincing for the very obscurity of the connections proposed. Lykophron, after giving considerable detail about Teukros, Agapenor, and the sons of Theseus (see below), brie y mentions a fourth and fth Cypriot founder. These are Praxandros and a band of Laconians from Therapna (connected with Lapethos by Strabo), and Kepheus with Achaeans from the minor sites of Olenos and Dyme.17 The poet, while making these gures part of the post-Troy homecomings, nevertheless describes them as not lords of a naval host, but a nameless scattering (sporaí). 18 They are presumably nameless because they are not found in Homer’s Catalogue of Ships. Probably these were genuine Cypriot traditions, available to Lykophron through the ethnographic work of Eratosthenes and Philostephanos.19 With Akamas and Demophon at Soloi, however, the epic framework of post-Troy wandering was apparently exploited for fth-century propaganda.20 15 16 17 18 19 20 See especially Herodotos 7.90, reporting Cypriots’ claims to know their origins though here too history and myth are blended. Herodotos 5.113; Strabo 14.6.3. While Argives’ ( ργε οι) is used exibly in Homer, a narrower connection with the Mycenaean royal house may be seen at Iliad 1.30, 79, 119, 2.107 108, 3.82 83, 11.154 155, etc.; according to Apollodoros Library 2.1.2, Argos named the Peloponnese after himself. Lykophron Alexandra 586 591, with 586 ( Philostephanos FHG 3:31 fr. 12); Strabo 14.6.3. tienne de Lusignan calls Praxandros Pixando’ ( horo ra a p. 36 180 ), and places his origin in Thessaly, presumably for an etymology of Lapethos from the Lapiths. Lykophron Alexandra 586 587 ο ναυκληρίας / λα ν νακτες, ἀλλ ἀν νυμοι σποραί. A similar scattering’ is found in Herodotos 7.91, of the followers of Amphilokhos and Kalkhas ( δ άμ υλοι ο τοι ε σ τ ν ἐκ ροίης ἀποσκεδασθέντ ν μα μ ιλόχ κα άλχαντι ; this is reprised by Strabo 14.4.3 (τιν ς δ σκεδασθῆναι πολλαχοῦ τῆς γῆς), where it anticipates the diaspora of Mopsos (for which cf. p252). Lykophron’s sources: Fraser 1979, especially 335 341, seeing Eratosthenes as primary (his geographical work, the Amathousia cf. p546 , and perhaps the Hermes cf. p505 ), Philostephanos as secondary; cf. Pirenne-Delforge 1994:327. Akamas, Demophon, and Phaleros at Soloi: Lykophron Alexandra 494 534; Strabo 14.6.3; Plutarch Solon 26; cf. Apollodoros Epitome 6.17. 340 Restringing Kinyras An earlier stratum has the sons of Theseus return to Athens after the war. But G erstad convincingly argued that they along with their fellow countryman Phaleros’ (an eponym for Phaleron, a departure point for Athenian naval expeditions) re ect Athenian imperial interests and military endeavors on Cyprus, between the defeat of the Persians at Mykale (479) and the death of Kimon in the siege of Kition (449/448).21 Solon’s anecdotal involvement with Soloi probably also took on its principal features at this time.22 Akamas’ grandson Khytros’ ( Khytroi) may be similarly understood.23 Nevertheless, since there does seem to have been Aegean settlement in the region of Soloi at the end of the LBA,24 a late political myth like this could take on specious substance by repurposing local memories. Some gures, however, do represent genuinely ancient traditions. Teukros and Agapenor, associated with Salamis and Paphos, respectively, may be con dently associated with historical population movements from western Anatolia and the Peloponnese for reasons, to be discussed below, that overcome any suspicion raised by their incorporation into the epic nóstoi. That these are the two bestattested Cypriot migration legends must relate to the prominence of Salamis and Paphos on the island itself, and hence their greater visibility within early Panhellenic hori ons. As it happens, both Teukros and Agapenor have connections with Kinyras and his family. We thus arrive at the central uestion of this chapter. In the treatment of Kinyras, one would predict both local Cypriot traditions of potentially sub-Mycenaean anti uity, and a modulation in the ninth or eighth century under the stimulus of Aeolic-Ionic epic. We have already seen evidence of the latter with Kinyras’ brief cameo in the Iliad, where he appears as an esteemed guest-friend to Agamemnon a fellow Great King.25 A more ancient Kinyras, I have argued, is found in the rich traditions that make him an all-around culturehero for the island and its ancient industries (Chapter 13). In both cases, Kinyras is presented in a positive light. But his virtues and talents did not go wholly uncontested. Another stream of tradition made Kinyras a traitor to the Greek cause, who had to be punished accordingly (see below). More middling, hybrid’ perspectives are found at early Paphos and fth-century Salamis, where the royal dynasties presented themselves as descendants of the legendary king. 21 22 23 24 25 G erstad 1944:120 121. For the political situation, see HC:121 125. For which see HC:117. Khytroi and Khytros: enagoras FGH 240 F 27 ( Harpokration Lexicon of the Ten Orators and Stephanos of By antium s.v. ύτροι); G erstad 1944:120. Fortin 1980:26 35. See p1, 322. 341 Chapter Fourteen I shall develop speci c historical explanations for each of these strains, arguing that Kinyras was a kind of historical boundary stone delimiting Greek and pre-Greek perspectives within the evolving social landscape of IA Cyprus, even when the two populations are indistinguishable in the material record. Ultimately this ethnic, national function of Kinyras will permit further inferences about his own early history upon the island (Chapter 15). Kinyras, Dmetor, and the Changing States of Cyprus After Kinyras’ brief mention in the Iliad, Homer tells us nothing more about him. Instead Odysseus, lying to Antinoos about how he fell into beggary, claims that he was captured while marauding the coast of Egypt and handed over to a certain Dmetor son of Iasos, who ruled Cyprus by force. 26 Dmetor is envisioned as commanding the whole island.27 Eustathios was pu led by this: If Kinyras was king of Cyprus in the Iliad, he is no longer, but the Dmetor who is named seems to have been king.28 Eustathios’ suggestion remains the most economical interpretation of the Homeric data. The alternative, to view the Odyssey poet as using a di erent frame of reference than the Iliad, is not merely uneconomical but discouraged by Homer’s own generous clues. For m t r means Subduer’, and is even so de ned by the immediate se uel: who ruled in Cyprus by force. This is proof enough, were it needed, that Dmetor is no historical gure. et he may still have an historical dimension. Both his name and its gloss show that the Odyssey poet recogni ed an early Greek con uest scenario on Cyprus. That Dmetor exerted his rule by force naturally implies a hostile native population, which in turn suggests that his kingdom was recently established. This might be reading too much into a single name, were it not for other mythological examples of Achaean heroes establishing kingdoms on Cyprus ust after the fall of Troy only a few years of dramatic time before the action of the Odyssey (Odysseus was the last hero home). 26 27 28 Homer Odyssey 17.442 443: α τ ρ μ ἐς ύπρον είν δόσαν ἀντιάσαντι, / μήτορι ασίδ , ς ύπρου ι νασσεν. νάσσειν takes the dative of peoples ruled, but typically genitive of a place within which and over which one holds supreme power, including islands: Homer Iliad 1.38, 452 ( ενέδοιό τε ι ἀνάσσεις, of Apollo), 6.478, Odyssey 4.602; Hesiod fr. 141.16 M-W; Homeric Hymn to Apollo 181 (Delos), Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 112 (all Phrygia). Eustathios on Homer Odyssey 17.442 443: ε δ ινύρας ἐν λιάδι ύπρου ν ασιλε ς, ἀλλ ἐκείνου μηκέτ ντος ηθε ς μήτ ρ ασιλεῦσαι δοκε (expanding the blunter statement of a scholiast ad loc.: ινύρου ἀποθανόντος μήτ ρ ἐ ασίλευσε ύπρου). 342 Restringing Kinyras Dmetor thus concisely embodies a traditional convention that Cyprus, in a post-Troy nóstos, should be a Kinyras-free one.29 Kinyras and Dmetor symboli e the island’s two storytelling states’. The transition between them, one may suppose, could be uncompressed and developed at will, as normal with formulaic themes. But of course this need not mean that only Dmetor gured in tales of post-Troy Cyprus. Another possible lead is Dmetor’s patronymic, Ias d s, son of Iasos’ (or descendant), if this is more than an on-the- y invention. Iasos recurs in mythological constructions of the Argive royal house, either as the son of Phoroneus and father of Argos (Hellanikos), or as the son of Argos himself (ps.Apollodoros).30 Ias d s may therefore symboli e not simply a Greek con uest of Cyprus, but one in which Argos’ broadly understood played a central role. There is also the Iasos whom ps.-Apollodoros places in the Arcadian royal house as the son of Lykourgos that is, in the disempowered’ branch that descends from the eponymous Arkas via his younger son Apheidas.31 This Iasos’ brother was Ankaios, father of Agapenor, the Paphian migration hero (see below); this would make Dmetor and Agapenor rst cousins. Of course one need not insist on any such precise relationship. But Homer’s Ias d s may well suggest a speci cally Peloponnesian background to Dmetor and his power over Cyprus. Liar King: The Terracotta Fleet and the Curse of Agamemnon The political relationship between Kinyras and Agamemnon was more fully elaborated in what Eustathios calls the Cypriot Hosting of the Achaeans’ ( ria xenía tôn Akhaiôn). Our knowledge of this tale comes from three authors, who yield four closely related tellings.32 They speak variously of an Achaean embassy to Cyprus and a broken promise by Kinyras to contribute ships for the expedition against Troy. According to ps.-Apollodoros: 29 30 31 32 Cf. the astute comments of Serghidou 2006:171 173. Hellanikos FGH 4 F 36; Apollodoros Library 2.1.3. Cf. HC:88. Apollodoros Library 3.9.2. Alkidamas Odysseus 20 21; Apollodoros Epitome 3.9; two versions in Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20. While the earliest text is the fourth-century Alkidamas, this is clearly a fashionable sophistic exercise comparable to the revisionist encomia of Helen by Gorgias and Isokrates, and Gorgias’ Defense of Palamedes (Gorgias DK 82 B 11 Helen , 11a Palamedes ; Isokrates 10; I assume the Gorgianic works are authentic: Untersteiner 1954:95; Segal 1962:100, 136 137n10 with further references). Alkidamas’ Defense of Kinyras’ only makes sense as systematically correcting a traditional epic episode that cast the Cypriot king in a negative light, shifting all blame to Palamedes. I shall deal more fully with the interrelationships of these texts, and the episode’s position within a larger tradition of Eastern Wandering, in Franklin forthcoming. See for now Franklin 2014. 343 Chapter Fourteen Menelaos went with Odysseus and Talthybios to Kinyras in Cyprus, and tried to persuade him to oin the battle. But he Kinyras made a gift of a breastplate33 for Agamemnon, who was not present; and vowing to send fty ships, he sent one, which name lost the son of Mygdalion commanded. And molding the rest out of clay, he launched them into the sea.34 This tale must have featured in some version of the lost Kypria, which dealt with events leading up to the Tro an War.35 We have also seen that, incredible though it seem, Kinyras’ terracotta eet must somehow allude to an Eteocypriot tradition of terracotta ship-models stretching from the Archaic period back to the MBA.36 The episode is implicitly aetiological, but is the aetiology fundamental or incidental That is, did the ritual give rise to the story of Kinyras’ treachery, or merely embellish it The son of Mygdalion is eccentric and pu ling. The name is reminiscent of Pygmalion’, which some would change the text to read an easy emendation recalling the tradition that Kinyras married a daughter of Pygmalion.37 On this hypothesis, the son of Mygdalion becomes Kinyras’ brother-in-law, a plausible enough arrangement. Or should the more di cult reading prevail Since Pygmalion’ is a Hellenic representation of a Canaanite/Phoenician divine and/or royal name like Pumayyaton, one can nd e ual support for Mygdalion in Milkyaton, a name born by a fourth-century king of Kition and himself the father of a Pumayyaton.38 Several alternative attempts at a Semitic etymology for Mygdalion may also be noted.39 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 The text has the plural breastplates. Apollodoros Epitome 3.9: τι ενέλαος σ ν δυσσε κα αλθυ ί πρ ς ινύραν ε ς (suppl. Wagner) ύπρον ἐλθόντες συμμαχε ν πειθον δ γαμέμνονι μ ν ο παρόντι θ ρακα ς ἐδ ρήσατο, μόσας δ πέμ ειν πεντήκοντα ναῦς, μίαν πέμ ας, ς ρχεν υγδαλί νος, κα τ ς λοιπ ς ἐκ γῆς πλάσας μεθῆκεν ε ς τ πέλαγος See p1n2, 211n139. See p328. Emendation: Wilamowit -M llendor 1900:535n1; West 2003:72 73. Kinyras and the daughter of Pygmalion: Apollodoros Library 3.14.3; see further p498, 504. KAI 32 33, cf. 34, 39, 41; for the new inscription, see p357. The proposal of Cross 1972 to see a similar pairing in the Nora Stone (Sardinia, ca. 800; KAI 46) has not been generally followed; most would see in pmy of line 8 a reference to the Cypriot/Phoenician god Pummay (whence Hesykhios s.v. υγμαί ν δ νις παρ υπρίοις See Amadasi 1967:86; Lipi ski 2004:236n52, 240. Phonological considerations indicate that the Pygmaion/Pummay (corresponding to the theophoric element in Pygmalion’) goes back on Cyprus to a borrowing from Canaanite, i.e. before ninth-century Phoenician coloni ation: Cross 1972:18; Brown 1981:390n31. For Pygmaion and Pygmalion, see further p315 and n210. Lewy 1895:238; Kapera 1971; Kapera 1972:197 199. 344 Restringing Kinyras Either way, the son of Mygdalion/Pygmalion is an authentic Cypriot touch. Important enough to rate a mention, he is a faint trace of a more developed portrait of Kinyras’ court. He e ually imparts a Cypro-Phoenician avor, as does making Kinyras himself a faithless foreigner, since Homer usually represents Phoenicians as sneaky dealers.40 The Liar King clearly expresses a more general cultural confrontation between Greek and non-Greek. But the opposition is not a simple geographical one between Cyprus and the Aegean; for the virtuous Kinyras appears in Homer, Alkman, and Pindar, and he was promoted by the Kinyrad kings of Paphos who nevertheless bore Greek names (Chapter 16). The Liar King is therefore likely to derive from a speci c regional tradition within Cyprus, which, unlike Paphos where the episode is set41 stood to gain by denying Kinyras’ virtues and emphasi ing his un-Greekness. The obvious candidate here is Salamis. First, this is the city for which an epic tradition is best attested. Salamis appears in an invocation of Aphrodite in one of the lesser Homeric hymns.42 There is also the hexametric oracle, attributed to the legendary Cypriot prophet-singer Euklees, which purports to predict Homer’s birth in a eld / outside of very-wealthy Salamis. 43 At least two Salaminian singers are known by name, Stasinos and Stasandros.44 To the former (or alternatively to Hegesias or Hegesinos of Salamis) was attributed the Kypria, some version of which remains the most likely home for the terracotta eet on other grounds.45 I suggest therefore that the Liar King served the interests of the Salaminian royal house, undermining the island-wide prestige the Paphian Kinyradai en oyed as high priests of Aphrodite’s temple.46 With or without Salamis, an insinuation of Phoenician sneakiness may have been useful at certain points in the island’s history when a sense of Hellenic identity waxed especially strong here or there. This leads to an important detail added by Eustathios: that Kinyras, after defaulting on his promise, was 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I owe this observation to G. Fawkes. Homer’s Phoenicians: Winter 1995; cf. Morris 1997:612. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20. Aphrodite is ruler of well-founded Salamis / And Cyprus on the sea in Homeric Hymn 10.4. An early epic environment’ has often been suggested on the basis of the royal tombs at Salamis: Karageorghis 1967:117 124; CAH2 III.3:60 62; Karageorghis 1999b. Cf. also Nonnos Dionys. 13.463: ἀειδομένην αλαμ να Pausanias 10.24.3: ἐπ ἀγροῦ / ν σ ι πολυκτε νοιο αλαμ νος. This oracle accords with Hellanikos FGH 4 F 5b, where κλέης appears as the grandson of Orpheus, and thus a distant ancestor in a continuous line down to Homer. His name appears in a slightly di erent form in Pausanias (cf. 10.12.11, 10.14.6). For this important gure, see further below and Franklin 2014:227 228. See p211. See p1n2, 211n139. Note that inscriptions to the Paphian goddess have been found at Khytroi, Golgoi, Ledroi and Keryneia: HC:87; NPHP:70 and n20; Kypris:167, 198, 200. For the Kinyradai of Paphos, see Chapter 16. 345 Chapter Fourteen cursed by Agamemnon. 47 Though Eustathios himself o ers no clear se uel, Agamemnon’s curse is very probably to be connected with a remarkable tradition recorded by Theopompos, to which we now turn. The Unthroning of Kinyras Theopompos, active in the fourth century, ranks alongside Herodotos, Thucydides, enophon, and Ephoros as one of the most important Classical historians.48 He traveled and lectured widely in the Greek world, making considerable use of local traditions.49 An understandable desire to include everything he collected accounts for his proneness to tangents. The fty-eight volume Philippika, dealing with the history of Philip of Macedon and the generations preceding his rise to power, was so replete with ethnographic, historical, and mythological digressions that their excision by Philip (ca. 238 179) reduced the work to a mere sixteen books.50 The original version, however, apparently survived down to the ninth century when it was read by Photios, with the exception of four books he reports as lost.51 He also mentions a certain Menophanes, who believed that a fth volume too Book 12 had fallen from the tradition. et Photios himself had this very book in hand, and luckily felt impelled to epitomi e it for posterity. We may therefore be sure that he has represented the original structure uite faithfully, even if the severity of his cuts may obscure the relative emphases of the original topics.52 Book 12 dealt with the career of Euagoras I (ca. 435 374), the brilliant, swashbuckling king of Salamis who walked a long and dangerous tightrope on 47 48 49 50 51 52 Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20: ασ δ α τ ν ἀμελήσαντα ἐπικατάρατον γενέσθαι π γαμέμνονος. Eustathios’ version is cited more fully on p187. Flower 1994. Theopompos FGH 115 F 25 26 and T 28a, with discussion of Flower 1994:18 19, cf. 201. Photios Library 121a35 41 (FGH 115 T 31). Cf. Flower 1994:29 and 160 165 on Theopompos’ essentially Herodotean digressive techni ue. Cicero (On the Laws 1.5) refers to the countless tales of both authors (et apud Theopompum sunt innumerabiles fabulae); these included, besides the legends of Kinyras and Mopsos (see p252 and below), the myth of Midas and Seilenos (FGH 115 F 75). Photios Library 120a6 14. His epitome closes with the strong declaration μ ν ο ν ανισμένος ηνο άνει δ δέκατος λόγος περιέχει ταῦτά ἐστιν (120b17 18). Against Photios’ claim in the prologue to have made his summaries solely from memory, T. H gg, by comparing the extant Vita Apollonii of Philostratos with its epitome, showed that Photios sometimes worked with open book: episode se uences are repeated exactly and in detail, with even a textual problem taken over (H gg 1973, especially 218; H gg 1975:195 204). When Photios is indeed recollecting, se uences are slightly umbled and extraneous material mistakenly inserted. Had he epitomi ed Book 12 of Theopompos so, one would expect an unbroken account of Euagoras’ career. Instead, it is interrupted’ by the digressions’ on Kinyras and Mopsos; and the obscure daughters of Mopsos would hardly have been recalled by name. 346 Restringing Kinyras the Persian periphery. He grew up while Salamis was controlled by a usurping Phoenician dynasty; a further coup ca. 415 by another Phoenician adventurer Abdymon (or Abdemon) of Tyre and/or Kition53 caused Euagoras to ee to Cilician Soloi. Returning several years later with a picked band of fty followers, he regained his throne in a daring night attack.54 Consolidating his position, he went on to en oy a long reign in which he aimed at, and brie y glimpsed, fairly general control of Cyprus and even several Phoenician cities including Tyre, before Persia cut back his little empire to Salamis itself.55 How Theopompos related his Euagoras narrative to the career of Philip is not immediately clear. One likely point of contact is Euagoras’ involvement in the Battle of Knidos (394), since this was relevant to the history of hegemonic struggles in Greece itself.56 In any case, Theopompos included two curious mythological digressions that are but tersely noticed by Photios. One was on Mopsos, whom the historian tied to ethnic con ict between Greeks and barbarians in Caria (the Meliac War, ca. 700) and probably Pamphylia.57 He also described, immediately after recounting Euagoras’ surprise upset of Abdymon, the manner in which the Greeks with Agamemnon occupied (katéskhon) Cyprus, driving o the men with Kinyras, of whom the Amathousians are the remnants.58 One’s immediate re ex, conditioned as we are by the usual Homeric version of events, is to understand the Greeks with Agamemnon as a group who had fought beside the Mycenaean king at Troy, but then went on to Cyprus by themselves while he went home to Klytaimnestra.59 By this view, hoi s n A am mnoni would be an elliptical reference to other, better-attested migration legends 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Theopompos FGH 115 F 103: δύμονα τ ν ιτιέα ταύτης ἐπάρχοντα; Diodoros Siculus 14.98: δήμονα τ ν ύριον. Isokrates 9.30 32; HC:126 127. See generally RE 6 (1907), 820 828 (8); Spyridakis 1935; HC:125 143. The source for Euagoras’ Phoenician possessions is Diodoros Siculus 15.2.4: ἐκυρίευε κατ δ τ ν οινίκην ύρου καί τιν ν τέρ ν. For the battle and Euagoras’ role, see enophon Hellenika 4.3.10 12; Diodoros Siculus 14.39; HC:130 131; Maier 1985:39 40. Flower 1994:165 suggests that Theopompos’ treatment of Cyprus, Egypt, and Asia Minor served as background to Philip’s intended con uest of Asia. The key evidence linking Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120b8 13) to the Meliac War is a Hellenistic inscription from Priene: FGH 115 F 305 and Hiller von Gaertringen et al. 1906 no. 37. See the discussion of Huxley 1960; cf. Huxley 1966:22. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103 (Photios Library 120a20 22): ν τε τρόπον παρ δό αν αγόρας τῆς υπρί ν ἀρχῆς ἐπέ η δύμονα κατασχ ν τ ν ιτιέα ταύτης ἐπάρχοντα τίνα τε τρόπον λληνες ο σ ν γαμέμνονι τ ν ύπρον κατέσχον, ἀπελάσαντες το ς μετ ιννύρου sic ν ε σ ν πολιπε ς μαθούσιοι π ς τε ασιλε ς αγόρ συνεπείσθη πολεμῆσαι. For the viable alternative spelling Kinnyras’, see p214 215. So Baurain 1984:111. 347 Chapter Fourteen like Teukros, Agapenor, and their bands of followers. Such further gures are certainly well encompassed by the expression. et the more natural reading of the Greek makes Agamemnon himself lead the showdown.60 We must therefore recogni e, startling though it be, a tradition of the island’s invasion by the Mycenaean king, accompanied by some portion of the returning Greek host.61 And there is a remarkable parallel: according to medieval Cypriot tradition, the Greek expedition against Troy gathered not Aulis but Paphos, as it was from here not Sparta that Helen had been abducted 62 Such Cyprocentric variants obviously originated on the island itself, enduring into the fourth century and well beyond despite their inconsistency with the Panhellenic narrative of Homer. R. Dussaud once suggested that Theopompos’ myth re ected an historical breach of eti uette between Mycenae and Alashiya, precipitating a Greek takeover of Cyprus at the end of the LBA.63 Writing before the discovery of Kinnaru at Ugarit, Dussaud supposed that Kinyras was an actual Alashiyan king, and envisioned a Mycenaean rout of his followers; eeing from Enkomi (which Dussaud regarded as the Alashiyan capital), they settled in Amathous and Paphos.64 Since Kinyras was in all probability not an historical individual, Dussaud’s rout of the Kinyradai’ must remain overly literal; and his political geography may be too speci c. Nevertheless, if Kinyras was indeed a kind of royal persona in LBA Cyprus, as I shall argue (Chapter 15), the fate of the island would be very neatly mythologi ed as a decisive confrontation with Agamemnon. 60 61 62 63 64 Thus, for example, in Neanthes FGH 84 F 31 (191), ο σ ν ρυμένει is soon varied as τ ν μ ν ρυμένην κα το ς σ ν α τ . The context is also clear in Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 1: τ ν σ ν ό ἀ ικομέν ν. Other comparable and unambiguous expressions are e.g. Lucian A True Story 2.26: το ς δ ἀμ τ ν ινύραν; Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 11: ο περ τ ν εν λαον. Further parallels: Herodotos 5.58; Hellanikos FGH 4 F 31; enophon Anabasis 1.2.15, etc. Photios himself has δελ ι ς κα ο σ ν α τ , Library 12b30; τταλος κα ο σ ν α τ , 72a33. As a counterexample one might cite enophon Anabasis 4.1.1, ο σ ν ύρ ἀνα άντες λληνες, where Cyrus is already dead; yet the aorist participle clari es that σύν ύρ was true in the past. Without such uali cation, we must assume the presence of Agamemnon. Agamemnon’s direct agency is rightly accepted by Stiehle 1853:73 74; Cesnola 1877:4 5; Wagner 1891:182; HC:68; G erstad 1948:428 429; Kapera 1969; Kapera 1971:132; Kapera 1972:192; Dussaud 1950:58; Shrimpton 1991:90 91; Flower 1994:163. Reported by John Adorno (1470): Helena while she was on her travels was captured at the temple sc. of enus at Paphos (SHC 8:173). There is a variant in Ludolf of Suchen (after 1350), De itinere terrae sanctae liber (Mas Latrie 1852 1861 1:211 212; SHC 8:169): In hoc templo primo de perdicione Troye tractatum est, nam Helena tendens ad templum istud in via capta est ( It was in this temple of enus at Old Paphos that counsel was rst taken regarding the destruction of Troy. For Helen was captured en route while ourneying there ). Cf. Hogarth 1889:190. Recall that some con ict between Alashiya and Ahhiyawa is attested by the Indictment of Madduwatta (KUB 14.1 rev. 84 90 CTH 147); but this is now dated to the fteenth century: see p13n64. Dussaud 1950:58; cf. Baurain 1980b:299 300; Baurain 1984:111. 348 Restringing Kinyras Kinyras and Pre-Greek Social Topography The Theopompos fragment unambiguously links Kinyras to the island’s preGreek population, and o ers Amathous as its principal stronghold’. The city’s partially non-Greek character is con rmed by ps.-Skylax, who called the Amathousians autochthonous.65 As late as the fourth century (Theopompos’ own day) the Amathousian kings, despite their Greek names, commissioned political and funerary inscriptions in the undeciphered language conventionally known as Eteocypriot which, in bilingual settings, even en oyed la place d’honneur ahead of the Greek.66 That Amathous was not founded until ca. 1100 need not con ict with the tradition of pre-Greek origins’; compare the roughly contemporary transition from LBA Enkomi to nearby Teukrid’ Salamis.67 The city’s indigenous orientation will also explain its description as the (or a) most ancient city of Cyprus, and the (obviously erroneous) view that the island was originally called Amathousía.68 There must also have been communities outside of Amathous, of whatever si e, that maintained some sense of pre-Greek identity. Ps.-Skylax, after calling several sites Greek, and Lapethos Phoenician, states that there are also other non-Greek-speaking (bárbaroi) cities in the interior. 69 While this can certainly include further Phoenician centers (Idalion; Kition is on the coast), it could e ually embrace other pre-Greek groups within the póleis. Several Eteocypriot inscriptions have been found at Paphos, with probably another from Kourion.70 At least a hundred more examples, interpretable as neither 65 66 67 68 69 70 Skylax 103 (GGM 1:78): μαθοῦς α τόχθονές ε σιν. This and the following material is treated with undue skepticism by Reyes 1994:13 17 and Given 1998, despite the latter’s excellent account of how the British colonial authority promoted the Eteocypriots’ to undermine the Enosis movement. See the responses to Given by Petit 1999; Egetmeyer 2010; Steele 2011; Steele 2013:101 and n9. ICS 190 196 ( uotation p207); DGAC Steele 2013:99 172. The case for Eteocypriot as a late Hurrian dialect is renewed by Fournet 2013; for Hurrian as the/a language of the LBA Cypro-Minoan tablets, see p440n110. For Salamis, see p354. Cf. Papantonio 2012:281, Such an autochthony legend could reinforce the anteriority of the Amathousians in Cyprus, and the mythological precedence of the local dynasty over the other Basileis. Herodian De prosodia catholica 242.34 Lent ( μαθοῦς πόλις ύπρου ἀρχαιοτάτη, cf. Stephanos of By antium s.v. μαθοῦς) and p. 294.4 ( μαθουσία ο τ ς ἐκαλε το ύπρος), cf. Pliny Natural History 5.35.129. Note also nn d nan horo ra a p. 9 ( 12), where an indigenous hori on still older than pre-Greek’ is envisioned: Amathus was an ancient city, built before the gods came to the island. That these descendants of the gods ruled on the pre-Greek island is shown by e.g. p. 36 ( 180), on Paphos (cited below, p561). Skylax 103 (GGM 1:78): ε σ δ κα λλαι πόλεις ἐν μεσογεί άρ αροι. Paphos: DGAC no. 123, 148 149, 249; Egetmeyer 2010:72 73; Steele 2013 no. EC 19 22, cf. pp. 119 120. Kourion: ICS 183; DGAC no. 10; Steele 2013 no. EC 23. 349 Chapter Fourteen Greek nor Phoenician, have been found elsewhere on the island.71 Of course, those who self-identi ed as neither Greek nor Phoenician need not themselves have been ethnically homogeneous: the Alashiyan onomasticon shows that the LBA island was already uite diverse.72 Some hold, for instance, that a number of undeciphered inscriptions from Golgoi represent a pre-Greek language distinct from Amathousian’.73 But these ethnic and linguistic intricacies in no way invalidate Kinyras’ function as a totali ing symbol of the pre-Greek island. And his connection with Amathous usti es extending this idea to his various toponymous relations. Kinyras is the trunk of a family tree whose roots and branches include a father Paphos and mother Paphos/Paphia; a mother Amathousa; sons Marieus ( Marion) and Koureus ( Kourion); and Kypros, either a son or daughter (the name is masculine in form, but islands are normally feminine).74 It is probably signi cant that that these gures, in an arc Marion-Paphos-Kourion-Amathous, are concentrated in the southwestern part of the island; when the points are connected on a map, the area includes Alassa (with Kalavasos nearby) and the main distribution of Eteocypriot inscriptions. The multiform clan of Kinyras neatly opposes’ the Aegean migration legends. It does not follow, of course, that Greek and pre-Greek communities were always or ever strictly segregated. Thus, Aegean foundations appear sideby-side with Kinyras or his family at several sites (Paphos, Salamis, Kourion, and elsewhere).75 It is unclear whether these Kinyrad toponyms were generated by pre-Greek communities, by the island’s Grecophone element, were fabricated by early ethnographers like Hellanikos, or some combination. Probably 71 72 73 74 75 Steele 2013:100 101. See p440. Egetmeyer 2010, 71, 73 74; Egetmeyer 2012; cf. Steele 2013:110 111; Fournet 2013:26 30. Son/Daughter Kypros: Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 11; Istros FGH 334 F 45; Herodian De prosodia catholica 204.4 Lent ; Stephanos of By antium s.v. ύπρος; Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 508 512; Constantine Porphyrogenitos On the Themes 1.15. Father/mother Paphos/Paphia: Pindar Pythian 2.27a (father Paphos), 2.28 (mother Paphia or perhaps a Paphian nymph’; of course Paphia’ was an epithet of the goddess herself); Ovid Metamorphoses 10.297 298 (Paphos, apparently feminine); Dionysios the Periegete 509 (father Paphos); Hyginus Fabulae 242, 270, 275 (father Paphos); Theodontius in Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.50 51 had father Paphos, apparently misinterpreting Ovid (whence Bustron and horo ra a/Description): see p499. Son Koureus: Herodian De prosodia catholica 200.2 and 358.19 Lent ; Stephanos of By antium s.v. ούριον. Mother Amathousa: Herodian De prosodia catholica 242.34 Lent ; cf. Stephanos of By antium s.v. μαθοῦς. Son Marieus: Stephanos of By antium s.v. άριον. These sources are conveniently tabulated in Baurain 1980b. There is another probable reference to Paphos as the father of Kinyras in lines 4 13 of Pap.Oxy. 2688 (early third century CE): see further p499n30. That is, Agapenor versus the Kinyradai at Paphos (cf. p359 368); Teukros and the daughter of Kinyras at Salamis (see below); Argives versus Koureus son of Kinyras at Kourion. Presumably something similar is implied by Kinyras’ associations with Lapethos and Tamassos (see p325), and perhaps indirectly with Idalion through his son Amaracus’ (p331 332). 350 Restringing Kinyras most lacked any real mythology (although an inventive poet or historian might weave them together, as did Nonnos; there is also the uasi-narrative treatment of Cinaras’ and Curio’ in tienne de Lusignan).76 They remain valuable nonetheless as ethno-historical ciphers. A nal topographical connection, which has presented a pu le since anti uity, is the Cinyria’ mentioned by Pliny as an abandoned site of uncertain location. I discuss this in Appendix E. Salamis: Euagoras, Teukros, and the Daughter of Kinyras We must now consider why Theopompos included Agamemnon’s unthroning of Kinyras in recounting the career of Euagoras. This was surely not gratuitous detail, but integral to the logic of his narrative.77 Kinyras’ defeat by Agamemnon, it has been suggested, made Cyprus legitimately part of the Greek world and explains, if it does not ustify, Euagoras the Greek’s claim to legitimate rulership over that of Abdymon, whose name sounds distinctly barbarian. 78 That Theopompos himself developed such a polari ed vision of Greeks versus others is not unlikely, given his treatment of Mopsos and the Meliac War in the same book.79 And such a philhellenic Euagoras is found in Isokrates, whose eulogy of the king is decidedly anti-Persian in tone.80 et the traditional view that philhellenism was central to Euagoras’ own political agenda (as opposed to Isokrates’) has been well challenged by F. G. Maier, exposing as largely factoidal the assumption, omnipresent in older histories, that fth-century Cyprus saw a general showdown between Greek-Cypriots and a Persian-Phoenician axis.81 That idea is rather at odds with our current understanding of the island’s ethnic complexity and the fairly general dispersal and mutual acculturation of its three (or more) populations.82 Cypriot kings of all backgrounds, Maier contends, generally acted in their own interests, and this 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.432 463. For tienne de Lusignan, see Appendix G. Not only did it survive the epitomi er’s cuts, but, as Shrimpton 1991:91 points out, the digression ( if digression is the correct word ) di ered from others in not falling at a natural narrative break. So Shrimpton 1991, uotations from 73 and 91; similarly Baurain 1984:112. See p347. See e.g. Isokrates 9.19 20 (addressed to Nikokles I, 374 ca. 360). One may note here the biographical tradition that makes Theopompos a student of Isokrates; but Flower 1994:42 62 argues that this is a Hellenistic ction. Maier 1985. Seibert 1976. 351 Chapter Fourteen sometimes led incidentally to confrontations between Greek- and PhoenicianCypriots, and, following the Ionian revolt, with the Persians.83 The point is well taken. Nevertheless, we should not dismiss all ethnic distinctions on the island as meaningless. The very fact that communities cultivated legends about their past shows that such a liations mattered to them. Such beliefs could therefore be politically exploited; and if this were to coincide with the interests of a Cypriot king, why would he have hesitated to do so I would like to take a middle position and argue that both tendencies ethnic openness, and political rivalry articulated along ethnic lines were variously operative in Euagoras’ bid for power and in uence, and that Kinyras had an important role to play therein. A key passage comes from Diodoros: Euagoras tried to make the whole island his own. Mastering some of the cities by force, adding others by persuasion, he soon gained leadership over the rest. But the men of Amathous, Soloi, and Kition, resisting under arms, sent ambassadors to Artaxerxes king of the Persians for help.84 The resistance of largely Greek-oriented Soloi clearly illustrates Maier’s principle of ethnically indi erent self-interest. But it can hardly be coincidence that Amathous and Kition were the island’s two sites with the most pronounced non-Greek cultural orientation (note that Amathous had not oined in defecting from Persia after the Ionian Revolt).85 And once war was drawn along these lines, an aspect of ethnic disharmony may well have presented itself, even if political expediency played the leading part.86 Kition served the Persians as their main naval base on the island, and the city probably ourished accordingly; no doubt this would perfectly suit its kings’ own aggressive ambitions. Still, this privileged position may have been due not only to Kition’s important harbor, but to its cultural ties with the mainland, making it somehow more familiar and manageable in Persian eyes. Similarly Phoenician/Tyrian political control of Kition had probably emerged in the late 83 84 85 86 Cf. Seibert 1976:26. Diodoros Siculus 14.98: ἐπεχείρησεν πασαν τ ν νῆσον σ ετερίσασθαι τ ν δ πόλε ν ς μ ν ί χειρ σάμενος, ς δ πειθο προσλα όμενος, τ ν μ ν λλ ν πόλε ν ταχ τ ν γεμονίαν παρέλα εν, μαθούσιοι δ κα όλιοι κα ιτιε ς ἀντέχοντες τ πολέμ πρέσ εις ἀπέστειλαν πρ ς ρτα έρ ην τ ν τ ν ερσ ν ασιλέα περ οηθείας. Cf. Tuplin 1996:75 76 (Amathous is a case history which discloses that it is not simply ridiculous to think Cypriot politics and international relations to have had some ethnic component ). So rightly Tuplin 1996:76 4(a). 352 Restringing Kinyras eighth century under Assyrian patronage.87 It was here that Sargon erected his stele (ca. 707).88 Such intra-Cypriot issues might be dismissed as irrelevant to the interpretation of Theopompos himself, who was free to develop whatever historical framework he wished; on this view, Kinyras could enter his narrative as mere ornamentation, with no immediate connection to the realities of Euagoras’ career. et a crucial datum, preserved uni uely by Pausanias (second century CE), makes it uite likely that Theopompos’ Kinyras digression was intended to illuminate propaganda of the Salaminian king himself. Pausanias, it should be emphasi ed, drew regularly on Theopompos, and his familiarity with the book in uestion is shown by his discussion elsewhere of Mopsos’ expulsion of the Carians from Colophon.89 This makes it very probable that Theopompos is also his source for the passage we are about to examine. Pausanias, in his tour of Athens, refers to a statue of Euagoras, also known to Isokrates.90 This the Athenians erected in gratitude for the king’s role in brokering a Cypro-Phoenician naval contingent, under the command of Konon who was in exile at his court, to support the Athenian eet against the Spartans at Knidos: Near the stoa stands Konon and his son Timotheos, and Euagoras, king of the Cypriots, who caused the Phoenician triremes to be given to Konon by King Artaxerxes. He acted as an Athenian (h s Ath na os), since he traced his ancestry back to Salamis via Teukros and a daughter of Kinyras.91 With the victory at Knidos, Euagoras and his sons were awarded front-row seating at Athenian festivals in perpetuity. Euagoras had previously been granted Athenian citi enship (his friendly relations with the city are attested by inscriptions from ca. 410).92 This accounts for h s Ath na os in our passage. But Pausanias also shows that Euagoras’ honorary citi enship, though spurred by 87 88 89 90 91 92 For further observations on the relationship with Persia, see Smith 2008:261, 264 278. Sargon stele: ARAB 2:102 186; Reyes 1994:24, 51, with further literature. Pausanias 7.3.1 2 must derive from Theopompos’ use of the Mopsos legend in connection with the Meliac War: see p347n57. Isokrates 9.57. Pausanias 1.3.2: πλησίον δ τῆς στο ς όν ν στηκε κα ιμόθεος υ ς όν νος κα ασιλε ς υπρί ν αγόρας, ς κα τ ς τριήρεις τ ς οινίσσας πρα ε παρ ασιλέ ς ρτα έρ ου δοθῆναι όν νι πρα ε δ ς θηνα ος κα τ ἀνέκαθεν ἐκ αλαμ νος, ἐπε κα γενεαλογ ν ἐς προγόνους ἀνέ αινε εῦκρον κα ινύρου θυγατέρα. Isokrates 9.54; cf. Demosthenes 12.10. The relevant inscriptions are IG I no. 113 (SEG 34:24), ca. 410; IG II no. 20 (ca. 393/392) no. 716. Cf. HC:128 129, 131. 353 Chapter Fourteen his benefactions (he is euer t s in the inscriptions), was nevertheless grounded in a uasi-legal appeal to his alleged Teukrid ancestry, via a daughter of Kinyras (probably the Eue or Eune or Eunoe mentioned as Teukros’ bride elsewhere).93 This must also be why Isokrates emphasi es Euagoras’ Teukrid descent, to which he attributes the virtues of the Salaminian royal line and the king’s admirable achievement in restoring it to power.94 Teukros, as an eponym of the Teukrians’, is a multiform gure involved in a bewildering array of very early legends that connect him especially with the Troad and migrations thence. Homer’s Teukros is apparently but one special development.95 An eponymous relationship between Teukros and the T ekkeru of the Sea Peoples inscriptions remains very seductive,96 given that Salamis arose in the eleventh century after several generations’ decline at Enkomi.97 The contemporary ( ) Tale of Wen-Amun paints a comparable picture, with the T ekkeru pursuing the title character between Byblos and Cyprus, where Egyptian is no longer understood.98 There is also ergil’s picture of political disorder on Cyprus shortly after the Tro an War: Teukros was permitted to settle there by the grace of Belos’, king of Sidon, who was in the process of ravaging the island.99 Although clearly ctional in most respects, the atmosphere this passage evokes war, hostile immigration, and political decentrali ation is also right’ to some extent, at least as a generali ed popular memory. It is worth noting that Belos is sometimes made ruler of Egypt in ps.-Apollodoros, for example, he is the son of Poseidon and the Egyptian princess Libya’, while his twin brother Agenor moves to Phoenicia probably re ecting popular recollection of NK expansion in the Levant.100 Such a Belos, giving Teukros a place on Cyprus, would remind one of Ramses III’s settlement’ of the Philistines, and his claimed con uest of Cypriot cities.101 An Athenocentric wrinkle was eventually introduced to the story. For Homer, Teukros was the half-brother of A ax sharing a father in king Telamon of Salamis in the Saronic Gulf, but having for his mother Hesione, daughter of 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Lykophron Alexandra 450: εῦκρος ἐλθ ν ἐν ύπρ αλαμ να κτίσας κησε κα γήμας ην τ ν ύπρου στερίαν ἐγέννησεν, with variants in Scheer’s ap. crit. This identi cation, re uiring minor emendation (τ ν Κιν ρου or τ ν Κιν ρου το βασιλέως Κ πρου, vel sim.), goes back to Engel 1841 2:125; cf. Stoll in Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras col. 1191; Cayla 2005:230. Isokrates 9.18 19. See G erstad 1944:114 120 with further references. G erstad 1944:119 120; Giu rida 1996:285. For the inscription, see p13. Salamis: Karageorghis 1969:21. For the gradual abandonment of Enkomi, Webb 2001. CS 1 no. 41. Cf. above p14. ergil Aeneid 1.619 622: At ue e uidem eucrum memini idona enire ni us e ulsum atriis no a re na etentem au ilio eli enitor tum elus o imam asta at rum et ictor dicione tene at. Apollodoros Library 2.1.4. See p14. 354 Restringing Kinyras Laomedon of Troy. In the Catalogue of Ships, A ax stations twelve vessels alongside the Athenian phalanxes; a scholiast asserts that this was an interpolation by Solon ( . ca. 600) to support the Athenian claim on Salamis, which was disputed with Aegina.102 Later still, it seems, comes the story of Telamon banishing Teukros for failing to avenge A ax’ death at Troy. Wandering east, Teukros came by various routes to Cyprus, landing by tradition at the beach of the Achaeans’ on the Karpass peninsula, and so founded Salamis.103 G erstad attractively argued that Teukros’ exile from Saronic Salamis grew from Athenian diplomatic relations with Cypriot Salamis, following Athenian intervention on the island after the Ionian Revolt (much as Akamas, Demophon, and Phaleros were linked with Soloi and Khytroi).104 It remains slightly pu ling, however, that Pindar would present this version of events in a poem for an Aeginetan recipient.105 It may be that the mythological link between the two Salamises is earlier and more complex than appears.106 However the Teukrid link between Saronic and Cypriot Salamis arose, it is certain that Euagoras, in using the Athenian Teukros’ to promote his cause, was sensitive to the political advantages of mythical genealogy. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that he made comparable use of the daughter of Kinyras. But to what end One must consider her potential appeal to two broad audiences, Athenian and Cypriot. A maternal descent from Kinyras would seem, prima facie, to have little claim on Athenian a ections. And yet a kind of Athenian Kinyras’ is indeed found in two sources, partially cognate, which trace the Cypriot king’s ancestry back, through extraneous local traditions, to Kephalos son of Herse, daughter of Kekrops that is, to the legendary royal house of Athens.107 As these texts belong otherwise to a group allying Kinyras to Cilicia, I shall present them separately 102 103 104 105 106 107 Homer Iliad 2.557 558; Homer Iliad 2.494 877: όλ ν τ ν αλαμ να θηναίοις ἀπένειμε δι τ ας δ ἐκ αλαμ νος γεν δυοκαίδεκα νῆας Aiskhylos Persians 895; Pindar Nemean 4.46 47 with ; Euripides Helen 144 150; Isokrates 9.18; Aristotle Peplos (fr. 640 8 Rose); Klearkhos fr. 19 Wehrli ( Athenaios 256b), a Cypriot native; Lykophron Alexandra 450 478; Parian Marble A 26; ergil Aeneid 1.619 622; Strabo 14.6.3 (with beach of the Achaeans’ as the landing place of Teukros); Tacitus 3.62; Pausanias 1.3.2; Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.461 462; John Malalas Chronography 5.29 Thurn. Sources in Chavane and on 1978:33 91; cf. HC:85. Herodotos 7.90 is also relevant. A good account of the evidence is Gant 1993:694 695. G erstad 1944:119 120. Pindar Nemean 4.46 47. Engel 1841 2:126 127 speculated on deeper links between the myth cycles of Saronic and Cypriot Salamis. Dionysios the Periegete 509 FGH 758 F 3a; Apollodoros Library 3.14.3. The Athenian dimension of these constructions was recogni ed by Engel 1841 1:183 186, 2:130 133; Robert 1883:441; Baurain 1975 1976:525; Baurain 1980a:9; Baurain 1980b:282. 355 Chapter Fourteen in Chapter 21. The important point here is that Euagoras, by backing a Kephalid descent for Kinyras, could have supported his Teukrid claim to Athenian citienship with a good dose of sophistry on both sides of the family (a live issue since Perikles’ citi enship law of 451).108 Moreover, the version of ps.-Apollodoros presents potential points of contact with Euagoras’ career and propaganda. The mythographer has Kinyras cross with a host from Cilicia to Cyprus, found Paphos, and marry Metharme, daughter of Pygmalion.109 Just such a crossing launched Euagoras’ own career (noting that Cilicia too had traditions of Achaean and Teukrid settlement110). The dynastic link to Pygmalion may also be signi cant (see below). An Atthidographic source for the Athenian’ Kinyras has long been suspected.111 Hellanikos (ca. 480 395) has been suggested, though no reasons have been given.112 It is a good guess,113 but e ually probable is Phileas, an Athenian geographer contemporary with Hellanikos, who treated the connection with Cyprus of a certain Aoios son of Kephalos; for this same Aoios is elsewhere brother of Paphos and uncle of Kinyras (see further Chapter 21).114 It is perhaps hard to understand how such mythological concoctions could be made to carry any real political weight. et the pioneering synthesis of local myth with public inscriptions and archives by late fth-century anti uarians will have seemed like cutting-edge historical science to many.115 Under these conditions, an astute politician might readily turn such discoveries’ to good account ust as Solon had exploited Homer to oin Salamis to Athens. 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Aristotle Constitution of the Athenians 26.3; Plutarch Perikles 37.2 5. Apollodoros Library 3.14.3. A ax son of Teukros was said to have initiated a hereditary Teukrid priesthood at Olbe: Strabo 14.5.10; cf. 14.5.8, Cilician Soloi founded by Achaeans and Rhodians. This was supposed by Robert 1883:441. Giu rida 1996:292n51. The Lesbian historian, who must have traveled widely in collecting material for his regional histories (Dionysios of Halicarnassus On Thucydides 5.1), composed a Kypriaka, the one certain fragment of which relates to Pygmalion’s founding of Karpasia close to where one might naturally land when crossing from Cilicia (see p345 and n3, with Chuvin’s proposed connection of Apollodoros Library 3.14.3 and Hellanikos FGH 4 F 57). Hellanikos, whose later career was much occupied with fabricating an Athenian past, was a master of devising early genealogies out of legendary materials and tailoring them to local interests (Franklin 2012). A hitherto unnoticed Cypriot example should be registered here: Hellanikos, in making Euklees/Euklous older than Homer in an ultimate descent from Orpheus, probably followed an insular tradition for the Cypriot prophet-poet of this name (Hellanikos FGH 4 F 5b). Finally, the time of Hellanikos’ professional activity substantially overlaps Athens’ alliance with Euagoras. Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. ος Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ῶος (sic); Dionysios the Periegete 509 (GGM 2:450) FGH 758 F 3a. Criticism of their methods was not long in coming from some uarters: see for instance Philokhoros FGH 328 F 92 on Hellanikos. 356 Restringing Kinyras However Euagoras may have presented matters to his Athenian allies, a professed Kinyrad ancestry will necessarily have carried greater weight on Cyprus. And since the island was itself ethnically heterogeneous, the daughter of Kinyras’ will have spoken di erently to di erent groups. It must remain possible that earlier Salaminian kings had already Kinyradi ed their Teukrid ancestry for reasons now obscure. But if I am right that the Liar King portrait of Kinyras stems from regional rivalry between Paphos and Salamis in the Archaic period,116 a Teukrid family relationship with Kinyras must have been a later development. It would then be most economical to suspect that Euagoras himself was responsible, both because he was clearly prepared to exploit ancient history, and because it is for him that the Kinyras connection is actually named. And, as it happens, a plausible political explanation has recently come to light. A Phoenician inscription discovered at Larnaka/Kition in 1990 records a victory by king Milkyaton, in the rst year of his reign (perhaps 392/391), over our enemies and their Paphian allies (w‘zrnm hppym). 117 It is uite certain that these enemies are the Salaminians, given that the date falls s uarely within the decades of Euagoras’ expansionist undertakings, and that Kition is known to have resisted him by force. The real surprise is to nd Paphos, about which virtually nothing was known for this period, in the position of Euagoras’ most noteworthy ally.118 Clearly this was one of the cities he won over through persuasion ; indeed the inscription suggests that the h emon a with which Diodoros credits Euagoras should be interpreted rather loosely, at least as regards Paphos. This alliance might very well have been underpinned by a newly discovered’ dynastic marriage between Teukros and the Kinyrad house. It was uite usual for political alignments to be expressed by grafting mythological limbs to family trees.119 And yet it will have been an embarrassment, on my hypothesis, that Kinyras had once been smeared by Salaminian singers as a Liar King. Is it mere coincidence that Alkidamas presented his whitewashing Defense of Kinyras’ right around this time 120 While the tongue-in-cheek tone of that work 116 117 118 119 120 See p345. on and S nycer 1991:799 800 et passim; on 2004:201 no. 1144 with further references, cf. 142 no. 180; Lipi ski 2004:94 95 and n331. The root sense of the Phoenician word is help’: see Krahmalkov 2000:363 364. This can be seen, for instance, in the Lydian royal line, where the intrusion of Belos and Ninos represented the client relationship with Assyria in the seventh century; the alleged descent from Herakles probably re ects alliance with Sparta in the sixth: Burkert 1995:144 145; Franklin 2008:195. See p343n32. A. Chaniotis compares the roughly contemporary rehabilitation of Minos as a wise lawgiver, apparently connected with the publication of the Laws of Minos by Kharon of Lampsakos (communication, December 19, 2011). 357 Chapter Fourteen hardly suggests propaganda, it would read well as a satiric response, following contemporary literary fashions, to some recent public visibility of Kinyras in Athens. Euagoras’ prominence there imposes itself as a promising stimulus. Diodoros’ account of Euagoras prevailing over the Cypriot cities through persuasion or force indicates a two-stage policy in which he rst attempted to win over all his insular peers by appealing to the political, economic, ethnic, or other ideological interests of each. Only when that failed would it be worth resorting to arms. One should therefore consider how Euagoras may have hoped that a claim of Kinyrad ancestry would persuade’ not only Paphos, but the other cities as well. The explanation, I suggest, is that he wished to balance the Greek associations of his Teukrid ancestry with an appeal to other Cypriot populations. If the intensity of ethnic rivalries on the island has been overemphasi ed in the past, nonetheless for a king who aimed at island-wide control the value of cultivating universal appeal is obvious. Indeed Euagoras’ hybrid heritage may have been designed precisely to promote ethnic harmony, not the reverse. That Theopompos speci cally dealt with the Amathousians as descendants of Kinyras’ men may even echo some of Euagoras’ rhetoric in trying to win that city over. A CyproPhoenician aspect would also be seen in Kinyras’ marriage into the house of Pygmalion, who clearly resonates with the dynastic names of Kition (Milkyaton’s son was Pumayyaton). Kinyras/Pygmalion might have served Euagoras e ually well in his ephemeral holdings on the Phoenician coast, given the traditions of Kinyras’ at Byblos and perhaps Sidon (Chapters 19 and 20). Kinyras would also have admirably re ected Euagoras’ ambition to control the whole island, being remembered as the last king to have done so.121 Note that many of the virtues that Isokrates ascribes to Euagoras can be paralleled with those attributed to Kinyras, which, I shall argue, perpetuate a memory of Alashiyan ideology.122 Even if this is largely coincidental wise and benevolent rulers are bound to share many characteristics123 one may at least say that Kinyras, as such a gure, would contribute positively to Euagoras’ pedigree and public image. To conclude, on Cyprus itself Euagoras will have balanced any philhellenism he may have felt personally, or pro ected to his Athenian allies, with a more inclusive appeal to the island’s ancient traditions. This was evidently partially successful (Paphos and elsewhere), but in the end he could not overcome the 121 122 123 But recall the possible tradition of Argive’ overlordship associated with the gure of Dmetor (p342 343), seconded by the elaborations of tienne de Lusignan (see p558n8, 561n32), and perhaps related somehow to Agamemnon’s invasion of the island. See p381 383. Isokrates lavished similar praise on Nikokles I in the Ad Nicoclem (Isokrates 2). 358 Restringing Kinyras political and/or ethnic disinclinations of Soloi, Amathous, Kition, and whatever other cities he was obliged to assail. Theopompos’ digression on the showdown of Kinyras and Agamemnon was probably intended to illuminate both the Kinyrad and Teukrid branches of Euagoras’ family tree but perhaps especially the former, which will have been less immediately intelligible for an extra-Cypriot readership. Euagoras himself, however, is unlikely to have made divisive use of the Kinyras and Agamemnon myth, which would hardly have endeared him to Amathous, Paphos, or Kition. I suggest, therefore, that Theopompos inserted the Unthroning of Kinyras on his own initiative to explain the daughter of Kinyras’ and provide historical’ background for the arrival of Teukros himself. Nor is it unlikely that his account of the men with Agamemnon dealt with other migration gures Agapenor, for instance. Paphos: Agapenor, Laodike, and the Arcadian Connection Agapenor appears in Homer’s Catalogue of Ships as the king of Tegea who led an Arcadian contingent to Troy. These mountain-bound landlubbers, lacking a eet of their own, sailed in ships on loan from Agamemnon.124 Such participation would naturally imply that Agapenor was one of Helen’s suitors, and we nd him duly listed as such by ps.-Apollodoros.125 et everything else we know about him concerns his migration to Cyprus.126 The main ancient source is Pausanias (n.b.), who states all-too-brie y that the storm that scattered the returning Greeks drove the Arcadian s uadron to the island, where Agapenor founded (New) Paphos and the temple to Aphrodite at Old Paphos.127 The cryptic Lykophron does nothing to clarify matters, although he includes one point of considerable interest. It is only in tienne de Lusignan that we nd any further detail. I will discuss both of these passages below. It might be suggested that Agapenor himself did not enter Cypriot legend before the island’s exposure to the mainstream epic tradition. But this is the wrong way around. An epichoric bid for Panhellenic integration would not have used such an obscure gure; rather: 124 125 126 127 Homer Iliad 2.603 614; cf. Thucydides 1.9; Pausanias 8.1.3; Apollodoros Epitome 3.12. Apollodoros Library 3.10.8. Aristotle Peplos (fr. 640 30 Rose); Lykophron Alexandra 479 493; Strabo 14.6.3; Pausanias 8.5.2 (see next note), 8.53.7; Apollodoros Epitome 6.15; cf. Herodotos 7.90 (Arcadians, Agapenor not mentioned). Pausanias 8.5.2, where ά ου ο κιστής must correspond to Nea Paphos by contrast with ἐν αλαιπά τ ερόν. 359 Chapter Fourteen The Arcadians are there in the Catalogue of Ships because they must be given a place in this (late ) Panhellenic pageant The Homeric treatment is embarrassing the Arcadians obviously know nothing about ships and sailing Agapenor never takes part in any ghting: his presence at Troy is completely otiose.128 Here then is our clearest evidence of an early Cypriot migration legend that became known outside of the island, and earned a glancing notice in the Catalogue. One may guess that this is because the Paphian royal house en oyed a comparatively high international pro le in the Archaic period, thanks to its world-famous sanctuary. The anti uity of the legend is con rmed by Agapenor’s Arcadian origin itself. This, given the kinship of the Cypriot dialects with those of historical Arcadia and the earlier Mycenaean of Linear B, must be essentially right’, at least as a symbol of general population movement.129 That Paphos is the area in which the island’s Arcado-Cypriot dialect is rst attested (ca. 1050 950) is at least a striking coincidence.130 So Agapenor was a genuine and early Cypriot legend. More elusive is his position vis-à-vis the historical kings of Paphos, who proclaimed their descent from the pre-Greek Kinyras by the fth century (Pindar) and probably well before, yet bore Greek names already in the seventh.131 True, the monumental inscriptions of Archaic Amathous show that Greek royal names could coexist with public professions of pre-Greek identity.132 And yet the connection in local legend of Amathous with the remnants of the men around Kinyras should e ually imply a belief at least in Amathous (Theopompos) and probably elsewhere (Lusignan: see below) that Kinyras’ line had lost power at Paphos, whose historical kings were therefore not really’ Kinyradai. And that Agapenor established his own dynasty at Paphos would be, after all, a natural inference from the legend, well paralleled by Teukros at Salamis. An overlooked source here is tienne de Lusignan, who o ers a more expansive version of events than Pausanias: 128 129 130 131 132 A. Cassio (communication, February 2012). I thank him for his useful discussion of these points. Arcadian’ in these traditions may be shorthand for culture and language of the pre-Doric Peloponnese surviving only in Arcadia, whose linguistic and cultural a nities with Cyprus were still recogni ed’. But for Agapenor’s speci c link to Tegea, see further below. Cf. oyat is 1985:161; Coldstream 1989:331; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:326; Hall 1997:135 136. For the Opheltas obelós, see p14. See further p407 409. The rst named Paphian king, found in the Esarhaddon prism inscription (673/672), is Ituandar’ Etewandros: ARAB 2:266 690 (cf. above p14). See p349. 360 Restringing Kinyras Agapenore stopped in the area of Pa o, and there he was crowned king. He banished from the kingdom the kings who had descended from the gods; then he built a city called Pa o, in memory of the old royal city. The banished descendants of the gods, however, moved to the city of Curias Kourion and reigned there and in other Cypriot cities.133 As always with this remarkable historian, it is hard to know what has found its way from a lost ancient source, what from oral tradition, and what is his own imaginative interpretation or extrapolation (see Appendix G). But the present passage, on the whole, seems to have some ancient or traditional basis. Lusignan’s portrayal of Agapenor as a con uering king could be seen as heavyhanded historicism, were it not for the rout’ of the former royal line, which cannot be dismissed so easily. The historian makes clear elsewhere that Paphos was the kingdom of the god Cinaras, father of Curio’ ( Koureus Kourion), whom in turn he makes the father of a younger, mortal Cinaras’.134 Even if this use of genealogy to disambiguate two Kinyrases is probably Lusignan’s own invention, his rout of the Kinyradai’ is essentially what we nd in Theopompos. And yet these two rout scenarios, though obviously cognate and geographically uite compatible are not identical: Lusignan overlooks Amathous, which is not even mentioned, to account for Kourion midway between Paphos and Amathous (and not far from Limassol, where Lusignan was vicar from 1564 1568135) and other Cypriot cities. 136 So here too, I suggest, is a genuine popular tradition, about an explicitly Greek takeover’ of the Kinyrad dynasty at Paphos. Note that elsewhere Lusignan speci es that Agapenor’s descendants continued to rule at Paphos.137 Of course Lusignan’s larger history is larded with arti cial, anachronistic, and erroneous elements. Given a con uering Agapenor, there is little usti cation for building a new Pa o in memory of the old royal city. That this is a piece of Lusignan’s own illogic is suggested by his appeal elsewhere to earth uake damage as an explanation for the Arcadian’s new foundation.138 Or perhaps he depends here on medieval tradition, since numerous historical earth uakes at 133 134 135 136 137 138 tienne de Lusignan horo ra a p. 36 ( 180). horo ra a p. 20a ( 71, 73, cf. Description pp. 38a 39). See further Appendix G. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:iv. Lusignan’s failure to mention Amathous su ces to show that he has not simply adapted the Photian epitome (see p346) for his own purposes. horo ra a p. 6a ( 6). Description, p. 15a. 361 Chapter Fourteen Paphos are attested over the centuries, and they had a ma or impact on popular imagination.139 Ultimately, however, Agapenor’s association with Nea Paphos seems to go back to an historically false tradition’ promoted in the Classical period. For this city was not formally founded until the late fourth century, when it was walled by Nikokles II (died ca. 310; henceforth Nikokles’); nor has it produced much evidence of habitation earlier than the Archaic period although tombs from Iskender, on the outskirts of Ktima (upper New Paphos), may go back to the tenth century.140 This new Agapenor’ is found in both Strabo and Pausanias.141 T. B. Mitford plausibly suggested that Agapenor was purposefully redeployed to New Paphos at the time of Nikokles’ foundation, as a means of separating two putative royal lines.142 If so, Agapenor’s landing and rst settlement was probably said to be at this harbor, while Kinyras was associated with Old Paphos, where Nikokles himself held sway the last of the Kinyrad kings, as it would prove (see Chapter 16). It is probably relevant that Nikokles promoted at least three cult-sites for Olympian deities at Nea Paphos.143 And yet any o cial use of the Agapenor legend presupposes his royal status, which is also assumed by the Catalogue of Ships. A priori then there must have existed traditions connecting Agapenor to Old Paphos. A trace of this old Agapenor’ is found in Pausanias, who credits him with founding not only the new city, but also Aphrodite’s ancient sanctuary.144 If Pausanias did indeed draw on Theopompos for Euagoras’ descent from a daughter of Kinyras, as I have argued, the historian could well have been his source also for the old’ Agapenor storm-tossed founder and temple-builder and it would follow that Theopompos made Agapenor’s position at Paphos agree with the larger theme of Kinyras’ unthroning. 139 140 141 142 143 144 Earth uakes that a ected Paphos are recorded for 15 BCE, 77/76 CE, 332, and the twelfth century; another destroyed Salamis in 322, while some of the eight shocks documented for Antioch between 458 561 are likely to have been felt on Cyprus. See HC:232, 245, 279n4, 311. These events are mentioned very often in ancient, and especially By antine, sources, as one can see by going through the texts in SHC. Note e.g. John Adorno (1470): Paphos that now is almost destroyed (SHC 8:173). Paphos:20; NPHP:67 85. See p359n126. Lusignan acknowledges Strabo as a source elsewhere, although he also makes the unparalleled assertion that Strabo himself had been a student of the Cypriot historian enophon: see further p564 567. Mitford 1960b:198. See p409. See p359 and n127 above. 362 Restringing Kinyras There can be no doubt that the alternative tradition of the sanctuary’s consecration by Kinyras goes back to the Paphian dynasty itself.145 But how does this s uare with the old Agapenor’ The dual tradition must be somehow related to the historical meeting of Greek and pre-Greek at Palaipaphos. But what exactly is implied Karageorghis and Maier explained it thus: The rst Achaeans did not forcibly impose their rule upon the city but settled there after peaceful negotiations The apparent contradiction between Cinyras and Agapenor conceals a complex historical situation: the existence of a pre-Greek Cypriote city and the impact of the rst Achaean colonists. As regards the Sanctuary, Cinyras in a similar way may represent an already established fertility cult, Agapenor its adaptation by the Greeks through the building of a monumental shrine.146 This harmoni ing approach clearly has merit, even if one uestions the speci c scenario proposed as Maier himself did only two years later, stressing the lack of clear archaeological criteria, and arguing that the sanctuary’s monumentali ation actually antedates the Greek in ux.147 The lack of Aegean architectural elements shows in any case that the outward image of the cult continued unbroken.148 Thus whatever the ethnic orientation of those who held power in the EIA, it is likely that the older royal apparatus remained at least super cially intact, ust as the Kinyrad tradition asserts. As M. Iacovou writes: It is more than likely that the Kouklia and Kition sanctuaries continued to ful ll their original role. Monumentality de nes power and, in the case of the Cypriot sanctuaries, it embodies the strength to control an economy traditionally based on the production and exchange of metal resources.149 Given such a scenario of Aegean adaptation to Cypriot cult and royal ideology,150 a stray detail in Lykophron’s otherwise inane treatment of Agapenor 145 146 147 148 149 150 See p401 406. Paphos: 79 80, 101. Similarly G erstad 1944:110 112; Maier 1983:229n6; oyat is 1985:154; Karageorghis 1998:32. Maier 1986b. The Paphian cult per se was of course much older: Heubner 1963 1982 2:34; Masson 1973:113; Maier 1974; J. Karageorghis 1977:30, 223 224; Maier 1979:234; Fortin 1980:37; CAH2 III.1:514; Paphos:81 102; Maier 1986a:313; Karageorghis 1998:32 33; Webb 1999:63 64; Kypris:26 29. Cf. Iacovou 2005:132. Iacovou 2005:132; cf. Iacovou 2006b:46. This has seemed plausible to Karageorghis 1980a:122 123; Fortin 1980:35 39, 44; oyat is 1985; Maier 1986b. A similar situation vis-à-vis Aegean settlement in North Syria and Philistia is suggested by the stories of Mopsos/Moxos and Askalos respectively drowning and marrying 363 Chapter Fourteen takes on new importance recalling that the poet drew upon Cypriot traditions via lost works of Eratosthenes and Philostephanos. Kassandra predicts that Agapenor will dig for copper and mine every pit with his pick. 151 This has a realistic ring, since the island’s mineral resources must have been a ma or draw for Aegean settlement (recall Khalkanor seeking the rising sun at Idalion).152 Given the LBA institutions of sacred metallurgy centered on the sanctuaries of the goddess, Agapenor here seems to be playing, or rather perpetuating, a truly Cypriot royal role: one may detect a Kinyradi ed’ Agapenor, given Kinyras’ own legendary status as a metallurgical pioneer (Chapter 13). I have already contemplated a rather similar Greco-Cypriot fusion in the warrior-lyrist of the Kouklia kalathos.153 Given the persistent and awkward tension between a tradition of Arcadian kingship on the one hand, and the maintenance of a Kinyrad royal pose on the other, it is unsurprising that the evidence for Agapenor is relatively scarce, and that he was seemingly banished’ to New Paphos. Nevertheless, the need to accommodate Arcadians within a Paphian royal framework has left several traces in legends about two women named Laodike. Pausanias follows his terse notice of Agapenor’s voyage with this statement: at a later time Laodike, born of Agapenor, sent a péplos to Athena Alea at Tegea. 154 Pausanias had before him a garment purporting to be this relic, which bore the following inscription: This péplos is Laodike’s: she devoted it to her Athena, To her wide-spaced fatherland, from Cyprus most divine.155 The verses are no older than the fourth century, the robe they graced probably replacing an older one destroyed by re in 394 BCE.156 Later, Pausanias, in describing the sacred structures of Tegea, credits the same Laodike with 151 152 153 154 155 156 a local woman, one of whom is de nitely a goddess- gure, Atargatis. Mopsos/Moxos: anthos FGH 765 F 17a Athenaios 346e, cf. Mnaseas FHG 3:155 fr. 32. Askalos: anthos FGH 765 F 8 Nikolaos of Damascus FGH 90 F 18 Stephanos of By antium s.v. σκάλ ν. Cf. Finkelberg 2005:158, anthos’ story seems to imply that Mopsos was regarded as the founder of the cult of the Askalon goddess’. Lykophron Alexandra 484 485: χαλκ ρυχήσει κα / δικέλλ π ν μεταλλεύ ν γνύθος (cf. ). Coldstream 1994:145; Iacovou 2006a; PPC:285. Khalkanor: see p339. See p253 255. Pausanias 8.5.3: χρόν δ στερον αοδίκη γεγονυ α ἀπ γαπήνορος πεμ εν ἐς εγέαν τ θην τ λέ πέπλον. For the local Arcadian goddess Alea, who began to be identi ed with Athena in the Archaic period, see Jost 1985:368 385. Pausanias 8.5.3: αοδίκης δε πέπλος δ ἀνέθηκεν θην / πατρίδ ἐς ε ρύχορον ύπρου ἀπ ζαθέας. Roy 1987. 364 Restringing Kinyras founding there the temple of Aphrodite, called Paphian ; and he carefully notes that Paphos was Laodike’s own home.157 Of course, even a votive péplos predating 394 can never have been old enough’. But this does not prevent its being an authentic relic of an older mythmaking process, deriving ultimately from cultural memories of connections between Cyprus and Arcadia, even Tegea itself.158 The di usion of Aphrodite’ cult must indeed have involved such westward ventures; yet it is uite striking that, despite the internationally renowned sanctuary at Paphos, nowhere in Greece besides Tegea was the goddess uali ed as Paphian.159 It is crucial that Arcadians of the Classical period had no di cultly believing in such early connections with Cyprus, ust as some Cypriot communities claimed Arcadian origins.160 Ps.-Apollodoros cites another Arcadian legend involving a Laodike who also appears in the royal lineage, but much earlier married to Elatos, son of the eponymous Arkas, and elder brother of Apheidas; these sons divided up the land, but Elatos wielded all the power. 161 uite remarkably, this Laodike is said to be a daughter of Kinyras. This must make her a native of pre-Greek Cyprus, since Elatos lived ve generations before Agapenor’s arrival to the island. Observe the deep anti uity this assigns to Kinyras, recalling his proverbial old age.162 There is a curious paradox here. No doubt there were sporadic marriages between Greeks and Cypriots throughout the LBA. But in a mythological genealogy involving eponymous gures Arkas, Amyklas, Stymphalos, and others marriage to a daughter of Kinyras’ should symboli e a uite general intermingling of Arcadian and Cypriot populations. et such a situation only makes sense following Aegean immigration to Cyprus, and only on the island the more logical arrangement of Teukros and the daughter of Kinyras; or of Diodoros’ outh Paci c scenario for the Dryopes, who, sailing to the island of Cyprus, and mixing it up’ (anamikhthéntes) with the locals, settled there. 163 It appears, therefore, that with 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Pausanias 8.53.7, cf. 8.5.2. See the good discussion of Pirenne-Delforge 1994:328 329. G erstad 1944:111 is surgically incisive: It is possible to explain the legend of Agapenor’s foundation of Paphos without reference to the temple of the Paphian Aphrodite in Tegea, but it is absolutely impossible, so far as I see, to explain that a temple of the Paphian Aphrodite existed on the Greek mainland, only in the remote inland country of Arcadia and only in Tegea, if we do not bring this fact into relation with the legend of the Tegean king Agapenor’s foundation of Paphos. We may thus infer that the legend is primary, the temple secondary in their mutual relations. (The historical se uence G erstad goes on to develop, however, is rather inconclusive.) Jost 1985:148 is also open to seeing a genuine tradition behind Laodike’s foundation, although she is agnostic as to its date. Herodotos 7.90. Apollodoros Library 3.9.1: ο τοι τ ν γῆν ἐμερίσαντο, τ δ π ν κράτος ε χεν λατος. See p329. Diodoros Siculus 4.37.2: ε ς προν τ ν νῆσον πλε σαντες κα το ς ἐγχ ρ οις ἀναμιχθ ντες ἐνταῦθα κατ κησαν. The generali ing masculine το ς ἐγχ ρ οις is counteracted by the sexual 365 Chapter Fourteen Elatos and the daughter of Kinyras, the fusion of Greek and Cypriot culture has been exported back up the migration path and pushed into the deep past.164 Note that diasporas do often involve cyclic returns to the homeland.165 The two Laodikes, despite their considerable di erences, must be mythological doublets. Both embody cultural relations between Cyprus and Arcadia, expressed at the royal level. Both involve movement from Cyprus to Arcadia, against the ow of the historical migrations. While Agapenor’s daughter could be imagined as sending the péplos back to Athena (so Pausanias), she would certainly have to return herself to build a temple to Paphian Aphrodite. That deed is much more logically assigned to the other Laodike, who did move from Cyprus to Arcadia: the immigration’ of a daughter of Kinyras, priest-king of Aphrodite, would perfectly mirror the importation’ of the Paphian goddess herself (historically cults were indeed transferred by dynastic marriages166). Still, that Agapenor’s daughter might conceivably return to her fatherland is itself signi cant, since it allows for ust the kind of continuing contacts that one must anyway suppose to account for the interdependence of Arcadian and Cypriot legends. Both Laodikes may therefore be connected to the cult of the Cypriot goddess, whether explicitly (Agapenor’s daughter) or implicitly (Kinyras’ daughter). It must be signi cant that this most Cypriot of institutions, fundamental to political legitimacy at Paphos, is connected in both cases with a woman subordinate to an Arcadian king. This seems a powerful symbol of the appropriation and internali ation of Cypriot royal ideology. Laodike’ itself Justice for the People’ points in the same direction, as do Kinyras’ other mythological children with such speaking-names.167 Since all of these have Greek etymologies and note that Kinyras’ itself has a semi-Hellenic appearance168 they represent a cultural sharing of the ideas they express. But Laodike is uni ue among Kinyras’ children for illustrating this translation’ in the context of a dynastic marriage. M. Finkelberg has identi ed a recurring pattern in Greek mythology whereby princes marry into other royal houses while successive generations of princesses/ ueens remain in place; this seems to re ect a widespread pre-Greek custom, also operative in Anatolia, whereby a king’s power was contingent 164 165 166 167 168 connotations of ἀναμιχθ ντες; indeed one might well emend to τα ς ἐγχ ρ οις. Cf. Engel 1841 2:125. PPC:49 50 et passim. For Cyprus itself, note that in one variant Teukros tried to return home after Telamon died: Pompeius Trogus in Justin Epitome 44.3. There is also the case of the Gerginoi (Athenaios 256b c): see p457 458. See p154. See p333. See p432 436. 366 Restringing Kinyras on a female line.169 A similar point was made long ago by J. G. Fra er, vis-à-vis the myth of Kinyras coming to Paphos from Cilicia and marrying Metharme, daughter of Pygmalion.170 Finkelberg argues that the practice led to the existence of double and even triple male dynastic lines, in order both to respect and control the hereditary female succession (she detects an historical example in the troubled royal successions of the Hittite OK). Could the dual kingship traditions at Paphos Kinyradai and Agapenor, Kinyradai and Tamiradai171 re ect such a pattern In any case, marriage into a local royal establishment is one likely way that Aegean immigrant kings or chieftains renovated their power within their new insular environment, achieving royal legitimacy in the pre-Greek theological context of the goddess’s cult.172 For Agapenor, such a scenario comes only if one may pool the resources’ of the two Laodikes. Such a procedure is not completely gratuitous, given the nature of mythological doublets; we have already seen that the two Laodikes traded’ certain attributes. In other words, Laodike’ was a multivalent gure for whom we have but two samples’. Her full mythological potential can be mapped by multiplying’ the samples and redistributing the results between Agapenor and Elatos, the two Arcadian kings with whom they are connected. The results for Agapenor are as follows: 1. If Agapenor marries Laodike, and Laodike Kinyras’ daughter, then Agapenor marries Kinyras’ daughter; 2. If Laodike Kinyras’ daughter, and Agapenor Laodike’s father, then Agapenor Kinyras; 3. If Agapenor Kinyras, and Laodike is Kinyras’ daughter, then Agapenor/Kinyras marries his own daughter. Is it coincidence that these gyrations not only connect Agapenor to Kinyras’ family line, and indeed make a Kinyras of him, but also generate the most famous episode of Kinyras’ own mythology an incestuous union with his daughter 173 Fra er saw in the myth of Myrrha/Smyrna a re ection of rituali ed incest allowing continuous patrilineal control of an otherwise matrilineal royal line.174 169 170 171 172 173 174 Finkelberg 1991; Finkelberg 2005:65 108. Fra er 1914 1:41 42: These legends seem to contain reminiscences of kingdoms in Cilicia and Cyprus which passed in the female line, and were held by men, sometimes foreigners, who married the hereditary princesses. Fra er includes here Kinyras’ father Sandokos, who immigrates from Syria to marry Pharnake: see p504. For the latter uxtaposition, see p401 406. Cf. Finkelberg 2005:88, the position of the ueen can be satisfactorily accounted for if we assume that she was priestess of the goddess of the land, etc. See further p282 289. Fra er 1914 1:43 44. 367 Chapter Fourteen Be this as it may, it remains signi cant that both Laodikes’ attested attributes concern the intersection of Arcadian and pre-Greek Cypriot kingship.175 That this is precisely the crisis of Agapenor vis-à-vis the historical Kinyradai of Paphos cannot be accidental. It is all the more curious that, while Elatos’ marriage to Laodike Kinyradi es’ the main branch of the Arcadian royal line, yet his nephew, the emigrant Agapenor, is excluded. While much remains uncertain, the multiform Laodike’ does attest a tradition of mythological re ection upon these issues. She’ certainly belongs to the old’ Agapenor, and may indeed be very early, since the problem of accommodating Aegean dynasts to the Cypriot establishment must go back to the twelfth and eleventh centuries. Conclusion The material analy ed here and in Chapter 13 derives from of a multiform mythmaking tradition going back to sub-Mycenaean times on Cyprus. Not every sample is e ually old: speci c historical developments induced various modulations over time. Taken as a whole, however, the simple existence of such legends is clear evidence that many of the island’s communities maintained and cultivated a distinct sense of Greekness down through the centuries a striking contrast to the thoroughly hybrid material record. But of course there must also have been extensive intermarriage with the pre-Greek population, whose contribution to IA Cypriot culture can hardly be overstated. Greek ctistic and trade ventures of the ninth and eighth centuries caused some of the early Cypriot legends to be reinterpreted in more mainstream epic terms. et the Greek coloni ation of Cyprus’ is no mere epic construct or scholarly fantasy. It is rmly rooted in ancient traditions, some of which are very early indeed (Agapenor and Teukros). It is a uestion rather of what is meant by coloni ation’.176 The Aegean immigrants’ common lot as parvenus probably intensi ed a sense of Greekness within the island’s already multiethnic culture.177 Ironically, these Greek-Cypriots’ were (and are) regarded as distinctly Cypriot’ to Greeks of the Aegean. And, of course, on Cyprus itself there must have been numerous wrinkles in degree of acculturation, depending on such considerations as class and the variable demographics of each community. Kinyras came to serve as a common mythological reference point for preGreek, Greek-Cypriot, and Cypro-Phoenician communities alike in their shared 175 176 177 In the case of Agapenor’s daughter, the connection with pre-Greek kingship is implicit in her e orts on behalf of Paphian Aphrodite’. For this crux, see recently Iacovou 2008. For this phenomenon outside of Cyprus, see Hall 1989 (65 and n37, 73 on Lydia); Morris 1992:362 386; Georges 1994:76 114; Raa aub 2000, with further literature in n7; Burkert 2004:11. 368 Restringing Kinyras and sometimes contested history. Naturally, Greeks and pre-Greeks will have been at their most distinct at the time of heaviest Aegean immigration. And it was precisely this moment that was replayed in the various tales of Kinyras and the Achaeans. While Cypriot exposure to the Greek epic cycle may account for Kinyras’ encounters with Agamemnon, Menelaos, Odysseus, and Talthybios, it does not explain his dominant image as a pre-Greek culture-hero, which takes precedence. This virtuous, Golden Age Kinyras, however much the Paphian kings may have promoted him, was not theirs alone, but a tenacious contribution by pre-Greek communities generally to IA Cypriot mythmaking. It is all the more striking, therefore, that Kinyras unanimously symboli ed the disjunction of cultures. This is also why Kinyras must have been introduced before the ninthcentury Phoenician colonial ventures.178 To be sure, Phoenician-Cypriots may have rightly insisted that Kinyras’ was originally at home in the Levant before ever coming to Cyprus.179 But while this might account for myths about Kinyras crossing to the island, and his mythological co-ordination with Pygmalion, it is insu cient to e lain his u i uitous association ith the re Gree island.180 The epicenter of any historici ing interpretation must be the assumption that Kinyras was already established as a potent gure on Cyprus at the time of Aegean immigration. 178 179 180 Kinyras as a rst-millennium Phoenician import: Drexler, Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras; HC:69 (ambivalent); Lorimer 1950:208; Bunnens 1979:354 356. The phonology of Kinyras/kinýra provides no de nite support for this view: see p272 276. It would be fair to say, therefore, that Kinyras, perhaps like Pygmalion, stands for Canaanite cultural presence on the LBA island: cf. Kroll, RE 11 (1922):484 486; Baurain 1980b:278. Cf. Engel 1841 1:203: Sein Name ist ph nikisch. Das ist aber auch das ein ige Ph nikische an ihm geblieben, und wurde in der Mythenbildung g n lich vergessen. 369 15 Crossing the Water I a e no s o n that the evidence for a musical Kinyras is much more extensive than previously realized; that this was not a secondary accretion, but an early and essential dimension; and that his erstwhile divinity echoed into the Roman period as “Our en rist s Apollo.” We have also seen that his multifaceted re ection of pre-Greek Cyprus in IA myth implies that he was somehow established prior to Aegean immigration. So far as I can see, these ndings can only be reconciled by accepting that: 1. Kinyras is at heart a Divine Lyre, akin to Kinnaru at LBA Ugarit and very probably other cognates on the mainland; and that: 2. This Divine Lyre was imported by one or more Cypriot cities in the LBA, from one or more speci c origins and/or in a more general emulation of mainland culture. He then lingered on into the IA to be used di erently by di erent communities at di erent times. My phrasing shows that many speci cs remain to be considered. What material is there in the Alashiya texts and other contemporary documents to support and elucidate the proposed importation of a mainland god? Why was a Divine Lyre imported at all? How and when did it develop so many nonmusical attributes and powers What evidence is there in LBA Cypriot music iconography for the kinds of ideas associated elsewhere with divini ed instruments and musician-kings How and when did this Kinyras’ come to symboli e the island’s pre-Greek culture in its entirety I shall address each of these uestions in turn. Alashiya and the Mainland Cults That a Kinnaru-like gure could have been imported to LBA Cyprus nds good general support in the island’s cosmopolitan outlook at this time, and close political and cultural engagement with its mainland periphery—NK Egypt, the Hittite Empire, and especially Hurro-Luwian Ki uwatna/Cilicia, and Syro-Levantine 371 Chapter Fifteen sites like Ugarit and Byblos in the core area of knr-culture. The relevant material includes clear evidence for ongoing cultic and theological engagement between island and mainland. In one of the Amarna letters, an unnamed Alashiyan king explains why he has sent Pharaoh only 500 talents ( ) of copper. Behold, the hand of Nergal is now in my country; he has slain all the men of my country, and there is not a (single) copper-worker. As Nergal is a Mesopotamian underworld god associated with war, death, and plague, the king seems to mean that a plague or war has struck his kingdom (one of his ueens also died).1 But Nergal’ itself is a conventional Akkadian cal ue used in international communication, so that a corresponding local gure must be assumed one of many examples of the period’s supralocal theological outlook.2 We may reasonably suppose, a fortiori, that this unnamed Alashiyan god was e ually seen as a form of Resheph the Syro-Levantine god connected with war and bringing and averting disease and other disasters—since Resheph was himself early on glossed as Nergal at Ebla, Ugarit, and elsewhere. As a neighboring god, Resheph is also more likely to have had an actual cult on Cyprus, as he did in NK Egypt.3 Note that the Cypriot Ingot God (see below) is of the smiting type often associated with BA representations of Resheph.4 Related to this puzzle is a famous bilingual inscription from the sanctuary at Tamassos (ca. 375), where Apollo, also associated with plague, was given the Greek title Alasi tas (spelled syllabically), thus masking a pre-Greek god.5 The corresponding Phoenician text gives “Resheph ’lhyts,” where the epiclesis is modeled on the Greek.6 Here too it is unclear whether we are dealing with three originally distinct DNs, with the Alashiyan one implied or forgotten; or whether the latter already bore a form of the name Resheph in the LBA, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 EA 35.10 15, 35 39: Schae er 1971:509 510; AP:21 37; Moran 1992:107 109 (with defense of talents in n2); SHC 2 no. 16; PPC:320. Hadjioannou 1971:37–40; AP:21–23; Moran 1992:108n3. Similarly, while Nergal is often mentioned in the Amarna letters and Ugaritian and Hittite documents, he need not have been actively worshipped in these places. For theoretical observations on the interplay of “deities in their local and supra-regional aspect,” see Pongratz-Leisten 2011:89–93 et passim. So Dietrich 1978:16–17; DDUPP:187 188. For Resheph as Nergal at Ebla, Ugarit, etc., and his cult in LBA Egypt, see Stadelmann 1967:56 76; Lipi ski 2009:23 27, 79 81, 161 221 et passim. Lipinski 2009:139 160, especially 145 146. Cf. Dietrich 1978; Glover 1981:148. ICS 216 (a la si o ta i = λασι τ , line 4); further discussion in Masson 1973:117–119; cf. Hadjioannou 1971:41; Schretter 1974:151–173; AP:22, 25–26; DDUPP:188; SHC 2 no. 122; Lipinski 2009:231–233. That the Phoen. title is secondary is shown by the correspondence of -ts with Gk. -τας. Conversely, Apollo μυκλος (dat. a mu o lo i) is probably an inter retatio Graeca of Resheph Mikal in a third-century inscription from Idalion (ICS 220 = KAI 39, with comments to 38; DGAC:247 248). Others argue for a connection between Laconian and Cypriot cult: Dietrich 1978; GR:51, 145; Lipi ski 1987b:95n27 with further references, eclipsing Stadelmann 1967:52 56; Lipi ski 2004:64; Lipinski 2009:232 235. 372 Crossing the Water was then distinguished from his mainland namesake by immigrant Phoenicians of the rst millennium.7 The same Amarna letter contains another illuminating detail—the Alashiyan king’s re uest for an eagle-diviner’, presumably to help counter the hand of Nergal.”8 Whether this diviner (Akk. ) sought guidance from bird- ight, or conducted lustration rituals through avine sacri ce or some other abuse, is uncertain.9 But clearly Alashiya participated in the international circulation of scienti c knowledge and cultic techni ue that is otherwise well documented between the Great Kings of this period. One may note here several Cyprocentric variants of the myth of the Egyptian king Bousiris: in one he is advised by the Cypriot mántis Phrasios to counter a nine-year famine by sacri cing strangers to eus (Phrasios himself became the rst victim); in another version Pygmalion is the adviser.10 A well-known parallel from within the Amarna letters is the statue of Ishtar of Nineveh, which the Mitannian king Tushratta sent twice to Amenhotep III.11 The purpose of these missions is unclear, but obviously the presence of the divine statue was somehow e cacious; and it will have been accompanied by appropriate personnel, including cult-musicians to judge from Hurro-Hittite ritual texts involving this goddess.12 One should also note here a divinatory liver-model found at Ugarit and rather ambiguously inscribed as “belonging to A r, when he ac uired the 13 young man from the Alashiyan.” The underlying transaction and relationships are obscure. But it con rms the circulation of esoteric knowledge generally, and liver-divini ation speci cally, between LBA Cyprus and the mainland. Recall the association of the Kinyradai with extispicy, and the priestly tradition that the art was imported from Cilicia.14 Several further texts bear on the acculturation or syncretism of Cypriot and mainland divinities. From Ugarit comes a Hurrian list of gods receiving 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Resheph is rst directly attested on the island via ostraka and inscriptions in the fth century. So on the hypothesis he would have been reintroduced during the Phoenician colonial period (perhaps like Kinyras’ himself: see p369). Cf. Stadelmann 1967:52. EA 35.26. For various parallels, especially from Hurro-Hittite sources, see AP:23, 29–37; Strauss 2006:199. For the range of the , notably the reading of dreams and incense, see CAD s.v. Cypriot Phrasios: Apollodoros Library 2.5.11. Pygmalion: Servius Auctus on Vergil Geor ics 3.5. Hyginus Fabulae 56 gives Thrasius’, now son of Pygmalion and himself brother of Busiris. The common denominator of these variants is mantic relations between Cyprus and Egypt, even if the Cypriot setting itself is secondary (so HC:66). EA 23; Moran 1992:61 62; Beckman 1998:2 3. See Wegner 1981:156 and further below. RS 24.325 (KTU/CAT 1.141): Dietrich and Loret 1969b:173 174; SHC 2 no. 64; Baurain 1980b:291; PPC:320. See p401–406. 373 Chapter Fifteen sacri ce, beginning with El; alongside Kothar-wa-Hasis and several Hurrian deities (including Kumarbi and Teshup) is a little geographical triad of “the god of Alashiya, the god of Amurru, the god of Ugarit. 15 It sounds as if the three were seen as analogous—presumably the lord of each local pantheon. This text, whatever the occasion of the underlying rite, is vital evidence that the state cult of Alashiya was seen as a distinctive system, and yet was e ually incorporated into a larger theological community spanning island and mainland. If the “god of Alashiya could be honored at Ugarit, the reverse must also have been true. This is an important parallel for Kinnaru and Kinyras. The international pro le of Alashiyan cult is further seen in another Ugaritian text, seemingly from the harbormaster to the king and dealing with a sale of ships. The o cial reassures him that I myself have spoken to Ba al aphon ,16 to the eternal Sun (Šapšu), to Astarte, to Anat, to all the gods of Alashiya.”17 It is generally agreed, from the nal phrase, that one of the parties to the transaction (a merchant ) was an Alashiyan. But how to account for the uxtaposition of these speci c divinities Should all the gods of Alashiya be taken in a osition to Ba al, Shapsh, Astarte, and Anat, so that these Semitic gures become representatives of the Alashiyan pantheon 18 ( Ba al’ is a theophoric element in several Alashiyan PNs.19) A second suggestion—that the Ugaritian o cial has used local Semitic names to refer to their Alashiyan e uivalents would re uire such extensive functional correspondences between the two pantheons that some de facto syncretism of Alashiyan and Semitic divinities would have to be supposed.20 Or are “all the gods of Alashiya” simply con oined to the Semitic gods, so that the Ugaritian and Alashiyan parties to the transaction are both divinely represented?21 This seems the readiest interpretation: it is only natural that, in an Ugaritian document, local gods be named and foreign powers treated generically. But even this interpretation would hardly prevent one or more Syro-Levantine gods from being recognized on Alashiya itself in 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RS 24.274 Laroche 1968:504 507; SHC 2 no. 65; cf. AP:55. For the restoration, see HUS:678. RS 18.113A,6–8: PRU 5 no. 8; KTU/CAT 2.42; cf. Muhly 1972:207; AP:55; Knapp 1983 (superseding Lipi ski 1977); SHC 2 no. 47; PPC:181, 320. Nmry in line 9 is usually understood as referring to Amenhotep III (Nebmare); but Singer (HUS:678) has attractively reinterpreted this line as invoking a supreme Alashiyan god, the blessed/strong one, king of eternity noting the seemingly chthonic character this would imply, and suggesting as a possible parallel the description of R p’iu in RS 24.252, 1 (for which see p134 135); cf. PPC:320. Lipi ski 1977:213; Webb 2003:17. For these theophorics, Astour 1964:245–246 (e.g. e e l -š a -am-m a , Baal-inspires-dread’); cf. Knapp 1983:40. Karageorghis and Karageorghis 2002:273; Budin 2003:133 134. Muhly 1972:207; HUS:678 (Singer). 374 Crossing the Water some hybrid form. At the very least, the text reinforces the impression that the Cypriot and mainland gods were intimate neighbors. Of the deities named in the previous text, Astarte and Anat are especially important given Kinyras’ intimate alliance with Aphrodite in our sources. Either goddess could inform the Aphrodite ( of the Spear’) known 22 on the IA island. Other mainland powers who seem to share attributes with the historical Aphrodite are the Syrian Ishara, resembling “the bridal aspect of Ishtar ; and Asherah, whose maritime associations e ually recall Baalat Gebal (the Lady of Byblos’) and Isis.23 Of course, any such analysis of Aphrodite must e ually account for the island’s own Great Goddess, whose cult goes back to the Chalcolithic period.24 Figurines in clay and steatite show that Paphos was a key site long before its monumentali ation in the thirteenth century.25 Thus, in contemplating the in uence of a mainland goddess on the island one must look to syncretism and theological reinterpretation. While the EIA must not be ignored as a fertile time for syncretic developments under Aegean and Phoenician stimuli,26 the interpretation of local goddesses as forms of Ishtar/ Astarte is a richly documented phenomenon of the LBA. One example bearing directly on the Alashiya uestion is the so-called Ishtar of Nineveh, a form of the Hurrian Shaushka who was hybridi ed with Inanna/Ishtar in third-millennium northern Mesopotamia, apparently in the Old Akkadian period.27 She was then brought westwards in the MBA through Hurrian in ltration of North Syria and southeastern Anatolia, emerging (for instance) as the patroness of the fourteenth-century Mitannian king Tushratta. After the Hurriani ed kingdom of Ki uwatna (Cilicia) was integrated into the Hittite kingdom during the early fourteenth century,28 Ishtar of Nineveh entered the state cult there, where she oined some twenty- ve regional goddesses who could be labeled with the logogram IŠTAR.29 Her legacy is also 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Hesykhios s.v. γχειος ροδίτη ύπριοι. Cf. Karageorghis 1988:195. Martial Aphrodite: Farnell 1896–1909 2:653–655; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:450–454. See Budin 2003:202 206, 274 275 ( uotation), suggesting a special connection with Ishara at Alalakh. For the maritime Aphrodite, see p330. For Baalat Gebal, see p463 486. Karageorghis 1977; Dietrich 1978:16–17; Kypris:11–12 and 34 (Paphos), 198 (Khytroi). See p363. For eleventh-century Cretan iconographic in uence in the goddess with upraised arms’, see e.g. Budin 2003:275; Kypris:78. For the history and geographical range of Ishtar of Nineveh, see Wegner 1981; Beckman 1998; cf. Bachvarova 2013 with further literature. For this development, Wilhelm 1989:30–31; KH:150–151. Since the majority of these were connected with towns and mountains in North Syria or southeastern Anatolia, they may be “hypostases of a single divine archetype.” See Wegner 1981:157– 195 with Beckman 1998:3 4 ( uotation) and n39; cf. Bachvarova 2013:24 and n5. 375 Chapter Fifteen seen at thirteenth-century Ugarit, where an Astarte-of-the-Hurrian-Land ( A tartu urri) was venerated; and she was evidently the dynastic patron of Shaushgamuwa of Amurru (south of Ugarit).30 The goddess is linked to Alashiya in the Hittite Ritual and Pra er to Ishtar of ine eh 31 The purpose of the ritual, which derives from the MH period and Hurrian incantatory practice, was, in time of plague, to entice Ishtar of Nineveh using trails of edibles converging on the o ering site 32 back from whatever foreign land she was lurking in, and thus restore the royal family to health and the natural world to abundance. After the goddess’s statue has been appropriately prepared, the diviner-priest (lú AL) is instructed to work through a long catalogue of lands according to a xed epicletic formula ( O Ishtar if you are in Nineveh then come from Nineveh. If you are in R imu i, then come from Rimu i , etc.).33 Alashiya occurs midway through this litany. To be sure, we seem to have a “boilerplate list of names” intended to encompass most of the known world.34 Hence a very similar (though slightly smaller) catalogue, which also includes Alashiya, appears in another Hittite evocation rite addressed to the Cedar Deities.35 Nevertheless, many of the places are indeed known to have hosted cults of Ishtar’ in various guises (including Astarte) Nineveh, Mitanni, Ugarit, Amurru, Sidon, Tyre, and Canaan, to name the more obvious. There is therefore no a riori reason to doubt that Alashiya too housed a goddess identiable as Ishtar.36 Also valuable is I. Wegner’s observation that Aphrodite’s birth and arrival to Cyprus, as told by Hesiod, is embedded in a succession myth of ultimately Hurrian extraction.37 The presence of some form of Ishtar cult on LBA Cyprus is corroborated by a fragmentary Hittite treaty with Alashiya of late date (perhaps from the reign of Tudhaliya IV, ca. 1245–1215).38 After the enumeration of divine blessings that 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 For Hurrian Ishtar at Ugarit, see Herrmann 1973; Wilhelm 1989:51; indices to RCU, and p. 275 for Egyptian usage of Hurrian land’ to refer to North Syria and southern Anatolia. KUB 15.35 KBo 2.9 CTH 716: Sommer 1921, especially 95; Archi 1977; SHC 2 no. 42; CS 1 no. 65 (whence the title used here). M. Bachvarova, whom I thank for introducing me to this text, points out that the some versions of the ritual contain Hurrian ritual phrases (Haas and Wegner 1988:376–380, nos. 84, 85). G. Beckman in SHC 2 no. 42. For the lú AL, Wegner 1981:155. Beckman 1998:5n57. KUB 15.34 i.48 65 CTH 483; SHC 2 no. 41. Cf. Wegner 1981:155, 204 207. One might uibble that the text guarantees only a Hurro-Hittite perspective, the proposition not being necessarily intelligible in Alashiya itself. But this is belied by the evidence already considered for the neighborly theological relations between Alashiya and its mainland neighbors. Hesiod heo on 188 200. Cf. Wegner 1981:205. That Hesiod’s Aphrodite travels eastwards from Kythera will then be a Hellenizing innovation. KBo 12.39; CTH 141; Steiner 1962:134 135; Otten 1963:10 13; SHC 2 no 37. 376 Crossing the Water Alashiya will receive from honoring her duties (these include reporting military threats and housing and extraditing Hittite exiles as re uired), a damaged clause calls for placing the tablet before Ishtar. As G. Beckman points out, this is signi cant for the religious history of Alashiya, because the Hittites insisted that such documents be placed in the temple of the chief deity of their vassals.”39 It should follow that not only did the Hittites recognize a form of Ishtar on the island, but that this perception was shared by the treaty’s Alashiyan participants. Nearby Ugarit provides another example of multiple Ishtars coexisting.40 Besides the Astarte-of-the-Hurrian-Land ( A tartu urri) mentioned above, the pantheon texts list an unmarked Astarte, and a further Astarte-of-the-Steppe ( A tartu adi) who perhaps symboli ed the dynasty’s pre-urban, Amorite past.41 Recall that while Astarte is elusive in Ugaritian mythological texts and PNs, she was nevertheless important in the royal cult; an entry ritual’ designed to lure the goddess to the royal palace seems to have contained a Hurrian hymn, and Kinnaru was one recipient of o erings.42 Astarte-of-the-Steppe is also found in an edict from the reign of Ammistamru II (mid-thirteenth century) whose two brothers, after receiving their inheritance and a sentence of exile to Alashiya, were made to swear by the goddess no longer to challenge him or his descendants.43 It has been suggested that Astarte-of-the-Steppe was invoked here as being a divinity shared by Ugarit and Cyprus,44 though a status as dynastic patroness would seem to su ce. But one may at least assume that the princes, like others exiled to Alashiya, brought with them their own religious beliefs; they are thus a microcosm of cultic communication between island and mainland. And so it is hard to avoid agreeing with J. Karageorghis that at some point there must have been some kind of syncretism between oriental and Cypriot religions.”45 This has been e ually inferred from the late LC II Cypriot goddessgurines, going back to the fteenth century, which exhibit close stylistic sympathies with contemporary mainland gurines, especially of North Syria, while e ually maintaining inherited Cypriot features.46 More general support can be sought in Cypriot sacred architecture of the fourteenth and thirteenth 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 G. Beckman in SHC 2 no. 37; cf. PP :321. The clause in uestion is obv. 19: see Steiner 1962:135 (not in the text of Otten 1963:10–13). Smith 2015:74–77. See indices to RCU, with Pardee’s suggestion on 275. RS 24.643 (KTU/CAT 1.148), obverse. See further p120. RS 17.352; Nougayrol 1956:121 122 (no. 55); SHC 2 no. 23; Beckman and Ho ner 1999 no. 35; cf. PPC:320 321. S. Budin in PPC:321. Karageorghis and Karageorghis 2002:273. Karageorghis 1977:72 85; CAAC II.3 16; Budin 2002:319 320; Webb 2003:15 17; Budin 2003:140 145, 274; PPC:176. 377 Chapter Fifteen centuries, which exhibits strong sympathies with mainland sanctuary design; Enkomi, Kition, Palaipaphos, Myrtou, Ayia Irini, and Athienou all hosted free standing rectangular structures located in or beside an enclosed temenos, the latter serving to isolate the building and act as an area of cult activity in its own right.”47 Several later traditions, all di cult to evaluate, allege early Cypriot cult- or city-foundations instigated from mainland sites. Herodotos reports a Cypriot belief that Aphrodite Ourania’ that is Astarte/Ishtar had been imported to the island from Ascalon, held to be her oldest cult-site.48 But as the latter detail is no doubt incorrect and due to local pride at Ascalon, and because this was a locus of Philistine settlement in the EIA, the tradition may present a special Aegean aspect and be of limited value for the pre-Greek period.49 Possibly the Father of History con ated a speci c Ascalonite claim with a general Cypriot awareness that their goddess had an early continental aspect. Pausanias at any rate gives an account evidently designed to correct Herodotos, in which Ourania is (in one sense rightly) traced to Assyria’ (here Mesopotamia), while the inhabitants of Paphos and Ascalon share the distinction of next oldest cult centers.50 An apparently independent tradition was entered by Eusebios for the year 1425 of his lost hronicle. This held that Paphos, along with Melos, Thera, and Bithynia, was founded’ (condita/e t sth ) either by Phoinix’ a standard Greek eponym for Phoenicia’, by which we must also understand Canaan’51 and/or in connection with the abduction of Europa and the search for her by Kadmos the Phoenician’.52 The e act date of course has no real value, as Eusebios and the 47 48 49 50 51 52 Webb 1999:157 165; Webb 2003:17 ( uotation). Herodotos 1.105. The identi cation of Aphrodite/Ourania with Astarte is also made by Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (31): τ ν δ στάρτην οίνικες τ ν ροδίτην ε ναι λέγουσι; Pausanias 1.14.7. For Astarte at Ascalon, cf. 1 Samuel 31:10. Cf. Brown 1965:214: We might con ecture that when the Philistines took over the Semitic goddess of Ascalon, they began to adapt her into a form which would be more acceptable to other Aegean peoples They might then have exported the new version of the cult back along the Phoenician island-settlements which marked their invasion route, and where the old version had already been established. See also Blinkenberg 1924:30n (sic). Pausanias 1.14.7: The worship of Ourania was established among the Assyrians rst of men, and after them among the Paphians out of the Cypriots, and out of the Phoenicians those who inhabit Ascalon; and the Kythereans learned to honor her from the Phoenicians.” Herodotos himself elsewhere (1.131) subscribed to an Assyrian (and Arabian) origin for the goddess (under respective local names), crediting them with introducing her to the Persians. Pausanias probably rationali ed the two passages (Blinkenberg 1924:30). See p55. The relevant section is preserved by Saint Jerome, Synkellos, and the twelfth-century hronicle of Michael the Syrian. Helm punctuates Jerome’s text as elus et Pafus et hasus et allista ur es conditae ith nia condita a Foenice, uae rimum ariand na oca atur, clearly construing the sites prior to Bithynia as Phoenician colonies (Helm 1984:48b Schoene 1967 2:34). This was also the view of HC:69 and n6 (who however evidently errs in giving the year as 1415 and crediting 378 Crossing the Water earlier Greek chronographers on whom he drew introduced many distortions in rationalizing their sources—which were myths and legends far more often than documents. But the Tro an War serves as one ma or anchor for all such constructions, so that this foundation’ was de nitely seen as predating the Aegean migrations to Cyprus.53 To dismiss completely a LBA setting for these Phoenician foundations’ because of their association with Phoinix or Kadmos would beg the uestion of what cultural realities underlie those myths. While Thasos and Thera are perhaps more readily connected with Iron A e Phoenician trade and settlement,54 S. Morris has argued compellingly that those pursuits were a revival, or survival, of Late Bron e Age Canaanite maritime trade ; of Levantine in uence in the cult installation at Mycenaean Melos (Phylakopi), she writes that appreciating these discoveries re uires suspending the separation of Bron e and Iron Ages. 55 In any case, the tradition of an early Phoenician foundation’ at Paphos need not stand or fall with the other sites named; and there is certainly plenty of archaeological evidence from thirteenth-century Paphos for regular trade and cultural contact with the Levant.56 These multiform traditions at least represent more general memories of cultural commerce between island and mainland in the LBA, even if the complex lines connecting speci c sites were largely e aced. One may recall here an alternative pre-Troy Phoenician’ legend: according to ergil, Belos’ of Sidon had extended his power into Cyprus before Teukros came seeking a new home.57 Speci c traditions may nevertheless sometimes preserve historical content. Given that Paphos was rightly believed to have stood before the coming of the Greeks, should we not e ually contemplate some Levantine ctistic’ venture 53 54 55 56 57 Byblos speci cally though for Melos at least one may note Herodian e rosodia catholica 89.20 Lent : ο τω δὲ καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο ῆλος μία τῶν Κυκλάδων ἀπὸ τῶν υβλίων οινίκων). Synkellos is closely parallel ( ῆλος καὶ άσος καὶ λκισθ ἐκτίσθ σαν καὶ άφος. ιθυνία ἐκτίσθ πὸ οίνικος, πρὶν αριανδ ν καλουμέν , 185.14 Mosshammer), although the punctuation here associates Phoinix only with Bithynia. A solution to the syntax may be sought in Michael the Syrian, who, by including the Rape of Europa, introduces (and probably preserves) the necessary motive: A cette épo ue, furent b ties les villes de Mélos, Paphos, Thasos, et Kalistés. L’enl vement d’Europe eut lieu. Bithynia fut b tie par Phénix (3.8, Chabot 1899 1924 1:45). This is synchronized with the age of Moses. For the Trojan War was a chronographic boundary, and the various ancient calculations, see Burkert 1995. Edwards 1979:182 184. A connection between Kinyras and the Thasian TN Κοίνυρα, said by Herodotos 6.47 to be near the Phoenician mines, was suggested by Salviat 1962:108n7; G. Dossin in Salviat and Servais 1964:284. But this seems very doubtful. Morris 1992:110 111, 124 149 et passim ( uotations 110, 125); Edwards 1979:187 191 was prepared to accept a stratum of LBA memories’ in the Kadmos myth, though would commit to no speci c detail. Pa hos:50 71. Hill dismissed the idea of LBA Phoenician coloni ation’ (HC:69 and n6), but the archaeological record has deepened substantially since. Vergil Aeneid 1.619–622: see p354. 379 Chapter Fifteen here? It would be natural to associate this with the monumental new sanctuary of the thirteenth century, and posit a reinterpretation of the goddess in terms of an international Ishtar-type.58 Moreover, as I shall argue in Chapter 19, Kinyras’ foundation of the cult, which the Paphian priesthood regarded as a fama recentior, is in startling agreement with legends in Syriac sources relating to Byblos, a city with which Kinyras is often connected. Importing the Divine Lyre Given Kinyras’ intimate relationship with Aphrodite, his arrival to Cyprus is readily intelligible in connection with the importation of an Ishtar- gure. This would explain why at Paphos, for instance, Kinyras enjoyed cultic devotions within the goddess’s sanctuary, while the city’s Kinyrad kings served as high priests of their ueen’ (Wánassa).59 This hypothesis is well supported by material explored in Part One. We saw Hurro-Hittite sources illuminating the mechanism of cult-transfer through the ritual division’ and transplantation of a god together with all its attributa—including sacred musical instruments, representing the cult’s own ritual-music re uirements. As it happened, our best evidence concerned a form of Ishtar—evidently one of the most international deities.60 There was also much evidence connecting Ishtar to stringed instruments, with innāru, annāru, and zinar all de ned as the Instrument of the Divine Inanna’ (giš.dINANNA and variants) in and before the LBA.61 And we saw that the divini ed balang Ninigi ibara was described as Inanna’s spouse in an OB balang-composition.62 Here we have all the necessary ingredients for a Divine Lyre crossing to LBA Cyprus as an integral part of Ishtari ing’ the Cypriot goddess. For the crucial uestion of how a Divine Lyre could engender so rich a mythological cycle as Kinyras enjoyed, we saw clear examples in Mesopotamian texts (Lugal-e, Gudea Cylinders, a lonian rra th), and probably the HurroHittite on of il er, of mythological narratives spun around anthropomorphized objects and materials of cult and magic. In all of these, the narratological 58 59 60 61 62 I leave aside the vexed uestion of the (seemingly inevitable) linguistic kinship of Astarte’ and Aphrodite’ (Dugand 1974, especially 91 98; Karageorghis 1977:111 113, 227; for phonetic di culties, other theories, and earlier references, see GR:408n18; West 2000). The Mycenaean royal title Wánassa ( ueen’) for the Cypriot goddess (see below) would certainly accord with the existence of an Astarte- gure ( ueen of Heaven’, in later Gk. Ouranía) at the time of Mycenaean immigration. But these points should not be pressed, as ueen’ is a natural honori c, and Aphrodite’ itself is not attested on the island before the Classical period. See p380, 382n70, 407. See p100–102. See p77–79, 89–90. See p84 and Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 23f. 380 Crossing the Water role of the personi ed item re ected the real-world position or function of the item itself. I have also argued that the same pattern underlies the several lamentable metamorphoses that a icted Kinyras’ family members, resulting in cult-ob ects and processes (Chapter 12). We are thus usti ed in seeking further correspondences between the mythology of Kinyras and the realia of lyre-cult, particularly the intersection of both with Astarte/Ishtar/Inanna and her function as a royal patroness. It is perfectly conceivable that, in importing some form of Ishtar’ cult, LBA Cypriot kings e ually emulated the performance practices and ritual poetics of one or more continental neighbors, the latter themselves in uenced by Mesopotamian archetypes. Shulgi and his successors had presented themselves as ideally able to conduct state rituals. David is depicted as doing so in the Bible, Saul verges on such abilities, and Solomon is distinctly Shulgi-like in his superhuman attainments, which include song-writing and the construction of instruments.63 If a royal ceremony be viewed as a single act, the king (or ueen) is its protagonist. Supporting roles like liturgical music as clearly laid out in the Inand k vase might then be logically subsumed in the royal performance. Compare the Ugaritian texts, where singers and other cultic agents, though undoubtedly present, are virtually invisible. Even in Hittite rituals, which give much more ractical information, the cultic hierarchy remains rather obscure.64 Recall that David led the leaders of his musical guilds and even his own Chief Singer.65 The intermediate material from Ebla, Mari, and Ugarit is of a di erent kind, but the innāru m is consistently found in regal contexts. So too the giš.dINANNA in Hittite ritual. These texts, I argued, adumbrate an ancient standard that the inn rplaying David consciously emulated. Despite later theological revisions, David remains our most vital and illuminating parallel for understanding the interplay of cult-ob ect and mythological persona embodied by Kinyras. David’s rise to power in 1 and 2 Samuel is structured around his ability to play upon his inn r He is uali ed to be king recisel ecause he is an ins ired in rist —able to e ect spiritual catharses, establish political harmony, and communicate with the divine. Like Kinyras, David was a (would-be) temple-builder, a lyre-playing priest-king, a sometime lamenter, and both song-sub ect and performing role for later psalmists.66 63 64 65 66 See p33–37, 80–81, 151–152, 158, 167–174 . Collins 2007:158 159. See p169–170, 173. See Chapter 8. 381 Chapter Fifteen I submit that one or more LBA Cypriot kings predicted David in presenting themselves as the lyre-player’ king as Kinyras. Where David is an historical gure dressed in legendary garb, Kinyras is the legend who clothes one or more historical gures. These two realms, the historical and the ideal, are bridged by the Divine Lyre itself, since such cult-objects were simultaneously material and mythogenic.67 Its essential, original connection with royal ritual music will have made the Divine Lyre a welcome transplant to Alashiya, helping its state cult meet international standards. Associated ritual functions, to judge from the comparative material, could have included celebratory processions, ritual lamentation, and royal ancestor veneration on a Syro-Levantine model—a practice that in the Levant belongs preeminently to the BA,68 although its survival and evolution can be traced at IA Paphos (Chapter 16). As the Mesopotamian and Biblical parallels indicate, divini ed instruments enabled a monarch to communicate with, and give voice to, the instrument’s master god.69 For Gudea, this was Ningirsu; for David, ahweh. For the Alashiyan king, it will have been the Ishtari ed Cypriot goddess. Kinyras’ was probably envisioned as her inseparable, lyre-playing consort, uni uely ualied to sing and do the royal deeds and songs she loved. As Fra er suggested over a century ago, his stance as Aphrodite’s priest-lover probably re ects some hierogamic relationship between king and goddess.70 Obviously relevant is the early Mesopotamian concept that a king en oyed his position by the grace of Inanna/Ishtar, with whom in Neo-Sumerian royal poetics he en oyed an intimate, sexualized relationship.71 A recurring motif is his preternatural beauty, by which, as a new Dumu i, he wins the Divine ueen; similarly Kinyras, like Adonis, was famed for his beauty,72 as were David and Solomon (the latter cultivating Sidonian Astarte).73 While it is unclear how such hierogamic ideologies corresponded to underlying ritual systems, the Inand k vase graphically warns against wholesale denial of the sexual rites that scholars once commonly assumed. 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 See p25, 282. DDUPP:452 453. See p25–37, 161–165. Fra er 1914 1:49. It is perhaps signi cant that the ueens of Paphos, like the goddess herself, bore the title Wánassa although the same was true of the king’s sisters: Aristotle fr. 526 Rose (from the onstitution of the riots) Harpokration e icon of the en rators and Suda s.v. νακτες κα νασσαι ο μ ν υ ο τοῦ ασιλέ ς κα ο ἀδελ ο καλοῦνται νακτες, α δ ἀδελ α κα γυνα κες νασσαι ριστοτέλης ἐν τ υπρί ν πολιτεί . See p37–40. Beauty of Kinyras: p335n99. Cf. hul i A (ETCSL 2.4.2.01), 15, “I am Shulgi, who has been chosen by Inanna for his attractiveness”, and p35, 37–40. See p154. 382 Crossing the Water Any or all of the aforementioned contexts could have entailed at least notional, and perhaps literal, musical performances by the king himself. I have argued that for Mesopotamian rulers, as for David and Solomon, dedication to music symbolized the peaceful leisure that resulted from establishing a harmonious realm. A. Caubet’s suggestion that the Hurrian mn to i al from Ugarit was composed by king Ammurapi himself74 is perfectly plausible given the traditional attribution of psalms to David, Solomon, Mannaseh, and perhaps He ekiah.75 Even as a monarch was praised by his own court singers, he himself could praise the gods in song—especially his divine patroness, who upheld her protégé’s terrestrial o ce. Note that the Hittite king, in presiding over the state’s complex religious hierarchy, served nominally as high priest in the cult of Ishtar-Shaushka.76 An especially striking model for Kinyras as lyre-singer and priest of Aphrodite’ is the Singer(s) of Astarte’ ( ) who was/were housed 77 in the palace of Ugarit. Remember that in Ugaritic usage singer’ must often have implied innāru accompaniment.78 Also important here is Kinyras’ role as a diviner, given Ishtar’s muse-like function as a source of divine knowledge in royal prophecies, a conception going back at least to the OB period in Mesopotamia. The Paphian Kinyradai conducted extispicy within the cult of Aphrodite, who presumably guaranteed its e cacy (Chapter 16). A innāru may also appear in a Hurrian liver-omen text.79 While the N-A royal prophecies make no mention of music,80 an ecstatic prophet featured in the Ishtar ritual from OB Mari focused on Ninigi ibara.81 And of course the Bible provided abundant evidence for inn r-prophets—preeminently David—as mouthpieces of the divine.82 Music and the Harmonious Realm On the basis of comparative material and systematic considerations, I have posited a LBA Cypriot ideology of the musician-king who oversees a peaceful, powerful kingdom under the protection of the goddess, whom he praises, and with whom he communicates, through song. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 See p119. See p152, 174, 178. Wegner 1981:148–150. RS 15.82, 4 (KTU/CAT 4.168): see further p114. See p114–118. See p99. Although the structure of these texts (essentially end reports’) is hardly conducive to inclusion of such details. For this corpus, see recently St kl 2012:103 152, 211 215; for the special role of Ishtar, Parpola 1997:XVIII–XXXVI, XLVII–XLVIII et passim. See p85. See p161–165. 383 Chapter Fifteen These ideas are startlingly corroborated by the exalted and allusive symbolism of two well-known, four-sided bron e stands prominently displayed in the Cyprus Room of the British Museum. Many such stands (and tripods) have been found at sites in Cyprus, the Levant, and the Aegean unsurpassed masterpieces of second-millennium bron e-work.83 Their sides were lled with openwork decoration (a our ) exhibiting a variety of subjects. Although they come from contexts as late as the eighth century, dating is complicated by the heirloom e ect; stylistic parallels in other media show that these stands reached the peak of their development rather in the pre-Greek thirteenth century, with iconographic forerunners on Cyprus as early as the fteenth.84 Recent technical analysis by G. Papasavvas has proven that these ob ects originated on Cyprus itself, were purposefully exported, and eventually inspired local imitations (notably on Crete where the metallurgical techni ue was also borrowed).85 While the stands are thus uni uely Cypriot artifacts, they were produced under mutual, hybridi ed in uences bearing the stylistic and iconographic imprint of the Aegean and the Levant.”86 The rst of the two musical stands shows a seated robed gure playing a harp of Mesopotamian type.87 He occupies the left side of the panel and faces a tree (Figure 38).88 Each of the other three panels has the tree, repeated exactly, beside a further gure; but here the tree is always on the left of the frame, and the gures also face leftwards. Proceeding rightwards as the musician himself faces one comes rst to an ingot-bearer. Next is a gure who carries two mysterious, long rope-like ob ects over his shoulder, which R. D. Barnett dubbed cup and two napkins. (Are these bolts of ne cloth Sails Nets Sout oukos ) nal gure holds two ugs, or perhaps bundles of sh or dates. For Barnett, the tree united the four scenes, and was their focus: it was a Sacred Tree, celebrated by all four gures.89 H. Catling, accepting that the 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Catling 1964:203 211; Papasavvas 2001; Papasavvas 2004. Karageorghis and Papasavvas 2001:348 352. For the rst stand discussed below with its ingotbearer before a tree, Knapp 1986:87 has pointed to antecedents in Cypriot pottery and glyptic of the fteenth and fourteenth centuries: see images in his g. 2 (eight seals variously from Kourion, Enkomi, and Hala Sultan Teke). Papasavvas 2001; Karageorghis and Papasavvas 2001:343 348; Papasavvas 2004; cf. PPC:272 274, noting that molds for the a our gure-work have been discovered on the island. PPC:274. For its shape, cf. MgB 2/2:80 85 g. 62 70 (OB); 102 g. 108 (Kassite seal, fourteenth century); 126 g. 145 (N-A); 130 g. 147 (N-A); 136 138 g. 151 152 (N-A, Elamite orchestra’). London 1920/12 20/1 (height 12.2 cm.; ring diameter 9.4): Catling 1964 no. 34 (205 206 and pl. 34 a–d); Matthäus 1985 no. 704 (314–315 and pl. 100, 102); Papasavvas 2001 no. 23: 239–240 and 351 352, g. 42 47; As ects:82 no. 58, g. 68. Barnett 1935:209: We are actually shown the male divinity of the tree in the process of being worshipped”; Hübner 1992:123. 384 Figure 38 Enthroned/seated harpist, Sacred Tree, and offering-bearers. Cypriot bronze stand from Kourion (?), thirteenth century. London, BM 1920/12–20/1. Drawn from a a a a 2001 fig. 2 . Chapter Fifteen repeated tree made the four sides a coherent composition, countered that it need only indicate an outdoor setting.90 The two interpretations could come together in a sacred grove (a known locus of dance-rites in Archaic Cyprus).91 There is in any case every reason to accept that this is a Sacred Tree, that ancient motif that came to the island via Mitannian(i ing) glyptic, and remained a fre uent motif in LBA Cypriot seals and other media.92 The Sacred Tree’s symbolism of fecundity is clearly appropriate here, given the three gures and the variety of products they carry. Barnett is therefore probably right that the Tree is the ultimate focus of the celebration, and so the intended recipient of the harper’s song. Recall the Orpheus ug’ from eleventh-century Megiddo, where again a Sacred Tree was the focus of musical celebration, this time by a kinyrist’.93 In both cases, a goddess is probably symbolized.94 We shall see precisely this combination of elements again in the Lyre-Player Group of Seals, with their winged lyrists, from eighth-century Cilicia (Chapter 21). As Catling rightly stressed, however, another symmetrical element must be e ually signi cant: the musician confronts the other gures. Given this composition, he asked, could it not be the musician to whom the o erings are brought?”95 The musician is further di erentiated from the porters’ by being seated, clearly indicating some higher status. The harper thus serves as a secondary focus of the composition, much like the lyrists in the model shrines discussed above—an intermediary agent of the higher divinity embodied by the Sacred Tree.96 One thinks of Inanna/Ishtar in her role as royal patroness.97 The stand apparently combines the motif of the seated king or god receiving o erings with music as an index of the prosperous and well-ordered state.98 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Catling 1964:206. As ects:82 notes both possibilities. For this view of the circular space at the temple of Apollo l t s (Kourion), see with parallels H bner 1992; for the one on eronisos, Connelly 2011:334 338. The same idea has been advanced for the Idalion hi l (PBSB, Cy3: Figure 29 above): see Tubb 2003. For LBA Canaanite parallels, Mazar 2003. Mitannian Sacred Tree: Collon 1982:13, 78. Cypriot reception in various media: Danthine 1937:195 209; Porada 1981:27; Meekers 1987 (a typological study of 144 cylinder seals and one impression from LBA Cyprus, distinguishing four stages in the transformation of the Mitannian glyptic version); Webb 1999:272 (scenes of tree-adoration). For the Tree’s broader ANE contexts, see p160n71 with references. See p159–161. Keel 1998:40: All of these sc. o erings on the stand can be understood as sacri ces and gifts for a goddess or her temple. Gaber forthcoming includes the present tree among other evidence for the di usion of Inanna iconography from Mesopotamia and its persistence and evolution in appropriate contexts in the Levant and Cyprus. Catling 1964:206 See p236–239. See p37–40. See index s.v. order, symboli ed by music’. 386 Crossing the Water Whether or not it portrays some speci c occasion, the o erings are a generali ed picture of plenty. (Compare Homer’s portrait of the ideal king, under whose rule a kingdom ourishes unlike Ithaca, which awaits the return of its lyrist-king.99) The idea is reinforced by the distribution of produce around the stand this, with the central Tree and musician, suggests something rather like the center and periphery of modern theory. The Hittite KI.LAM festival, with its regional o erings and musical celebrations symbolically renewing the kingdom and its ruler, is a very suggestive parallel.100 In any case, the imagery has inevitable political overtones. It is therefore surely signi cant that the musician is a controllin element of the composition, while being himself subordinate to the most fully centralized element, the Sacred Tree. Even if the harper is only’ a celebratory musician, he can still readily symboli e the harmonious working of royal power, ust as the porters represent the fecundity that results. et this is but the mirror image of a king who adverti es his ourishing regime by assuming a musician’s stance, as did Shulgi, Ishme-Dagan, David, and Solomon.101 There is every reason, indeed, to believe that the harper is enthroned The same sort of double-value is exploited to good e ect in many other ANE scenes where one cannot distinguish between royal and divine recipients of gifts. As Catling put it, there is no telling whether he is divine or human, or even whether he is but an intermediary for the god or prince to whom the fruits of land and sea are brought as gifts.”102 et it may 99 100 101 102 Odysseus, still disguised as a beggar, compares the good repute of his faithful Penelope to that of some faultless king, who, fearing god and / Holding sway among mighty and many men, / Upholds ustice. And the rich dark earth brings forth / Its wheat and barley, and the trees teem with their fruit; / Herds steadily produce, and the sea gives up its sh / All from his kindly leadership and the people ourish under him (Odyssey 19.109–114). While the passage adheres to the Ruler’s Truth’ of Indo-European tradition (Watkins 1995, 85; Martin 1984, 34 35), similar concepts characteri ed LBA royal ideologies of the ANE; in that age of Great Kingship the Mycenaean wánax not an Indo-European word is likely to have been de ned by a fusion of Indo-European, Pre-Greek/Minoan, and ANE concepts (see papers in Rehak 1995). It is therefore relevant that when Odysseus reveals himself through the trial of the bow he is compared to a lyrist (21.406–413). Recall the lyre-player (with Minoanizing instrument) who looms so large in the Throne Room fresco at Pylos (LH IIIB2 IIIC: Lang 1969:79 80 and pl. 27, 125 126), the climax of a procession scene, beginning in the ad acent room(s), which depicts some kind of religious ritual and feast overseen by the king illustrating the ruler’s direct association both with the festival calendar and with an explicit ideology of divine protection and sound rule : McCallum 1987:140 141 ( uotation), cf. 70 71, 109 124, 144 145; Palaima 1995b:132 133; Shelmerdine 2008:83–84. See p95. Cf. Bachvarova forthcoming, who, comparing the KI.LAM festival, interprets a number of Linear B tablets from Thebes as relating to a harvest festival, involving the convergence of regional labor-groups upon the capital (distributions are recorded for winnowers, builders, basket-carriers, shepherds, fullers, leather workers, textile workers). See index s.v. royal ideology:king as musician’. Catling 1964:207. 387 Chapter Fifteen be this very ambiguity that is the scene’s most important element. The harper may slip between musician, musician-king, musician-god, or king who serves as a musician-god to the still higher master-god(dess) in the Tree. Such multiple registers, simultaneously operative, would closely resemble what we saw with the balang-gods of Mesopotamia. And the same patterns seem to be illustrated by the Lyre-Player Group of Seals, which are probably the clearest surviving images of a Divine Lyre (Chapter 21). Whatever the exact intention, the stand is important for attesting on Cyprus, alread in the re Gree eriod, an ideologically-charged conjunction of music, metal, and kingship all three important mythological attributes of Kinyras. The second stand is open to a complementary interpretation.103 Its main (upper) panels show, in order, a lion, a sphinx, a chariot and driver (with another gure ying through the air above), and two musicians attended by a server or o erings-bearer (Figure 39). These instruments have been erroneously called lyres, but they too are harps of Mesopotamian inspiration—with rounder angles than on the rst stand, but essentially identical to each other (though slight variations accommodate other elements of the scene).104 Again the four images work together, perhaps a procession and a ritual feast which includes music and drinking. 105 Here too the seated musician faces all other gures; he is evidently the focus of the composition and the occasion and/or ideology it illustrates.106 Clearly the symbolic treatment of chordophonic music-making on the previous stand was not uni ue, but part of a coherent iconographical repertoire on thirteenth-century Cyprus. The present stand, however, emphasizes power and prestige over plenty. Mycenaean kraters with chariot-racing scenes are fre uently found in elite 103 104 105 106 London 1946/10 17/1 (height 31 cm; ring diameter 15.5): Catling 1964 no. 36, 208 210 and pl. 35 a-6 (musicians in d); Matthäus 1985 no. 706 (316–318 and pl. 103–104); Papasavvas 2001 no. 28, 242 243, 359 360 g. 61 67 (musicians in 61, 64); As ects:83 no. 59 g. 69. Compare especially MgB 2/2:102 g. 108 (Kassite seal, fourteenth century); 106 g. 114 115 (NB). The mirroring of the two instruments was recogni ed by Catling 1964:209; so too Coldstream 1986:13, but calling both lyres; the standing gure’s instrument is considered a lyre in As ects:83, followed by Knapp 2011:123. The opposing perspectives are admittedly confusing, but close inspection of the left-hand gure reveals the harp’s hori ontal bar passing over the player’s arm. The rounded material below each instrument’s bar must represent the excess string-lengths treated decoratively; there are Mesopotamian parallels for this from the OB (MgB 2/2:88 g. 75), Kassite (102 g. 108), and N-A periods (122 123 and g. 141, 126 127 and g. 145, 130 and g. 147, 136 139 and g. 151 153), although none of these shows the strings gathered and tied o near the corner of the frame, as is apparently done here. I thank S. Hagel for helpful discussion of these points. Papasavvas 2001:243; As ects:83 ( uotation). So rightly Coldstream 1986:13; D’Albiac 1992:288. 388 Figure 39 Enthroned/seated harpist and harpist devotee. Cypriot bronze stand from Kourion (?), thirteenth century. London, BM 1946/10–17/1. Drawn from a a a a 2001 fig. 1 . Chapter Fifteen Cypriot burials from the fteenth through thirteenth centuries (LC II).107 Sphinxes are an e ually potent image. The most fre uent monster in the corpus of stands, sphinxes en oyed a long tradition in Cypriot iconography from the LBA into the Archaic period. They are found in various media glyptic, ivory, gold, bronze, ceramic—and despite stylistic evolution are consistently connected with royal or divine gures and Sacred Trees.108 A striking parallel are the cherubim’, lions, and trees that adorned the (much larger) wheeledstands built for Solomon (by Cypriot artisans ).109 But the better analogy for our purposes is the juxtaposition of lyrist and sphinx in some of the eighth-century Lyre-Player Group of Seals, including one from Ayia Irini, near Morphou (Figure 46, Type IIc).110 As C. D’Albiac remarks, It is tempting to think that the memory of strange beings accompanied by a Lyre Player lingered at Paphos.”111 Also of interest is the representation of t o musicians, one seated and presumably enthroned, the other standing and facing him. This composition as a type—that is, in its normally nonmusical contexts—indicates reverence of and/or o erings to a king by his sub ects, or to a god by a royal, hieratic, or other devotee. The stand’s introduction of mirrored musical performance recalls the oscillations in Mesopotamia between musician-kings and balang-gods. Here again is the confusion’ of musical performance by an actual o ciant, and the (notional ) musicality of royal and/or divine gures. And of course the standing gure may himself be a king, performing before a god upon whom is pro ected this selfsame image of musician-king.112 107 108 109 110 111 112 Keswani 1989:61, 65; Steel 1998, especially 291 292; PPC:196 197; Wi ngaarden 2002:154 155; Bachvarova forthcoming ( Cyprus as a Source of Near Eastern Epic: An Overview ). Cypriot sphinxes: Dessenne 1957:78 81, 154 160, 192 194, 198 199; Markoe 1988:21 22 (SyroPhoenician antecedents and funerary associations); D’Albiac 1992; Webb 2001:75, noting two votive examples from the sanctuary of the Ingot God at Enkomi (Sols II I); As ects:110. 1 Kings 7:27–37. SCE 2 pl. CC L no. 2180; Buchner and Boardman 1966:35 no. 126; Reyes 2001:69, cat. 75, g. 98. D’Albiac 1992:289. This seal-design is stressed by D’Albiac 1992:289 290 as a key example of the IA continuity of complex iconography, along with the Hubbard amphora (see p256). A remarkable coincidence should be signaled here. From some angles (e.g. Papasavvas 2001, g. 64 and our Figure 39), a minute face appears below the arm-end of the right-hand instrument, suggesting a parallel with the heads of gods and pharaohs which graced Egyptian harps by the MBA (cf. p60); while these were a xed a o e the arm, a ceramic fragment with relief from Hattusha does show a harp-arm with such an ornament beneath (probably the head of a bird or uadruped: HKm:68 and pl. 10 no. 32; the curve of the arm is also similar). But the face/ head on the Cypriot stand is probably illusory, as shown by an x-ray image kindly undertaken by J. Ambers and T. Kiely of the British Museum (who also arranged for preliminary observations and photography by S. Mirelman on my behalf). One sees, in a standard photograph, that the leftmost string of the instrument is, along much of its length, rather pu y; but the x-ray, penetrating corrosion to the underlying features of greater density, shows the thin string-line as originally intended. The top end disappears altogether in the x-ray, showing that here corrosion was more severe, bulging out to yield a fugitive face. 390 Crossing the Water Thus, both stands, with di ering emphases, adhere to a symbolic system one that is, moreover, consistent with what has been established for Kinyras. This was acutely perceived already by N. Coldstream, with whose observations we may best conclude: A large robed gure, seated on a throne and approached by another male gure, also robed and playing the lyre We are reminded of the central gure in Cypriot legend, the semi-divine Kinyras also remembered as a musician who played his lyre in the presence of the gods sc. the rst stand seems to con rm that the seated musician is indeed a god receiving the o erings brought by his worshippers.113 Although the ideology of both stands accords very well with a Kinyrad’ interpretation, an organological complication must be confronted. It would have been most convenient if the musicians were given some form of Syro-Levantine lyre. Instead we nd Mesopotamian(i ing) harps. et this is not a fatal problem. Actually it is uite suggestive. First, for all we know these harps were locally called knr in the generic sense of stringed instrument’.114 We saw that several Sumerogrammic expressions meaning Inanna-instrument’ embraced a variety of chordophones, including lyres and probably harps: in other words, precise morphology was less essential than ritual function and conceptualization.115 If the Sacred Tree on the rst stand does indeed symbolize a goddess, its harp would have been readily viewed as an Inanna-instrument’. Second, recall that in the Gudea Cylinders the balang-god’s function was, like an orchestra conductor, to supervise and coordinate the performance of all instruments. I have argued that Kinnaru played such a role on the basis of his uni ue divini ation at Ugarit, where as the ancestral lyre of the region he presided over a complex environment of cultic music deriving from the convergence of several cultural traditions across many centuries.116 Similarly, Shulgi and Ishme-Dagan claimed to play virtually all instruments—including the annāru.117 Thus, an musical scene with divine and/or royal signi cance is potentially relevant to the Kinnaru-Kinyras uestion. One may partially compensate for the missing lyre’ by comparing the cosmopolitan musical ensembles of NK Egypt, in which both Mesopotamian(izing) harps and Syro-Levantine lyres and lutes 113 114 115 116 117 Coldstream 1986:13. See p53, 256–257. See p77–79, 89–90. See p118. See p33–37, 80–81. 391 Chapter Fifteen are uxtaposed. Such harps are found again at Alalakh and among the Hittites, in both cases an exotic addition to strong local lyre traditions.118 Finally, it is very possible that when these upright harps came west from Mesopotamia—evidently in the early- to mid-second millennium—associated conceptions were also imported. Two implications must be entertained. First, the classical Mesopotamian tonal system may have played an important role in this international musical world—as is already suggested by the Hurrian hymns from Ugarit.119 Second, the harps may imply a parallel spread of divinized instruments and the associated ideology. The stands may therefore portray Cypriot monarchs emulating a Mesopotamian model of royal music-ideology going back ultimately to the likes of Shulgi and Ishme-Dagan.120 As with the expression giš. d Inanna, we must remain exible as to organology, since the ideas might easily be transferred from one instrument to another more local one—namely the knr. From Divine Lyre To Culture-Hero Both stands present music as the controlling element of a larger symbolic system. This is already a startling prediction’ of Kinyras, as an originally musical gure who subsumed further nonmusical functions. But the parallel is all the more striking for the ingot-bearer of the rst stand, given the metallurgical Kinyras of legend. This strongly suggests that a metamusical Kinyras goes back in some form to the thirteenth century (at least); and the same conclusion is urged by independent evidence from Mycenaean Pylos (Chapter 17). This brings us to the pu ling dis unction between the versatile Kinyras of IA Cypriot myth and the powers and associations that can be reconstructed for a Divine Lyre Kinnaru of Ugarit. I have argued that the Divine Lyre’s importation to Cyprus was one aspect of a more general theological engagement with the mainland, especially as concerned royal cult and its patronage by Ishtar’. This context, I submit, can also illuminate the expansion of Kinyras, whose totalizing function as a culturehero goes well beyond the usual type of r tos heuret s, the legendary inventor of some one cultural pursuit.121 The royal hymns of Shulgi and Ishme-Dagan proclaimed the king’s superhuman perfection in all civili ed arts; similar ideas were applied to Solomon. Like Shulgi, Kinyras established standard measures and ensured that they were scrupulously upheld ( talents of Kinyras ). Both 118 119 120 121 See p90–92. See p97, 119. See p92–93. Kleingünther 1933. 392 Crossing the Water were expert diviners.122 The ideal king also built and restored temples. Gudea built the house for Ningirsu; Shulgi’s father Ur-Nammu initiated iggurats at Ur, Eridu, and Nippur, and restored Inanna’s complex at Uruk; similar works for Inanna and other gods are attested for Shulgi and Amar-Suen. Although these were historical pro ects by historical gures, their promotion entailed aspects of mythmaking, as seen clearly in the Gudea Cylinders. It is in keeping with this that Gudea, Ur-Nammu, and Shulgi all assumed the guise of master builder and brickmaker in poetry and/or iconography.123 Just so, legend held that Kinyras built Aphrodite’s great sanctuary at Paphos, and invented both bricks and tiles.124 As the ideal of royal perfection accounts for the metamusical Kinyras, so it explains the musical powers of Shulgi, Ishme-Dagan, David, and Solomon. Shulgi claimed expertise in both celebratory song and lamentation, and both were practiced by David. We saw the same dual musical function with Kinyras (Chapters 9, 10, and 12). But how does this interpretation of Kinyras as a metamusical artifact of Alashiyan royal cult and ideology harmonize with the obviously o ular character attested by IA Cypriot legend without which, after all, we would have no evidence for Kinyras at all? This gap could be spanned if the idea was publically pro ected and instituted with su cient vigor to become rooted in popular thought.125 Such an impulse is clearly seen in the N-S inscriptions and iconography, although the Ur III kings were eclipsed in long-term popular memory and myth by their predecessors Sargon and Naram-Sin of Akkad. A better parallel for Kinyras in this respect is David, whose perennial legends preserved pieces of period propaganda—his inn r-playing among the most tenacious. The proposal is given further substance by two sets of LBA iconographic evidence cylinder seals and votive gurines which attest musical performance in the service of 122 123 124 125 Shulgi: p35, 38. Kinyras: Chapter 16. Ur-Nammu: RIME 3/2 1.1.2 8; CS 2 no. 138C; cf. Michalowski 2008:35. Shulgi: RIME 3/2 1.2.1 34; CS 2 no. 139B. Amar-Suen: RIME 3/2 1.3.3 9, 1.3.14 17; CS 2 no. 140A. Inscribed gurines bearing baskets of bricks on their heads have been discovered in foundation deposits, as well as vast numbers of bricks stamped with royal names: Ellis 1968:23 25 (et passim), and g. 19 20, 22 25 ( peg-wi ards’ of Gudea, Ur-Nammu, Shulgi, and Rim-Sin of Larsa bearing baskets on heads, from Lagash, Nippur, Uruk, and Ur, respectively). Gudea is also described as a brickmaker, and carrying a mortar basket on his head, in he uildin of in irsu s ouse (ETCSL 2.1.7): Gudea Cylinders A 5.2 10, 6.6 8, 18.10 19.2, 20.24 21.12. Bricks/tiles: see p325 (these inventions also underlie the complex Khousor, Kinyras’ alter ego in later Phoenicia: see Chapter 18). Temple-builder: Tacitus istories 2.3, and further below, p401. Cf. Papantonio 2012:54 69 for good theoretical arguments against the idea that ideology and power simply ow s from the top to the bottom of society ; rather it is dialectically related to the di erent sets of resources, material (i.e. technology, artefacts) or non-material (i.e. knowledge, rank). In this respect, power and change operations usually can work on the basis of societal reproduction and transformation rather than clash and confrontation” (57–58). 393 Chapter Fifteen state cult at a fairly popular level. This material is particularly relevant to the metamusical Kinyras for its connection with metallurgy—his most prominent secondary attribute. It is certainly startling to think that a legendary priest of Aphrodite and hieratic kinyrist’ could be credited with metalworking. But recall the industrial use to which lamentation singing and other music was put in Mesopotamia.126 Conversely, the con unction of metal-processing facilities and cult sanctuaries at Enkomi, Kition, and other Cypriot sites reveals a systematic sacrali ation of the LBA copper industry. Evidently metallurgy was seen as a kind of magical art, its geological basis and human development both ultimately in divine hands.127 This is the readiest explanation of the famous Bomford Goddess’, a female bron e gurine of unknown Cypriot provenance and probably twelfth-century or earlier date, who stands upon an ingot.128 H. Catling associated her with a then-recent sensation from a sanctuary at Enkomi the so-called Ingot God, who also surmounts an ingot (Figure 40).129 Though found in an assemblage of items dated to the late twelfth or early eleventh century, stylistic criteria show that the Ingot God akin to the smiting-god type of BA Syria and the Levant is actually rather older.130 G. Papasavvas has demonstrated, through technical analysis of the seam between ingot and feet, that the former was added at a relatively late stage, transforming a Levantine type into a distinctively Cypriot idol—embodying and upholding, through a combination of martial and metallurgical attributes, state control of metallurgical production and distribution.131 Now J. Webb has persuasively argued that a second chamber—the west adyton, 126 127 128 129 130 131 See p24, 30. Sacred/magical metallurgy: Frontisi-Ducroux 1975:35 82 passim; Karageorghis 1976b:57, 73 76; J. Karageorghis 1977:97–117; GR:47, 153; Knapp 1986; Dalley 1987; Loucas-Durie 1989; Morris 1992:87 88, 112; Blakely 2006. There is a parallel from Mycenaean Pylos, where a number of bron e-workers are uali ed as Potnian’, that is, of the goddess’ (in the Jn series: see Lupack 2007:56; Lupack 2008b:114 119). But note that only about six percent of bron e-workers known from the Pylian records are so uali ed (Lupack 2008b:118). This idea was rst formulated by Catling 1971. Two closely comparable examples are in the museums of Nicosia and Kouklia (Palaipaphos), but since the base of each is broken away the original presence of an ingot is uncertain: Karageorghis 2002b:96 no. 194. Schae er 1965; Courtois 1971; Schae er 1971:505 510, with pl. I II. For these remarkable gures, nd-contexts, and ideology, see inter al Masson 1973; Karageorghis 1977:97–117; Knapp 1986; Karageorghis 1998:32 33 and g. 8 9; Webb 2001; Papasavvas 2011:61 62, noting signi cant stylistic deviations from the smiting-god type. Muhly 1980:156 161; Knapp 1986:86 89 ( long been revered cared for and protected by both the elites that fostered their worship and the producers who carried it out,” 87); Papasavvas 2011:65. Resheph and the smiting-god type: Lipi ski 2009:139 160, especially 145 146. Papasavvas 2011:63 65, suggesting that the original gurine goes back to an earlier cultstructure (Sols I LC IIC ), while the attachment of the ingot, with its fairly crude artisanship, belongs to the period that immediately preceded the town’s abandonment by the eleventh century. 394 Figure 40 The ‘Ingot God’, Enkomi, ca. 1250 (LC III). Inv. F.E. 63/16.15. Drawn from Flourentzos 1996:47. Chapter Fifteen whose cult- gure is lost must once have housed a divine consort for the Ingot God, analogous to the Bomford Goddess.132 These analyses lend strong support to Catling’s hypothesis that Cypriot metallurgy was a sacred industry governed by a divine couple—the goddess who guaranteed the fecundity of the mines, and the god who controlled and protected the industrial processes.133 What either would have been called in this period cannot of course be veri134 ed. et Aphrodite’s epithet th reia which many have seen as a feminine version of the name Kothar, provides a probable way forward.135 The pairing of Kothar and th reia (or rather a pre-Greek forerunner of the name136) would also conform to the well-attested ANE pattern of male and female divine couples sharing a name. et the hypothesis that a form of Kothar was present on Cyprus in the LBA whether as a local interpretation of an indigenous smith-god, or in some more active guise potentially returns us to Kinyras, as the two gures were eventually syncreti ed, most clearly on Cyprus itself. We shall return to these issues below (Chapters 18 and 19). Whatever their names, the Ingot God and Bomford Goddess, along with the metallurgical workshops at sanctuaries and the rst stand discussed above, all exemplify a larger program of “copper production and divine protection” going back to the fteenth century and represented by a wide range of further material (not restricted to Enkomi). This includes miniature votive ingots and elaborate, seemingly ritual scenes on cylinder seals whose iconographic repertoire 132 133 134 135 136 Webb 1999:102–113 and Webb 2001. Cf. Budin 2002, emphasi ing sexuality and power over fertility both for the Bomford Goddess and Aphrodite more generally. Her point is well taken, though she herself acknowledges (319) that it is precisely in the iconography of the riot goddess that a fertility aspect may be identi ed (LC II kourotrophos gurines); and if this slips away from later iconography, still Aphrodite is often associated with fertility especially in Cypriot contexts: Kypris:226–228 et passim. In early Greek poetry, see especially Hesiod heo on 194–195 and omeric mn to A hrodite 69–74. Recall too that the Cypriot goddess was sometimes interpreted as Demeter/Ceres: see p287n46. For the fertility’ of Cypriot metals, cf. Ovid etamor hoses 10.220 (fecundam Amathunta metallis) and 531 ( ra idam Amathunta metallis). Schae er 1971 argued that the Ingot God, whatever his Cypriot name, had already been associated with Mesopotamian Nergal and/or WS Resheph; the basis was EA 35, containing the Alashiyan king’s apology to Pharaoh for his inability to send copper (for this text, see p372 373). Dalley 1987 sees a parallel in the Sumerian fertility goddess Ninhursag, also patroness of copper smelting, who by the early second millennium had been paired in North Syria with Nergal, identi ed with the WS Resheph (see p372). Dussaud 1954 interpreted as Kinyras the famous Horned God’, also from Enkomi (Dikaios 1962, with g. 18 22; Dikaios 1969 1971:197 199, 527 530, pl. 139 144; Karageorghis 1998:30 and g. 7), and often connected with the island’s horned Apollo’ (Apollo Kereátas: see p230n64). Brown 1965:216 219; EFH:56–57, eschewing the alternative interpretation of Burkert 1992:35, 190. See p476–479. 396 Crossing the Water likewise features bron e ingots.137 J. Webb has persuasively argued that cylinder seals appearing in the fteenth century under the stimulus of Mitannian glyptic, but soon developing a distinctive Cypriot idiom138—were a pervasive and e ective medium for the dissemination of state ideology on the island, with speci c iconographic registers targeted at di erent tiers of the hierarchy through which copper production was managed and controlled. Members of the higher echelon sported uni ue, complex, and ex uisitely executed scenes using an internationally oriented symbolic repertoire. Middle management’ was favored with simpler, repetitive designs that exempli ed obedience to authority and maintenance of the status uo.139 This latter category includes fairly numerous scenes of in nite processions or ring-dances—indistinguishable performance modes given the circularity of the medium (Figure 41).140 The dancers typically move against a backdrop of trees, perhaps a sacred grove. Such performances would naturally entail musical accompaniment, which we must assume is simply not shown. This may help explain the numerous clay rattles that have been found in mainly LBA tombs.141 K. Kolotourou has rescued these nds from obscurity by stressing the subtle, yet potentially profound, psychological and sociological e ects of collective rhythmic performance.142 Moreover, several bron e cymbals going back to ca. 1200–1150143 may be con dently connected with state cult; using valuable material and needing laborious manufacture, these instruments must derive from higher levels of musical management’, as was seen at Ugarit and in the Bible.144 Two cylinder seals of the procession/dance group show a gure carrying an object interpreted by some as a stringed instrument (Figure 42).145 Unfortunately 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 See especially Knapp 1986. Porada 1948:196 et passim. Webb 2002, developing ideas in Courtois and Webb 1987; Webb 1992; Webb 1999:262; cf. PP :153–154. Procession/dance scenes: Schae er 1952, pl. II.1, 3 5; further references in Courtois and Webb 1987:76n249, 78n253; Webb 1999:272. Buchhol 1966; Buchhol 1990. Kolotourou 2005; Kolotourou 2007. Knapp 2011:122 has rightly noted that ubi uitous explanations of such nds in terms of goddess-cult are often facile and lacking in contextual support. A number of incised scapulae found in clear ritual contexts have also been interpreted as rhythmical instruments, though others see them as divinatory devices (both ideas could be right): see with references Webb 1999:249–250, doubting the musical interpretation (“predominantly if not exclusively associated with ritual and in particular with urban cult buildings of LC IIC LC III ). Parallels are known from several Levantine sites: MAIP:94, 176; Caubet 2014:178. Catling 1964:142 146; Knapp 2011:122, with references. See p115–118. Aign 1963:60 with g. 25. First seal: Schae er 1952, pl. II.4; Webb 1999:272 273 g. 87.2. Second seal, from Enkomi Tomb 2 (inventory no. E 2:67), Late Cypriot I II: SCE 1:474 no. 67 and pl. L I no. 67 ( From the left approaches a procession of four adorers. The rst of them holds a lyre ); 397 Chapter Fifteen Figure 41 Procession/dance scene. Modern impression of LBA Cypriot cylinder-seal from Enkomi, ca. 1225–1175 (LC IIIA). Nicosia, Cyprus Museum 1957 inv. no. 36. Drawn from Courtois and Webb 1987 pl. 7 no. 23. the identi cation is rather uncertain. In the second of these, illustrated here and dated ca. 1600–1200, the object may be a harp akin to those of the second Kourion stand discussed above, elongated to t into the scene; it is held in an impossible playing position, but could be seen as an o ering to the seated king or god. Nevertheless, a chordophonic aspect to metallurgical cult-music is uite plausibly inferred from the hundred or so broken gurines found in the sanctuary of the Ingot God, where their placement around the west adyton indicates that it was his female consort who was the primary focus of worship146— an important point given Kinyras’ subordination to Aphrodite. As already mentioned, these gurines probably included choral groups around central lyre- and pipe-players.147 They seem to go back to the main pre-Greek phase of the sanctuary (Sol III, LC IIIB), although they continued to be devoted (Sols II–I)—even as the sanctuary was gradually abandoned during the population shift to Salamis by the eleventh century.148 Both the glyptic dance-scenes and the presumed musical gurines from Enkomi indicate the musical enactment of state ideology at a popular social 146 147 148 Karageorghis 2003:280 281 no. 320 (lyre or fan), with comments of D. Collon (fan, comparing Collon 1987 no. 270). Webb 1999:102–113 and Webb 2001. See p242. Webb 2001:76 79. For the locations of the gurines, see Courtois 1971:326, g. 140bis. 398 Crossing the Water Figure 42 Procession/dance scene with possible stringed instrument. Modern impression of LBA Cypriot cylinder-seal from Enkomi Tomb 2. Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet Inv. E. 2:67. Drawn from Karageorghis 2003:280–281 no. 320. level, speci cally in the context of metallurgical cult. This in turn provides both a real-world context for the blending of associations embodied by Kinyras, and a mechanism for elements of a symbolic system to persist across the period in which Aegean immigration unfolded. Such continuity-despite-change is paralleled by the late career of the Ingot God himself, who was carefully cached in a ritual, which, it seems, o cially terminated the sanctuary’s use.149 A more precise understanding of the historical circumstances behind the Divine Lyre’s arrival and evolution is considerably hindered by the disputed problem of the island’s political con guration in the LBA, which was probably not static. Several scenarios may be suggested. First, and to me most plausible, is that an expanded, metamusical Kinyras was already a more-or-less island-wide phenomenon by the thirteenth century. This may have been through the Divine Lyre’s use in a centrali ed cult at a time when all or most of Cyprus was under the control of a single royal house, say, hypothetically, in the fteenth century under Enkomi; or in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries (the time of Alashiyan correspondence with Amarna and Ugarit), with central power located perhaps near Alassa and/or Kalavasos.150 Whatever the exact political arrangements in Alashiya, the close proximity of Ugarit and its diplomatic relations with Alashiya impose themselves as 149 150 Webb 2001; Papasavvas 2011:64. See p10–11. 399 Chapter Fifteen exemplary, although Syro-Hurrian material deriving from Kizzuwatna and North Syria also presents many suggestive parallels. With the later thirteenth century, one must allow for the possibility of political fragmentation and eeting Hittite control.151 et even here one could suppose regional inheritances of an earlier Alashiyan ideology, so that Kinyras might maintain a supralocal pro le. In other words, at this stage Kinyras may have represented kingship on the island, rather than o er it. Alternatively, one may look to a speci c regional Kinyras of the LBA who then became generali ed in the IA. Here one must think rst of Paphos, with which Kinyras is so commonly connected. The attractive hypothesis that Paphos was the principal sacred site of a state centered around Alassa, whose name is clearly related to Alashiya, needs further investigation.152 Be this as it may, IA Paphos was one of the most conspicuous sites of cult continuity, and the goddess’s most internationally renowned sanctuary. The Paphian kings could therefore rightly claim inheritance of LBA ideology and traditions; because their kingship depended on the grace of the goddess, they played the part’ of Kinyras in carrying out the duties of her cult, and called themselves his descendants (as we shall see in the next chapter). Following this hypothesis, Kinyras would then have become a magnet for collective memory, widely accepted by the island’s various ethnic groups as a gurehead of pre-Greek times. As other IA kings vied with Paphos in establishing rival ideologies, competing claims of Kinyrad ancestry might be advanced, or the virtuous Kinyras undermined; I have argued for both developments at Salamis, at di erent stages.153 On any historical scenario, Kinyras must be seen as a product of the LBA, deriving from the self-image pro ected by one or probably more Cypriot kings to their subjects. The original Kinyras resided at the intersection of royal ideology and sacred lyre-cult—that is, in the execution of liturgical music in the contexts of state ritual. After the Great Collapse’, the old ideology rang on in popular memory under his name. His original attributes were best preserved at Paphos, to which we now turn. 151 152 153 See p13. See p11, 363. See p345. 400 16 The Kinyradai of Paphos E idence from and relatin to Pa os especially lets us pick up the thread of Kinyras’ cult in the Classical period, and follow it down until later anti uity. Here the two broad patterns explored above the social and political manipulation of Kinyras as a cultural icon, and the maintenance of his ancient role as a hieratic servant of the goddess overlap most fully. And ultimately Paphian traditions, preserved at the sanctuary itself, may help us track Kinyras back to his mainland origin(s). Tacitus and the Memories of the Paphian Priesthood In 69 CE, the future Roman emperor Titus, on his way to Judaea to carry out the siege of Jerusalem for his father espasian, stopped at Paphos to consult with the sanctuary’s divination-priest about his own career prospects (the wise Sostratos gave a positive forecast).1 Tacitus, in mentioning this voyage, includes a digression on the history of this most famous cult-site of Aphrodite: There is an ancient tradition (vetus memoria) that Aerias was the founder of the temple, although some maintain that this was the name of the goddess herself i.e. Aeria . A more recent report (fama recentior) holds that the temple was consecrated by Cinyras, and the goddess herself, after being born in the sea, was driven here; but that the art and science of divination was imported, and the Cilician Tamiras introduced it; and that it was so arranged that the descendants of each family would direct the rituals. Before too long, however, the foreign line gave up the science which it had itself brought in, so that the royal line sc. of Cinyras might not be without some distinction over the newcomers: only the Kinyrad priest is consulted.2 1 2 Also Suetonius Titus 5. Cf. HC:233; Mitford 1990:2180. Tacitus Histories 2.3: Conditorem templi regem Aeriam vetus memoria, quidam ipsius deae nomen id perhibent. fama recentior tradit a Cinyra sacratum templum deamque ipsam conceptam mari huc 401 Chapter Sixteen In the Annals, Tacitus again states that Aerias rst built the Paphian temple, which was held to be the island’s oldest. Aerias, he says, was the father of Amathus, who had gone on to consecrate the temple to Amathusian enus. Third in age was the temple to Jupiter at Salamis, established by Teukros.3 This scheme for the Cypriot temples, in which Paphos holds pride of place both chronologically and (vis-à-vis Amathous) by mythical genealogy, belongs to Tacitus’ catalogue of Greek sanctuaries that in 22 CE had to defend their authenticity before Tiberius, who was investigating rampant abuses in the granting of asylum. To be reaccredited’, the various states were re uired to send charters and ambassadors to establish their legitimacy; and many, according to Tacitus, put their trust in ancient superstitions. 4 The emperor upheld the status of all three Cypriot sanctuaries, and the citi ens of Paphos erected a stele proclaiming their gratitude and hailing Tiberius their savior.5 The outcome, for Paphos at least, was probably a foregone conclusion, since this was the provincial seat of the emperor cult,6 and the Julio-Claudians traced their descent from enus herself. The latter point had been emphasi ed by the Community of Cyprus in their loyalty oath to Tiberius upon his accession ust eight years earlier (14 CE) the same occasion on which they invoked Our en rist s Apollo. 7 When the evidence of the Histories and the Annals is combined, and one recogni es the leading role en oyed by Paphos in the historical construction which as it happens is broadly correct it becomes clear that Tacitus’ material derives substantially from the Paphian priesthood itself. It is a précis perhaps even a partial transcription of their o cial report before the investigating tribunal, available to the historian through senate archives.8 We are therefore dealing with a speci cally Paphian understanding of Kinyras.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 adpulsam; sed scientiam artemque haruspicum accitam et Cilicem Tamiram intulisse, atque ita pactum ut familiae utriusque posteri caerimoniis praesiderent. mox, ne honore nullo regium genus peregrinam stirpem antecelleret, ipsa quam intulerant scientia hospites cessere: tantum Cinyrades sacerdos consulitur. Tacitus Annals 3.62: exim Cyprii tribus delubris, quorum vetustissimum Paphiae Veneri auctor Aerias, ost lius eius Amathus eneri Amathusiae et Io i alaminio eucer elamonis atris ira rofu us posuissent. Tacitus Annals 3.60: placitum ut mitterent civitates iura atque legatos … multae vetustis superstitionibus de ant. The mythological basis of these petitions is discussed by Cameron 2004:226 227. ExcCyp 6; IGRom 3:941; I.Paphos 148. Mitford 1990:2182. See p205. For Tacitus’ use of the Acta senatus generally, see Talbert 1984:326 364 (329 for the asylum petitions). While the so-called enatus consultum de n Pisone atre (Eck et al. 1996) illuminates the historian’s creative departure from o cial records, it is less revealing about his use of the Acta themselves (see Talbert 1999; Damon 1999). I see no reason why Tacitus should have distorted the diplomatic record in the present case. Pirenne-Delforge 1994:332 333 suggests that only Aerias was mentioned in the o cial report, and that Tacitus himself has introduced the familiar tradition of Kinyras. But Kinyras’ appearance 402 The Kinyradai of Paphos Some of what Tacitus relays is familiar from other sources, in particular Kinyras’ association with kingship, divinatory arts, and of course the goddess and her sanctuary.10 The details of Aerias and Tamiras, however, are uite unparalleled. Aerias’ permits two interpretations. Most scholars have looked to Lat. aer, aeris ( air’, from Gk. a r, a r s), seeking a correspondence with Gk. Ouránios or Ouranós.11 This would make him a sky- or storm-god like Baal or eus, and a male counterpart to Aphrodite Ourania, as later Greek sources often called the goddess when acknowledging her NE background.12 Because Tacitus adds that certain people consider this the name of the goddess herself (that is, Aeria),13 some scholars dismiss Aerias as a misunderstanding or a ction asse tardif that is, a back-construction from Ourania.14 Of course, the pattern of Mr. and Mrs. Sky’ has ancient precedents in the Near East, beginning with Sumerian Anu and Inanna.15 And it is generally recogni ed that this pattern is re ected in the coupling of eus and Dione, who appear unexpectedly as Aphrodite’s parents in Iliad ve a book containing several other unusual features of a Cypriot cast.16 Nevertheless, I prefer the alternative proposal to connect Aerias and Aeria with Lat. aes, aeris, copper’ or bron e’.17 This would arise readily from reinterpretation of the goddess’s epithets Kýpris and Kypría, since the ad ective kýprios, passing into Lat. as cyprius, was commonly applied to copper by the time in uestion (Lat. cyprium aes or ust cyprium, whence Eng. copper’).18 While the etymology itself would be late, it would have been grounded in ancient and accurate traditions about the central importance of copper to the island which 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 here is inextricably involved with the Tamiradai, and the very obscurity of the latter shows that they, like Aerias, must derive from the o cial report. See p21 323, 363. The manuscript variant Uranium was indeed read by Alciatus (hence the Uranie Roy of Description, p. 16), but this is clearly a gloss: ExcCyp:176; HC:69n5; cf. Baurain 1980b:290; PirenneDelforge 1994:311 (skeptical of the e uation); Currie 2005:276n90 (noting that Ouránios and Aérios are elsewhere attested as epithets of eus). Farnell 1896 1909 2:629 631. See further p378. Note that ἀερία (presumably airy’ or misty’) is reported as a former name for Cyprus (and several other places) by Hesykhiοs s.v. (ἀερία μίχλ , παρ ἰτωλοῖς. άσον τε τ ν νῆσον, καὶ γυπτον, καὶ ιβ ν, καὶ Κρ τ ν, καὶ ικελίαν, καὶ ἰθιοπίαν, καὶ Κ προν ο τως ἐκάλουν). Can all of these places be imagined as especially airy’ or misty’ Blinkenberg 1924:31. Black and Green 1992 s.v. Inana, derived from a presumed Nin-ana, Lady of Heaven’ ; also s.v. An for Antu as wife of Babylonian Anu. eus and Dione: Burkert 1992:97 98; EFH:361 363 and further literature in n36. For DioneAphrodite and Cyprus cf. also Theokritos Id lls 15.106, 17.36; Dionysios the Periegete 508 509. For Iliad 5, see Cassio 2012 4 5. Note too that Aphrodite is apparently paired with eus in several late fth century coins from Marion, and fourth-century examples from Paphos: BMC Cyprus:lx xi and plates (Marion), lxxix and pl. III.12 13 (Paphos); cf. Paphos:205. Pirenne-Delforge 1994:331 333 and n121 122. LSJ s.v. κ πριος; LS s.v. Cyprus II A B; OLD s.v. Cyprius. 403 Chapter Sixteen was itself sometimes called aerosa for ust this reason.19 Its key early role in the cult of the goddess herself, we saw, is vividly illustrated by the Bomford Goddess, who has a close male counterpart in the Ingot God; and this coupling may be re ected in Aphrodite’s epithet Kythéreia, which many would see as a female counterpart to Kothar, the Syro-Levantine craftsman-metals god.20 This latter idea nds compelling independent support in ps.-Meliton, who knew a myth of Hephaistos’ (i.e. a metals god) controlling Cyprus before the intervention of a Kauthar-Kinyras gure (see Chapter 19). Admittedly, it would be uite astonishing for the Paphian priests of the Roman era to have maintained an ancient memory of a LBA metal-god. But Aphrodite’s great sanctuary at Paphos, if anywhere on the island, will have been a locus of early oral traditions, and may even have maintained written records from the LBA into the IA.21 Tamiras is e ually obscure.22 Hesykhiοs contains an entry for Tamirádai, de ned as certain priests in Cyprus. 23 Possibly the lexicographer depends solely on Tacitus, but note that the plural form is not found in the historian himself, nor is Paphos speci ed. It is not clear from either source whether these Tamiradai were still active, but it sounds as if not. Several etymologies, none entirely convincing, have been proposed for the Tamiradai. Movers suggested a link with Thymarete, the daughter of Pygmalion whom Kinyras married after emigrating from Cilicia in one tradition (if so, the named has obviously been Helleni ed).24 The syllabic se uence Tu-mi-ra, which occurs in an Eteocypriot inscription from Amathous and may be a DN, has been thought relevant.25 Others point to the Hebrew tamar, date-palm’, and suggest a connection with Sacred-Tree cult both on the island and in the Levant.26 One 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Paulus Diaconus Epitome of Festus 18.23 (Lindsay): Aerosam appellaverunt antiqui insulam Cyprum, quod in ea plurimum aeris nascatur (also in tienne de Lusignan horo ra a p. 2a 1 , Erosa, Description p. 2a, Aereuse ). The datum goes back to the Augustan period ( errius Flaccus, whom Festus had himself epitomi ed in his On the Meaning of Words) or beyond; despite Paul’s general terms, the usage’ probably had no popular life outside of poetry and technical writers (Pliny Natural History 34.2.2 4 is relevant). The idea is entertained favorably by Kypris:136. See further p476 479. One must suppose a continuous literate tradition in parts of Cyprus to explain the kinship of the Cypro-Minoan script and later, regional varieties of Cypro-Syllabic: Iacovou 2006b:31 32, 36 39; M. Egetmeyer in Steele 2012:107 131. RE 4 (1932), 2138; Heubner 1963 1982 2:34, 36. Hesykhios s.v. αμιράδαι ερε ς τινες ἐν ύπρ . Cf. Neumann 1961:36. Dionysios the Periegete 509; cf. Apollodoros Library 3.14.3. See Movers 1841 1856 2:237 and n32, 275n50a; GGM 2:450, ap. crit. For these texts, see further Chapter 21. This was proposed by Power 1929:162 163; re ected by Neumann 1961:36. The inscription is ICS 194 (line 4); cf. Egetmeyer and Hint e 1992:201; DGAC:581 no. 5; Steele 2013 no. EC 3. Tamiradai tmr: Power 1929:162 163; Dugand 1973:199, following Astour 1965:137 in comparing the episode of Tamar’s disguised seduction of her father-in-law Judah (Genesis 38:12 30) with Myrrha’s of Kinyras, and noting the correspondence of both female names with that of a tree; 404 The Kinyradai of Paphos might then think of the harper who sings before the sacred tree on the bron e stand discussed above.27 But these vague ideas do not account for the special Cilician connection of the Tamiradai. A seventh-century Phoenician inscription from Cebel Ires Da i, in Rough Cilicia, contains the consonantal se uence TMRS, apparently a TN; this has seemed promising, but gives little purchase.28 Slightly more tangible is a proposed connection with dammara-, a word of perhaps Luwian or Hurrian origin, which in Hittite sources designates temple-personnel, both male and female, charged with the care of grain; but the absence of overlapping function with the Tamiradai remains problematic.29 A nal possibility is that Tamiras is somehow cognate with Thamyris/ Thamyras.30 We have seen that a cultic group known as Thamyrists (Thamyríddontes) was active in fourth-century Thespiai (Boeotia), evidently tracing their descent from the musician who in Homer’s hands was blinded by the Muses.31 Unfortunately, their function remains largely obscure, frustrating comparison with the entrails-inspection of the Tamiradai. The hypothesis would o er a uite exact parallel to the Kinyradai in their self-presentation as descendants of a legendary lyrist. It would remain to explain how an evidently Aeolic lyre-tradition might nd a cognate in early Cilicia and Cyprus. Still, an EIA Aegean/Achaean presence in Cilicia now seems beyond doubt.32 Note that a further tradition of royal priesthood links Cilicia and Cyprus: the Salaminian lineage was implicated in a local Cilician tradition, whereby A ax son of Teukros founded a dynasty and hereditary priesthood at Olbe.33 There is also the term akhaiománteis Achaean priests’ or Achaean prophets’ de ned by Hesykhiοs as those who hold the sacred o ce of the gods in Cyprus. 34 The word connotes an ultimately extra-Cypriot origin, and thus potentially deep anti uity; unattested in the island’s inscriptions, it may have been long obsolete by the Classical period.35 It is therefore worth considering whether the Tamiradai represent some re ection, at the hieratic level, of a cultural encounter between Aegean 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Heubner 1963 1982 2:34 suggests that Tamira was the pre-Greek name of the Paphian goddess herself. See p383 388. Mosca and Russell 1987:9. Neumann 1961:36 37. Movers 1841 1856 2:275 and n50a; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893 1:252; contra RE 4 (1932), 2138. The presence of i versus y is unproblematic, given the early fronting of Greek / (see p196). For confusion’ of t and th in a second-third century context, Allen 1987:24. SEG 32:503: see p234. See p250n44. Strabo 14.5.10. Cf. G erstad 1944:116. Hesykhios s.v. ἀχαιομάντεις ο τ ν τ ν … θε ν χοντες ερ σύνην ἐν ύπρ Cf. Karageorghis 1988:193: un nom asse révélateur pour les pr tres ui évo ue leur lointaine origine et leurs dons divinatoires. 405 Chapter Sixteen immigrants and a Paphian religious and royal establishment’ in the twelfth and/or eleventh centuries, with an older Kinyrad ideology eventually prevailing.36 We saw a comparable duality in the competing myths that attributed the foundation of Paphos to either Kinyras or Agapenor, where again it was the Kinyrad apparatus that maintained the upper hand.37 The composite, layered nature of the Paphian priests’ memories’ is striking. It is crucial, I believe, that Kinyras was presented as a secondary stratum by the priests themselves. The Paphians may be suspected of being motivated in part by a desire to surpass the other Cypriot sanctuaries in a bid for anti uity; for while the Amathousians obviously attributed to Amathous’ the foundation of their temple in reporting to the Roman senate, the Paphians advanced Aerias as the father of Amathous.38 Now Amathousa’ is also found in some sources as the mother of Kinyras.39 If the Amathousians placed any emphasis on this point, Kinyras would not have given the Paphians the oldest claim. Nor would traditions about Agapenor.40 Whatever the Paphian priests’ motivation or basis for promoting Aerias, their profession that Kinyras was a relative latecomer’ must be essentially correct, if Kinyras is rooted in a Divine Lyre of mainland origin(s). This should be added to other traditions that connect Kinyras variously with Byblos, Syria/ Assyria, Cilicia, and perhaps Sidon (see further Part Three).41 36 37 38 39 40 41 Baurain 1975 1976:531 532 rightly saw the uxtaposition of Tamiras and Kinyras as a simple mythological rationali ation to explain an historical fact of two priestly families presiding in the cult of Aphrodite. But the uestion remains: why should there ever have been a dual priesthood at all See further p360 368. See Pirenne-Delforge 1994:332 333. For Kinyras and Amathous, see p346 350. Mother Amathousa: Herodian De prosodia catholica 242.34 Lent ; cf. Stephanos of By antium s.v. μαθο ς. The genealogy of Kinyras as son of Paphos or Paphia ( Pindar Pythian 2.28; Dionysios the Periegete 509; Hyginus Fabulae 275) would also make him secondary to the foundation of the city and cult. See p359 368. For Neumann 1961:36 and Heubner 1963 1982 2:34, Kinyras, though featuring in the fama recentior, represents an autochthonous tradition (versus the imported Tamiradai). But while Kinyras clearly symboli es pre-Greek Cypriot culture in many sources (see Chapters 13 and 14), this need not contradict the persistent traditions of his external origin. It is simply a uestion of relative chronology, historical and/or mythopoeic: Kinyras must only antedate the Greek cultural layer of Cyprus. 406 The Kinyradai of Paphos Nikokles and the Kinyrad Legacy Of the ancient kings of Paphos, twelve are known by name, the earliest in the Esarhaddon prism inscription (N-A, 673/672 BCE).42 Archaic statuary shows the Paphian kings in priestly costume, a clear enough indication that they already served as high priests in the seventh century (Figure 43).43 This assumption accords well with the religious conservatism implied by the Classical inscriptions, in which one nds the formula King of Paphos and Priest of the ueen using an old Mycenaean royal title for the goddess (Wánassa or Ánassa).44 Such a pairing of king and goddess, we have seen, is a royal posture of deep anti uity, attested already in third-millennium Mesopotamia. That this was a LBA survival at Paphos, rather than an IA innovation, is supported by Astarte’s role as royal protectress at Ugarit and elsewhere (Chapter 15). The same idea endured among the IA Phoenician kings: those of Sidon and Tyre served as priests of the goddess, while tenth-century Byblian inscriptions portray the goddess as kingmaker and guarantor of the ruler’s life and power.45 This environment makes it easy to believe that the Kinyrad identity of the royal house was e ually traditional. For the fth century, we have seen, it is 42 43 44 45 See p14n73, p360n131. See Maier 1989:380 386, detecting signi cant Egyptian and Assyrian in uences in the iconography and dress; yet his suggestion (386) that the Paphian conception of sacral kingship comes therefore from those uarters that is, uite recently is unnecessary (Maier 1996:130 is more tentative on this point). The Paphian kings, while maintaining an ancient ideology, could merely have adapted their regalia to the prevailing political climate and attendant fashions. Indeed, the mélange of Assyriani ing and Egyptiani ing elements argues against any single foreign source. We are seeing rather a peripheral response to imperial power, a phenomenon otherwise well documented for the N-A period. The Sargon stele from Kition attests an Assyrian ideological presence on the island in the late eighth century (cf. p353). Echoes of N-A imperial diction, recycled to express anti-Assyrian sentiments, are found in Hebrew literature deriving from the period (Cohen 1979, especially 38 47; Machinist 1983b, with further references in 729n29; Machinist 1993:98; Pat ek 2003:71 74). Similarly, some Phoenician inscriptions reveal stylistic a nities with the N-A royal inscriptions and annals: Amadasi 1982. For Lydia’s responses to Assyrian ideology, see Franklin 2008. ερε ς τῆς ανάσσας (also ερής, i-ye-re-se): ICS 4.1, 6.1, 7.4, 16.2, 17.4, 90.2, 91.7 DGAC: 730 no. 4, 732 733 no. 1 2, 735 736 no. 8 9, 594 595 no. 1 2. Cf. ExcCyp:186 187; Blinkenberg 1924:31 32; Baurain 1980b:283n26; Paphos:157; Maier 1989:376 377; Kypris:136, 40 42. For Ugarit, see p114 115. Sidon: KAI 13.1 2 (Tabnit I, late 6th, Priest of Astarte, king of the Sidonians, son of Eshmuna ar, priest of Astarte, king of the Sidonians ) CS 2 no. 56, cf. KAI 14 (Eshmuna ar I) CS 2 no. 57; also the kings named Straton’ (i.e. Abdastart), Grainger 1991:22 23, 30 et passim. For Ithobaal of Tyre and royal theophoric names with Astarte’, see the Tyrian Annals’ (Aubet 1993:27 28) in Josephus Against Apion 1.106 127 (Menandros of Ephesus FGH 783 F 1). Cf. Bunnens 1979:356; Maier 1989:386 and n34; DDUPP:451 452 (with comments on Plutarch Moralia 357b). Byblos: KAI 5 7, 10 (Baal, not Baalat, is now read in KAI 4: Bonnet 1993; Mettinger 2001:140); ANET:656; CS 2 no. 32; DDUPP:72. 407 Figure 43 Limestone head of Kinyrad king, seventh century. Palaepaphos KA 730. Drawn from Ma er 1989 3 8 fig. 0.1. The Kinyradai of Paphos corroborated by Pindar, with Kinyras as the beloved priest of Aphrodite. 46 It has been suggested that Homer’s brief portrait of Kinyras as a Great King who sends a friendship gift to Agamemnon is evidence that he had not yet taken on a hieratic dimension.47 But the perception of Kinyras could naturally have been di erent in and out of Cyprus, and from one genre to the next. Homer’s context of royal gift-exchange would not have especially encouraged the inclusion of priestly detail. On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, Kinyras was probably Aphrodite’s agent in a lost branch of epic that dealt with the heroic wanderings of Paris and Helen in the eastern Mediterranean.48 In the current state of evidence, it is only the city’s last king, Nikokles II (died ca. 306), for whom we have any detailed information, including on-the-ground epigraphic evidence of the Kinyrad legacy. That Nikokles was an energetic and ambitious ruler is shown by a little corpus of royal inscriptions documenting an impressive building program.49 He evidently (re)founded and presumably walled Nea Paphos, the harbor of which could accommodate a large eet.50 He also built a monumental new temple to Artemis Agrotéra ( The Huntress’);51 expanded an existing shrine to Hera;52 consecrated an oracular hypogeum to Apollo l t s;53 and probably constructed defensive walls around Old Paphos in the turmoil that followed the death of Alexander.54 This evidence is clear proof of an explicit cultural and religious policy of the king. 55 One thrust of Nikokles’ program, with its building pro ects on behalf of Olympian gods, was probably to present himself as more Greek’ than his prede46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Pindar Pythian 2.17. See Chapter 10. Homer Iliad 11.19 28: see p1, 322. This point is made by Maier 1989:377, 387n5; Baurain 1980b:305; similarly Baurain 1981a:24n4 would see Kinyras’ connection with Aphrodite as a secondary, post-BA development. See for now Franklin 2014:232 240, and cf. p1, 338 339 above. The sources for Nikokles are collected and discussed by Mitford 1960a; Mitford 1960b:200 205; Spyridakis 1963:143 154; Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1976; ICS 1 3, 6 7, 90 91; Paphos:222 226; NPHP:67 85 et passim; I.Paphos:39 45; Cayla 2005; DGAC:594 595 no. 1 2, 729 730 no. 1 2, 732 733 no. 1 2, 767 no. 166. Paphos:224, 245n6, 231. Artemis Agrotéra: ICS 1; SEG 18:586, 20:251; DGAC:728 729 no. 1. Mitford 1960b:200 205 saw this goddess as an Arcadian import (cf. Pausanias 8.32.4) whose worship remained rustic’ until the new temple was built. Hera: Mitford 1960b:203 no. 5; ICS 90; DGAC:594 no. 1. Apollo l t s: ICS 2 3; DGAC:729 730 no. 2 3; Mlynarc yk 1980; Papantonio 2012:227. The walling mentioned on the Altar of Nikokles’ is generally referred to Old Paphos: ExcCyp 46; Mitford 1960b:203 no. 2, cf. 198n5; HIOP 1 (dating it to ca. 321); I.Paphos 1; cf. Gesche 1974:112; Paphos:210 (archaeological evidence for rebuilding); NPHP:70 71; Cayla 2005:238 (argues for New Paphos). NPHP:68. 409 Chapter Sixteen cessors.56 Inscriptions in the old Paphian syllabary were now complemented by alphabetic and digraphic texts.57 J. Mlynarc yk has suggested that Apollo was made the father of Kinyras at this time, integrating the Paphian royal line into a Panhellenic framework.58 The goal would be, presumably, to anchor his dynasty more rmly in international divinity’, since Kinyras, though he must have remained numinous on Cyprus itself, especially at Paphos, was probably not so recogni ed beyond the island. J.-P. Cayla would also attribute Apollo’s epithet en rist s to Nikokles, comparing the king’s cultivation of Apollo l t s.59 Alternatively, the title, which e ectively absorbs Kinyras, may be a theological revision deriving from the Ptolemaic takeover of the royal cult (see below). Nikokles’ moderni ing agenda notwithstanding, his inscriptions show clearly that he maintained the ancient customs of his house presiding over the state cult as Priest of the ueen, and ruling together with her in some sense. It was this that usti ed his interventions in the sacred landscape: his priestly status was not only evidence of his actual role in the cult of the goddess, but also proof of the legality of his secular power. 60 Whether other Cypriot kings exercised such sacral kingship in the Classical period is less certain, since a comparable double titulary is so far unparalleled.61 et there is suggestive evidence at least for Salamis62 and Kourion,63 and it would not be surprising if 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Cayla 2005:235 238. Mitford 1960b:201 203; NPHP:68; Cayla 2005:235. NPHP:70. Cayla 2005:235 238; cf. p409. This may be right. But Pindar, clearly implying Kinyras’ involvement with the Paphian cult by the fth century, is enough to disprove Cayla’s tentative earlier connection with the fama recentior: un ensemble de légendes secondairement gre ées ou articiellement ravivées au début de l’épo ue hellénisti ue aurait doublé puis supplanté une tradition plus ancienne (I.Paphos:38). NPHP:70 (her emphasis). Maier 1989:379 380. For Salamis, note especially the invocation of Homeric Hymn 10.4 5 χα ρε θε αλαμ νος ἐ κτιμένης μεδέουσα / ε ναλίης τε ύπρου, Hail, ruler of well-founded Salamis / And Cyprus on the sea. Here again, as at Paphos, the goddess is a kind of ueen; when this is combined with the acknowledgement of her island-wide dominion, it reads like a regional counterclaim to the Paphian kings and their control of the goddess’s great sanctuary (see p345). For Euagoras’ Kinyrad claim, see p351 359. Aphrodite appears on Salaminian coins from at least the reign of Euagoras II (ca. 361 351) down to the end of the kingdom (BMC Cyprus:ciii cxiv passim; HC:143n3 and 147n3); her status as city-goddess is indicated by the battlemented crown (pólos) on the coins of Euagoras II (BMC Cyprus, pl. I .10 11), much like the (later) issues of Nikokles of Paphos (see below) and perhaps his father Timarkhos (BMC Cyprus:lxxvi and pl. III.8). At Salamis, Markou 2006 argues that the beardless, earringed, and becrowned gure that appears on the reverse of Aphrodite portrays the king as the priest of the goddess. On the Cypro-Phoenician bowl Cy6 (featuring a musical ensemble with Phoenician-type lyre: Figure 29) are two Greek inscriptions in Cypro-Syllabic script. That above the reclining male gure has been interpreted as king’; many readings have been proposed for the one above the reclining female, but υπρομέδουσα, Ruling over Cyprus’, is perhaps most attractive. This has 410 The Kinyradai of Paphos the conception were fairly common in varying forms on the island, given how generally the goddess was venerated. Intimately connected with Nikokles’ o cial position as deputy of the goddess was his claim of Kinyrad ancestry. This is proven by an inscription discovered in 1953. Two elegiac couplets, paleographically dated to the last uarter of the fourth century, were carved on the base of a statue of the king, dedicated to Paphian Aphrodite’ by an admirer at Ledroi (modern Nicosia): I n the Ledrians’ precinct of P aphia, a scion of glorious Fathers, Arkhaios, admiringly erect ed sc. a statue of Timarkhos’ son, the Paphians’ outstanding king Nikokles, of div ine-speaking Kinyras descendant .64 Despite considerable damage to the stone, T. B. Mitford rightly asserted that his exemplary supplements must convey the sense closely.65 The inscription is supremely important for establishing that later literary traditions of a Kinyrad monarchy at Paphos were in fact historically founded. While Mitford’s th spesíou ( div ine-speaking’) is not certain, some word with the element divine’ remains highly probable given the known theta, metrical constraints, and the need to nd an appropriate epithet for Kinyras.66 Thespésios, a formation that must go back to the second millennium, meant originally proclaimed by a god’.67 Epic diction uses it of such ominous’ sounds as exalted music (including the lyre) and extends it to other awesome phenomena.68 Note also Euripides’ description of Delphi as the divinely-singing (thes i id n) center of the world, recalling 64 65 66 67 68 been taken as an epithet of the goddess, and hence the composition as re ecting some form of royal hierogamy. See Karageorghis 2002b:156 (with g. 322), 177, with references. εδρ ν ἐ ν τεμ νει α ας νις περι μ ν ρχα ος πατ ρ ν στ ασ ἀγασσ μενος υ ν ιμ ρχου α ν ασιλῆα ριστον , ικοκλ α ιν ρου θε σπεσ ου πρ γονον . For text and supplements, see Mitford 1961a, 136 138 no. 36; SEG 20:114 (these publications read εδρί ι, not εδρί ν ( the P I Gree Inscri tions online corpus): the general sense is not a ected); ICS:399. Identi cation of Ledroi: Mitford 1961a, 136 138; ICS:229 232. Mitford 1961a:137. One could also think of words with θει-, e.g. θειοπρόπου, θειολόγου. Athematic compounds containing thes- ( god’) predate Linear B, which gives te-o, re ecting thehós or theós, not the ancestral thesós: Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:13; Beekes 2009 s.v. θεός, θεσπέσιος. Chantraine 1968 s.v.; Frisk 1960 s.v.; Ford 1992:180 197. Some illuminating musical examples: Homer Iliad 2.599 600 (of Thamyris): α τ ρ ἀοιδ ν / θεσπεσίην ἀ έλοντο κα ἐκλέλαθον κιθαριστύν; cf. 1.328, 8.498; Odyssey 12.158 (of the Sirens); Hesiod Theogony 31 32; Sappho 44.26 27 (μέλος γν ον … / χ θεσπεσία); Alkaios 130.34 ( χ θεσπεσία γυναίκ ν); Homeric Hymn to Hermes 420 421 ( / θεσπεσίης ἐνοπῆς, of Hermes’ lyre); Pindar Nemean 9.7, cf. Pindar fr. 52g.1 (μαντευμάτ ν τε θεσπεσί ν), of prophecies. Often of nonmusical sound: Homer Iliad 23.213, etc. ( χ θεσπεσί , formulaic). 411 Chapter Sixteen that Paphos also styled itself as gês omphalós (see below).69 A thespésios Kinyras would be a most appropriate source always alongside the goddess herself, of course for the Paphian kings’ priestly and mantic authority. A statue-base found near Old Paphos contains a second inscription, which, though infuriatingly damaged, must relate to Kinyras. Composed in hexameters, and paleographically dated to the late fourth or early third century, this remarkable text gives a glimpse of a Kinyrad king or priest contemplating his own cultic persona. The recent supplements of S. Follet and J.-B. Cayla improve those of I. Nicolaou as to syntax and letter spacing, and more clearly bring out the divinatory dimension that seems re uired both by hieròn nóon ( sacred mind’, 3) and the Kinyrad context. The dedicant’s name clearly commenced the second verse; I propose to read Nikokles, king ( i o l s asile s), which is metrically appropriate and well supported by other inscriptions from his reign.70 The text might thus be: This statue, a gift for P aphian , King Nikokles placed, me morial of the cultic duty (thyapolías) whereby he learned the god s’ sacred purpose (hieròn nóon), through god-sent/divine-voiced customs Celebrating the arts of the line of Kiny ras.71 69 70 71 Euripides Medea 668: μ αλ ν γῆς θεσπι δόν; Hesykhios s.v. γῆς μ αλός ά ος κα ελ οί. ικοκλέης ασιλεύς (or ικοκλέης α ί ν ). The form ικοκλέης, as well as the title ασιλεύς, is indicated by the syllabic inscriptions (ni-ko-ke-le-ve: see references in n49). The combination -κλ- makes position both in the alphabetic Altar of Nikokles inscription (ε ρ χορος π λις δε τε ι, ικ κ λεες, ρμ ι: for references, see n54) and the Ledroi dedication ( ικοκλ α ιν ρου); the latter also parallels the proposed syni esis of -εη- in the second foot, which is further facilitated by the contemporary waning of digamma: cf. pa-si-le-o-se, ασιλῆος (rather than pa-si-lewo-se), in ICS 17.1; DGAC 166.6 (both from Old Paphos). Mitford suggested a comparable restoration in the digraphic Artemis Agrotera inscription: ικοκλέης α ί ν ασιλε ς υ ς ιμάρχου (Mitford 1960b:200 205; ICS 1). Nicolaou 1964 23a and pl. I 23a (with suggestions of Webster); cf. SEG 23:639; B 79:483; I.Paphos 64. Nicolaou’s published text reads: ‿‿ ‿‿ α αι γ ρας ε κ να τ νδε ‿‿ ‿‿ μ ν μα θυαπολ ας ‿‿ ‿‿ ν ερ ν ν ον θεσι τ χνας ‿‿ ινύ ρα κλειζ μενος γενε ς. Proposed supplements: 1. αλ ν θηκε θε ι : Webster; θῆκ ροδίται τ ι : S. Follet/Cayla, I.Paphos:200n432 2. ικοκλέης ασιλεύς (vel α ί ν): coni. ego (v. supra); μ ν μα: Webster 3. πατρ οις σ ζ ν: Nicolaou (νάον: err. B 79:483) 4. ε ναι τῆς ινύ ρα: Nicolaou; θεσπεσίοις ινύρ α: S. Follet/Cayla:200n432. Cayla’s ob ection to two nominative participles in asyndeton (I.Paphos:201) in verses 3 4 leads to his relative clause at the start of 3. If, however, one prefers to develop Nicolaou’s view that θεσι has lost an epithet in 3 (his πατρ ιοις), verse 4 could have held one for ινύ ρα, e.g. θεσπεσί . Cayla’s proposal to take τέχνας as the ob ect of κλειζ μενος (in the sense celebrating’) is graceful and uite persuasive. But if one would follow Nicolaou in seeing verse 4 as a self-contained clause, the interpretation of κλειζ μενος as middle is perhaps less satisfying than a passive, which would indicate popular recognition. Cf. IG I .1 880 (Corfu, ca. 412 The Kinyradai of Paphos Much is uncertain. But given the dedicant’s reference both to blooddescent (geneâs, 4) and devotional activity before the goddess (thyapolías, 2), Nicolaou’s Kiný ra (genitive) in verse four must be right, the Kinyradai being the only hieratic lineage certainly known for historical Paphos.72 Although Nikokles always bears the title Priest of Wanassa in the dedicatory inscriptions that are certainly his, those relate to his civic activities as a builder. The present text would deal rather with his duties in the goddess’s cult. The king’s construction pro ects were themselves cultic ventures in that he acted by divine approval; yet his status as the goddess’s agent was itself due to his Kinyrad descent. So, in the dedicatory texts Priest of Wanassa is a kind of shorthand, otiose in an inscription that details the king’s priestly duties. If, however, one follows Cayla in dating to the early third century, the inscription will re ect rather the transition to mere priestly Kinyradai in the post-monarchic period presumably a high priest’s celebration of the cult’s alleged perseverance in the Kinyrad line, despite the Ptolemaic takeover (see below). This would certainly be interesting. But a monarchic context seems rather more likely if one accepts J. Mlynarc yk’s argument that the statue originated not in the temple at Palaipaphos, but an unknown sanctuary in the vicinity of the Zephyria cape. 73 That thyapolía refers to divinatory sacri ce a natural implication of the word itself is corroborated by the striking hieròn nóon, whether construed as his art’s sacred intention (Nicolaou) or the mind of the gods (Cayla).74 Given Tacitus’ statement that at Paphos it is prohibited to pour blood over the altar; the burnings-altar (altaria) is kindled only with prayers and pure re, 75 thyapolía could well indicate the incense rites implied by many sources, especially a fourth-century Paphian coin with Aphrodite before a th miat rion.76 But since Tacitus himself also says that the Kinyradai inspected the entrails of victims 72 73 74 75 76 100 BCE 100 CE): σθι δ ς πατρ ς θην νος ο ν τα σι κλ ζεται; IG II.3 1190 (Melos, n.d.): πατρ ς κλ ζομ να αμα ι ν του, ἐκ δ γε μητρ ς λεισ σσας. Cf. J. and L. Robert, B 79:483 ( N. con ecture avec vraisemblance Il nous semble ue le vers 3 s’entendrait de l’art divinatoire de Kinyras et de ses descendants ); SEG 23:639 ( recte, ut videtur ). Genitive in - , rather than -αυ, is otherwise attested on Cyprus: see Perpillou 1978:296 297. NPHP:114. I.Paphos:201. Cf. LSJ s.v. θύ ; Chantraine 1968 s.v. θύ 2. Tacitus Histories 2.3: sanguinem arae obfundere vetitum: precibus et igne puro altaria adolentur. Cf. Mitford 1990:2180. Paphian incense: Homer Odyssey 8.362 363 ( μ ς θυήεις); Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 58 59 (but this is formulaic and used of other temples, e.g. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 385); ergil Aeneid 1.416 417. Coin: BMC Cyprus:lxxiv v and pl. III.7, noting Hesykhios s.v. κιχητός ε ς ἐμ άπτεται λι αν τός ύπριοι; cf. HC:72 and n5 6. Note also the perfumed-oil-worker (mu-ro-wo-roko = μυρο οργός) in a sixth-century inscription from Old Paphos: I.Rantidi 2.1 (cf. p280n30). Theophrastos regarded plant o erings as far more ancient than blood sacri ce; but his history 413 Chapter Sixteen brought by consultants, this must remain a possible context for the inscription.77 While extispicy must have transpired away from the main altar, the goddess was probably still implicated in the outcome.78 But perhaps thyapolía refers to all dimensions of Kinyrad priestly techni ue, and the ongoing maintenance the goddess’s cult.79 Given a musical Kinyras, the arts of his line may well encompass some lyric dimension even in a divinatory context. Recall the Hurrian liver-omen text that seems to contain innāru, and of course the Biblical evidence for lyre-prophecy.80 A record of cult expenditures from OB Larsa may also imply use of a balang during an incense o ering.81 When one balances Nikokles’ moderni ing tendencies with the conservative and distinctly Paphian expressions of piety ust discussed, it seems clear that this was no culturally insecure, provincial conformist, but a proud and astute political player who wished to perpetuate and magnify his ancient house. His actions must be seen against the chaotic events following Alexander’s death in 323. That the Paphian king should be caught up in the wars of succession was inevitable, since Cyprus was rich in resources and key to naval supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean. In 321, Nikokles oined with Nikokreon of Salamis and the kings of Soloi and Amathous in backing Ptolemy against Perdikkas, the latter supported by Marion, which withstood an initial siege.82 Nikokles evidently considered himself a partner, not a menial. For soon after Alexander’s death, between 323 319, Nikokles issued a notorious Alexandrine on which he inserted, in miniscule characters, his own name within the mane of a lionskin worn by Herakles a furtive kind of assertion of independence. 83 E ually signi cant is his rewalling of the old city.84 There is also a syllabic inscription, still poorly understood, which seems to be a kind of loyalty oath, related perhaps to Nikokles’ consolidation of forces against impending crisis.85 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 of sacri cial practice is a kind of Golden Age myth: Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food 2.5 Theophrastos On Piety fr. 2 P tscher (584A Fortenbaugh). Paphian extispicy is con rmed by Khariton 8.2.8 9. So Robert/Robert, B 79:439. Nicolaou 1964:213 interprets this di cult verse as Preserving in ancestral customs the sacred intentions of his art. See p99, 161 167. PHG:70 and n69; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 27. Arrian FGH 156 F 10 6, from his work on the Successors ( μετ τ ν λέ ανδρον); cf. HC:156 157. HC:164 ( uotation) and references in n42, with pl. .4a; Gesche 1974:113 122; MichaelidouNicolaou 1976:26, making a convincing case for the death of Alexander as a terminus post quem; the terminus ante is given by the Damanhour hoard: NPHP:71 72. See n54. Masson 1980; ICS 8 (cf. p394); DGAC:767 no. 166. 414 The Kinyradai of Paphos Figure 44 Paphian coin with ‘Apollo’ and omphalós, reign of Nikokles, ca. 319. a er a deg , orence. Drawn from BM y ru . .11. As other Cypriot kings resumed issuing autonomous coins perhaps ca. 319 with the death of the regent Antipater and the deepening political chaos Nikokles’ mint produced a type bearing a powerful patriotic message (Figure 44).86 On one side was the goddess with battlemented crown, perhaps trumpeting his new forti cations.87 For the reverse, Nikokles adapted a Greek type which was fairly common in the fourth century Apollo sitting on the omphalós and holding either bow or lyre.88 Although the lyre-variant could have had special resonance for a Kinyrad king, and the pairing of bow and lyre was as ancient on Cyprus as in Greece,89 for this coin Nikokles opted to use the archer an appropriately martial image for his troubled times. Clearly this Apollo stands in some sense for the king himself, or his royal line. Nikokles could simultaneously demonstrate Olympian piety to a Greek audience,90 and advance a claim 86 87 88 89 90 Omphalós coin: BMC Cyprus:lxxix x and pl. II.10 11. Interpretation: Wace 1902 1903:215; HC:165; Gesche 1974:111n29 (political gesture); Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1976:27; Masson 1968; NPHP:82 85 and pl. I.3 (suggesting a connection with Nikokles’ promotion of Apollo l t s); Masson 1991:65 68 (argues, against Hill, for authenticity of all exemplars). ExcCyp:187; BMC Cyprus:lxxvi; HC:164. See the catalogue in Wace 1902 1903:215 216. The type later became almost an escutcheon of the Seleucids, who traced their descent from Apollo (cf. p495). For the uestion of whether some speci c historical circumstance links the Paphian and Seleucid motifs, see BMC Cyprus:lxxx; NPHP:82 85; Masson 1991:68 and n55. See p229 230. Masson 1991:68. 415 Chapter Sixteen of religious autonomy. For Paphos, like Delphi, was known as the navel of the earth (gês omphalós).91 It is not known how early this precise designation was applied to the city, and it was probably a deliberate echo of the Delphic claim. The essential idea, however, must have been very ancient, grounded in the immemorial prestige of Aphrodite’s great sanctuary as important a cult center for Cyprus and environs as Delphi was in Greece. It is thus uite possible that the island-wide an ris described by Strabo goes back to Nikokles’ reign, if not beyond. This would certainly provide one strong motivation for the king’s monumentali ation of New Paphos, whence began the ten-mile procession to Old Paphos with which the festival began in Strabo’s day.92 In any case, Nikokles’ omphalós coin symboli ed his kingdom’s religious authority, and insinuated that Paphos was its own political center, not someone else’s periphery. It was a potent assertion of sovereignty. Nikokles’ proud gestures must have alarmed Ptolemy, and perhaps especially the founding of New Paphos.93 But Nikokles was still of his party between 315 312 as Ptolemy put down the Cypriot allies of Antigonos Kition, Lapethos, Keryneia, and Marion, destroying the last-named and deporting its population to Paphos its southern neighbor where it helped ll Nikokles’ new foundation (as con rmed by a sudden swelling in the archaeological record).94 Only two years later, however, Nikokles and his house su ered the famous catastrophe that is colorfully related by Diodoros and Polyainos.95 Ptolemy, suspecting the Paphian king of negotiating with Antigonos, who was reaching the height of his powers, dispatched two henchmen to surround the palace and demand that Nikokles kill himself. This he did after protestations of innocence fell on deaf ears. According to Diodoros: Axiothea, Nikokles’ wife, hearing of her husband’s death, cut the throats of her own virgin daughters, so that no enemy might possess 91 92 93 94 95 Hesykhios s.v. γῆς μ αλός ά ος κα ελ οί. Strabo 14.6.3. That Nea Paphos was not formally founded until Nikokles, and that it emerged as the administrative capital under the Ptolemies (see p409), would certainly suit a late development (cf. HC:76 77; Mitford 1990:2179). et given the anti uity and importance of the sanctuary itself, some pilgrimage custom could have been uite ancient; ld Paphos in any case had its own anchorage (hýphormos, Strabo 14.6.3). Gesche 1974:112. Diodoros Siculus 19.59.1, 19.62, 19.79.4 5. See HC:159 160; Mitford 1960b:198n6, 204; Mitford 1961a:93; NPHP:72 and n37. A long-standing controversy, based on confusion in the ancient sources, sometimes assigns the episode rather to Nikokreon of Salamis, whose death is placed in the previous year. HC:161n1 (with further references) supported Nikokreon, but acknowledged room for some doubt. But persuasive arguments in favor of Nikokles were made by Gesche 1974 and NPHP:72 73; cf. Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1976:24 25. Mitford wished to have Nikokles executed in 306 when Demetrios Poliorketes took Cyprus: Mitford 1960b:198 199 and n6; Mitford 1961a:137. 416 The Kinyradai of Paphos them, and exhorted the wives of Nikokles’ brothers to sei e death with her The brothers of Nikokles, after barring the doors, set the house on re and killed themselves. And so the royal house of Paphos was undone.96 The falling-out of Ptolemy and Nikokles has been convincingly related to the settlement of the 313/312 campaign: while Nea Paphos was awarded only the deported inhabitants of Marion, Nikokreon of Salamis was given the lands and revenues of the other defeated cities, and made strat s of Cyprus to boot. But after Nikokreon himself died in 311/310 under unknown circumstances, confrontation with Nikokles was a logical follow-up to the suppression and killing of other Cypriot kings: Nikokles’ activity within his kingdom was too dynamic, his authority as priest-king and descendant of the divine Kinyras was too great, his treasury presumably full, nally the strategic ualities of the kingdom and primarily of the newly founded Nea Paphos too apparent for Ptolemy not to desire to remove a potential ally of Antigonus.97 The Kinyradai in Hellenistic and Roman Times Even if Nikokles’ family was not as thoroughly eradicated as Diodoros and Polyainos assert, Ptolemy will hardly have tolerated a Kinyrad heir of any standing to continue as Priest of the Goddess, a position of such great and ancient moral authority in the region.98 et the cult of the goddess had to go on, and the divination-priests in Tacitus’ day, we saw, did maintain a claim of Kinyrad descent. The intervening history, and the nature of Ptolemaic restructuring, is far from clear. The island was now sub ect to a military governor (strat s), a position of great distinction and strategic importance given to the highest dignitaries of 96 97 98 Diodoros Siculus 20.21.2 3: ιοθέα δ γυν τοῦ ικοκλέους ἀκούσασα τ ν ἀνδρ ς τελευτ ν τ ς μ ν θυγατέρας τ ς αυτῆς παρθένους ο σας ἀπέσ α εν, π ς μηδε ς α τ ν πολέμιος κυριεύσ , τ ς δ τ ν ἀδελ ν τ ν ικοκλέους γυνα κας προετρέ ατο μεθ α τῆς λέσθαι τ ν θάνατον … ο τοῦ ικοκλέους ἀδελ ο συγκλείσαντες τ ς θύρας τ ν μ ν ο κίαν ἐνέπρησαν, αυτο ς δ ἀπέσ α αν μ ν ο ν τ ν ἐν ά ασιλέ ν ο κία … κατελύθη. The version of Polyainos trata ems 8.48 is better still, though longer. NPHP:73. So rightly NPHP:73 74. Contrast ExcCyp:187 188: The Ptolemies kept possession of the island, the dethroned Cinyrads retained the priesthood ; similarly Mitford 1961a:137; Paphos:239; Papantonio 2012:344. 417 Chapter Sixteen the Ptolemaic court, including members of the royal family.99 But the Paphian cult itself was apparently governed by a Leader of the Kinyradai (ho arkhòs tôn Kinyradôn). This title is attested in an inscription from the reign of Ptolemy I Philopator (221 205), recording the dedication of a statue of his daughter by a certain Demokrates son of Ptolemy.100 Demokrates’ patronymic does not prove a direct Ptolemaic intervention in the priestly succession the name became generally popular in this period but it hardly suggests continuity of the royal line. et presumably the Leader of the Kinyradai did carry on at least some of the old king’s priestly duties.101 These would have included extispicy (Tacitus) and probably incense o erings to the goddess. Hierogamic gestures, although depolitici ed, may well have continued at the level of agrarian magic and ritual poetics. Kinyras, through Aphrodite and his children (Adonis, Myrrha, et al.), could thus survive in some of his ancient roles. A Leader of the Kinyradai (or e uivalent) must have continued to preside over the Paphian cult even after, in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes (204 181), he was technically outranked by the military governor who henceforth added High Priest of the Island to his title.102 The principal reason for this innovation, which mirrors a development in the contemporary Seleucid satrapies, was probably to increase tax revenues from the island’s temples, of which Old Paphos boasted the wealthiest.103 This is also when New Paphos seems to emerge as the island’s administrative capital.104 99 100 101 102 103 104 For Cyprus under the Ptolemies, and the various data regarding Paphos, see HC:158 211 passim (especially 164 165, 167, 179 180); HIOP:2 et passim; also Paphos, 223 224; Mitford 1990:2178 2182; Papantonio 2012. ροδ τηι α αι ημοκρ της τολεμα ου ἀρχ ς τ ν ινυραδ ν κα γυν ν κη τ ν αυτ ν θυγατ ρα ρ στιον ( For Paphian Aphrodite; Ptolemaios’ son Demokrates, Leader of the Kinyradai, and his wife Eunike sc. have dedicated this statue of their daughter Aristion ): LBW 2798; HIOP 32; I.Paphos 66; cf. ExcCyp:249, 260. See also comments of Ribichini 1982:494; Paphos:239; Masson 1986:455 456 (with a photograph of the stone in g. 1); Masson 1988b:64n8. ρχός, while virtually absent from prose, is epigraphically attested in various parts of the Greek world; although still uncon rmed in Linear B, it was evidently an ancient rival to the more familiar ρχ ν, and Masson inclines to see it as a genuine inheritance on Cyprus: Masson 1986:455 456, expanding an earlier discussion in ICS:98; cf. HIOP:p13. For a second example of ἀρχός from Paphos, see n126. Cf. Hogarth 1889:3 4. The rst of many attestations is an inscription (HIOP 40; I.Paphos 9), probably dating to 197 BCE, of Polykrates of Argos, son of Mnasiadas, who evidently became strat s on the accession of Epiphanes: ολυ κτράτης … στ ρατηγ ς κα ἀρχιερ ε ς τῆς νήσου. HIOP:40 suggests that Polykrates himself (above note) may have assumed the position of high priest in order to safeguard revenues for his young master against con icting interests in the Egyptian court; cf. HC:175 (with further references in n1), 183 184, 186. NPHP:121 122. 418 The Kinyradai of Paphos One of the rst of these governor-priests was Ptolemy of Megalopolis, who had been a courtier of Ptolemy I Philopator before assuming the Cypriot strat a under Epiphanes in 197.105 To him we owe a brief but precious glimpse of the archaeological landscape of Old Paphos a century after the monarchy. He wrote an apparently muck-raking account of his former patron’s reign, of which only four fragments remain. By a lucky chance, one of these relates to Kinyras and the Kinyradai. The passage was tapped by Clement of Alexandria and Arnobius for tirades against pagan temples, which they interpreted euhemeristically as tombs of bygone mortals now wrongly venerated. For both, Kinyras concludes a list of legendary gures believed to be interred in the temple precincts of ma or gods.106 Kinyras was apparently uni ue, and so the more outrageous, for being buried with his whole family indeed his whole family line ; and Ptolemy guaranteed his information, according to Arnobius, on the authority of letters (litterarum auctoritate). What does this mean One reasonably assumes that Ptolemy wrote about the Kinyradai after his appointment to the governorship, in which case he could have made his declaration on the authority of his own eyes, rather than by appeal to some earlier historian or ethnographer. This strongly suggests that he referred to epigraphic evidence in the sanctuary itself, akin to the inscriptions discussed above.107 And there must have been something that was displayed as the tomb of Kinyras himself.108 Since Clement and Arnobius cite their examples to illustrate customs of pagan worship, it should follow that Kinyras received such attentions at Paphos that his sepulcher doubled as a kind of shrine within the temple precinct. When one considers that vestiges of Cypriot cult lingered on into the Medieval period at various ancient sites,109 such activity is perfectly possible for Paphos in the second century BCE, when Ptolemy was writing and even the second or third CE, with Clement.110 In the troubled reign of Euergetes II Physkon (146 116), the inscriptions attest what appears to be a new designation, The Priests of Paphian 105 106 107 108 109 110 Polybios 18.55.6 9, cf. 15.25.14 15. He succeeded Polykrates: HC:187. Ptolemy of Megalopolis FGH 161 F 1 Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 3.45 ( τολεμα ος δ τοῦ γησάρχου ἐν τ α τ ν περ τ ν ιλοπάτορα ἐν ά λέγει ἐν τ τῆς ροδίτης ερ ινύραν τε κα το ς ινύρου ἀπογόνους κεκηδεῦσθαι, repeated verbatim by Eusebios Preparation for the Gospel 2.6.6) the paraphrase of Arnobius Against the Pagans 6.6 (Agesarchi Ptolemaeus de Philopatore quem edidit primo Cinyram regem Paphi cum familia omni sua, imo cum omni prosapia in Veneris templo situm esse lit(t)erarum auctoritate declarat). Cf. P ster 1909 1912:303, 452 453. Presumably, Arnobius has used litterae to gloss γράμματα in Ptolemy, in which case the plural can indicate multiple inscriptions. For this sense of γράμμα, LSJ s.v., II.d., and often epigraphically. Blinkenberg 1924:35; Heubner 1963 1982 2:35. See p563 564. Clement probably drew this and his other examples from a mythographic handbook. 419 Chapter Sixteen Aphrodite. 111 et this need not mean that Kinyradai had ceased to exist: the title may only be an umbrella term for several groups of cult functionaries, of whom the Kinyradai remained one. Alternatively, Kinyradai’ itself may once have had this collective force,112 but was phased out of o cial use for some reason. Perhaps the old royal connotations were now felt to be potentially subversive, at odds with the Ptolemaic ruler cult itself.113 When Ptolemy I Soter II (Lathyros) established a uasi-independent kingdom on the island in 106/105, the old strat a became obsolete, and with it apparently the position of High Priest of the Island. 114 At Paphos a manti r h s is now twice attested: such an o cer must have overseen divination, personally conducting it as the occasion demanded for illustrious visitors like Titus, for instance and was perhaps the e uivalent of High Priest.115 Whether he also counted himself a Kinyrad as Tacitus would suggest is unclear; if so, Leader of the Kinyradai’ had presumably fallen out of formal use. On the death of Lathyros in 80, a bastard ascended the Cypriot throne; it was this Ptolemy who, when in 58 Cato the ounger o ered him the high priesthood of Paphian Aphrodite if he would stand down, famously preferred suicide to demotion. This con rms that the temple then had its own high priest (whether manti r h s, ha t r,116 or some other title), and shows that the position had maintained enough of its ancient regal prestige to be the best e uivalent for royal power which Cato could o er. 117 Under the Empire the title High Priest (ar hiere s) is de nitely attested in 212, and is probably to be restored in an inscription of the earlier rst century 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 ερε ς τῆς α ίας ροδίτης: HIOP 70 (ca. 142 131) I.Paphos 19, etc. This is also when the strat s assumed the third title of naval commander’ (na ar hos), with the loss of Ptolemaic sea-power in the Aegean and the eet’s consolidation on Cyprus (HC:197). One might seek such a generali ing sense in Hesykhios s.v. ινυράδαι ερε ς ροδίτης (perhaps a moderni ing gloss re ecting oἱ ἱερεῖς τῆς αφίας φροδίτ ς, rather than a lexicographer’s vague stopgap). Note the ασιλισταί ( Celebrants of the King’) who are attested in the reign of Ptolemy I (see p234). It may be relevant that Cyprus had already edged towards being a self-contained kingdom on several occasions around this time. See HC:193 and n3 for the disputed episode of Eupator (152/1), son of Ptolemy I Philometor; 196 for the two year retreat’ of Ptolemy III Euergetes II and his family on the island (131/130 129). HC:198 202; HIOP:38 39. HIOP 103 104; I.Paphos 72 73; cf. Paphos:244 ( a leader of the priests of Aphrodite ); Mitford 1990:2180 and n20 21. Hesykhiοs’ de nition of γήτ ρ as the priest in Cyprus who leads the o erings of Aphrodite ( τ ν ροδίτης θυηλ ν γούμενος ερε ς ἐν ύπρ ) nds epigraphic con rmation at Paphos ca. 105 188, and somewhat earlier at Amathous: see ExcCyp 105; HIOP 99 ( γητορευκότ ν, line 4); I.Paphos 79; cf. Blinkenberg 1924:33. Plutarch Cato the Younger 35; uotation Hogarth 1889:3 4 (closely followed by Fra er 1914 1:43); cf. Mitford 1990:2180; HC:204 208; Paphos:157, 244. 420 The Kinyradai of Paphos CE.118 This, with the contemporary testimony of Tacitus, shows that a continuous Kinyrad self-identity is not incompatible with periodic changes in o cial nomenclature. This is con rmed by the Kinýrarkhos (or in r r h s) who appears in a heavily damaged inscription from the reign of Antoninus Pius (138 161 CE).119 The title clearly recalls Leader of the Kinyradai from four centuries earlier an archaistic revival, perhaps merely honori c, of which the purpose eludes. 120 The temple hierarchy was clearly not immune to diachronic development, perhaps especially as to titulary. Whereas Leader of the Kinyradai’ in a third-century BCE context may very well suggest the highest o cer in the cult, apparently in Antonine times the Kinýrarkhos was distinct from the High Priest.121 Presumably, then, the Kinyrarch led but one of the temple’s colleges, the activity of whose members is indicated by the root kinyr-. The implications of this must be pursued next. Sons of the Kinýra Although the precise relationship between the old kings and the Kinyradai who operated thereafter (under one name or another) is elusive, one important issue can be pinpointed. The titles Leader of the Kinyradai and Kinýrarkhos, along with Tacitus, show that the Kinyradai were not only a royal and/or priestly lineage going back to Kinyras’ a natural interpretation of the patronymic su x122 but e ually a coeval priestly cohort. For the monarchy one might try to harmoni e these diachronic and synchronic senses by supposing that the larger royal family constituted the Kinyradai, from whose ranks the priesthood was drawn. This seems probable enough; but it does not completely account for the post-monarchic period with its interruption of the royal line. Nor is it credible to divorce completely the synchronic and diachronic senses, assigning one kind of Kinyradai to each period. For even if one regards Kinyradai’ per se as a 118 119 120 121 122 Mitford 1990:2180 2181. The stone is now lost. See ExcCyp 101; SEG 40:1365 (cf. 1319); I.Paphos 181. This obscure inscription was ultimately interpreted as the dedication of a son to his Kinyrarch father by Mitford 1990:2181n21, who would read: ἀρχιερε ς φρο δ τ ς ιονυσ δωρος vv τ ν δε να ιονυσ ου ιν ραρ χον, ε εργ την τοῦ δ μου, ιλοτειμ ας κα ι λοστοργ ας χ ριν , τ ν πατ ρα. For earlier alternatives, see ExcCyp:249; Mitford 1947:229n121. Cf. HIOP:13; Masson 1986:455 456. Mitford 1990:2181 2182, who continues but this text stands isolated in a period from which nothing else concerning the priesthood of Aphrodite survives. Similarly, HIOP:13. Unless the two are mere incidental variants. Cf. Pindar Pythian 2.27b: This is the Kinyras, sc. beginning from whom the Kinyradai in Cyprus have dedicated themselves to the goddess ( δ ινύρας ο τός ἐστιν, ἀ ο ο ἐν ύπρ ινυρίδαι sic τ θε ἀνιέρ νται). 421 Chapter Sixteen titular contrivance of the Ptolemies, stressing the legitimacy of cult continuity despite the loss of monarchy, yet an analogous body of priests must already have existed, whose activity would have to be well described by the new label, if new it was. Fortunately, the word itself permits further inferences. As M. L. West pointed out, the Greek patronymic su x can yield not only Sons of Kinyras’ but Sons of the Lyre’, corresponding exactly to the normal WS designation of professional guilds’, with their claims of common descent.123 This interpretation is highly plausible within a larger NE context; recall the royally sponsored groups examined in Part One (Ugarit, Bible) and the lyre-orchestras of the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls (Chapter 11). Leader of the Kinyradai’ and Kinyrarch’ would then simply designate the ranking kinýra-player of a larger college. Nor is this incompatible with the divination duties Tacitus attributes to the Kinyradai: the Biblical material, we have seen, attributes various ritual, magical’ powers to the inn r and its players, including forms of prophecy, which go well beyond the simply musical. This scenario would also explain how the Kinyradai continued so readily after the fall of Paphos, since they need never have been limited to the royal family. The paradox of Kinyradai as both cultic lyrists’ and royal dynasty descended from Kinyras’ may be neatly resolved by supposing that the kings of Paphos, in presiding over state rituals as Priest of the ueen, did so e ectively as Leader of the Kinyradai (vel sim.).124 This deduction is perfectly compatible with the conclusions reached in other chapters on di erent grounds that Kinyras was a kind of royal performing role, and that kinýras itself means basically kinýra-player’.125 It may be that a separate lead kinyrist’ was already operative in royal Paphos a kind of Chief Singer as at Mari or under David who oversaw the execution of practical liturgical matters, while the king, though active as high priest of the goddess and so notional leader of her cult did not trouble himself with the detailed management of the Kinyrad priests.126 Still, the comparanda from Ugarit and Hattusha show that, while royal cult performances were essentially honorary, some real participation was necessary. And 123 124 125 126 EFH:57. Cf. above p115, 155. As suggested by Ribichini 1982:494. See p380 383, 392 393, 432 436. An ἀρχός (a-ra-ko-se) named Satrapas( ) has been found in a syllabic inscription of the later fourth century. Apparently a religious functionary within the court of Nikokles, he describes himself as mouthpiece of the goddess ( (μ ι οχεῦσι τ ς ανά σ(σ ας), and helped develop the oracular hypogeum to Apollo l t s near Nea Paphos: Mitford 1960a; ICS 2 3; Masson 1988b:64; NPHP:77 79, 113; DGAC:729 730 no. 2 3. Whether he was more or less e uivalent to the later ἀρχ ς τ ν ινυραδ ν is impossible to say (but note the interesting speculations of Mitford 1960a:6; Cayla 2005:236). 422 The Kinyradai of Paphos since the Paphian king was himself of professed Kinyrad descent, he would necessarily act as the Lead Kinyrad’ of his generation, whoever else may have conducted more uotidian tasks, musical or otherwise. The Kinyradai, considered diachronically as a royal dynasty, also recall the royal mortuary cult of Ugarit where the king’s ancestors were divini ed, and the innāru was apparently a symbolic marker of eternal, blessed kingship. One might therefore see the Paphian kings as somehow incarnating Kinyras in successive generations.127 West’s view that Kinyras is nothing but the mythical eponymous ancestor of the Kinyradai, though right in one sense, does not account for the deep anti uity, and materiality, of Kinnaru and the Mesopotamian balang-gods. There are indeed clear examples of eponymous ancestors being secondarily derived from group names (Homer himself is now often suspected); but the opposite process, a group taking their name from an established gure, is e ually well attested.128 To be sure, a Divine Kinnaru must ultimately be a professional pro ection an exaltation by hieratic lyre-players of their own religious authority, social status, and venerable tradition. But such a gesture, to account for Kinnaru at Ugarit, will antedate the Kinyradai of historical Paphos by so many centuries that they themselves were perhaps unaware of Kinyras’ arti cial’ origin, regarding him in all sincerity as an ancient demigod priest-king whose duties to the goddess they perpetuated. Such a dwindling’ may be paralleled by divine gures of Linear B reappearing as minor characters in Greek mythology (when not disappearing altogether).129 et it does seems clear, from Our en rist s Apollo and the other evidence so far considered, that the lyric Kinyras remained rather numinous down to the Classical period, and even to the time of Tiberius. To conclude, we must seriously entertain the possibility that the Kinyradai of Paphos as a royal lyric clan go back in one form or another to the pre-Greek 127 128 129 Cf. Cayla 2005:239: le souverain kinyrade était l’incarnation du par dre de la Souveraine, la Wanassa. Thus, against the lyric’ Eumolpos Eumolpidai or Ametor Ametoridai (see p234) one may place the Asklepiadai (the medical clan of Kos who made Asklepios their ancestor) and the Talthybiadai (heralds of Sparta, from Agamemnon’s herald: Herodotos 7.134; cf. Chaniotis 1990:94 95). For Homer as a ctional eponym of the Homeridai, see inter al. Durante 1971 1974 2:185 204. The goddess Ipemede a, for instance, is known from a Pylian o erings tablet (P Tn 316 DMG:172), where she appears in company with Poseidon. In the post-palatial decline, she lost her privileges, whether suddenly or gradually there is no cult attested for her in later historical sources but lingered on in epic memory as Iphimedeia, the mother of Otos and Ephialtes by Poseidon (Homer Odyssey 11.305 308). See further Gérard-Rousseau 1968:116 118, with entries for other vanished palatial gods like Dopota, Tiriseroe, Manasa, and Dirimi o; cf. MgP:259; DMG:288; GR:43. 423 Chapter Sixteen LBA. This idea, which will seem far-fetched when considering only the city’s few and relatively late historical inscriptions, becomes much more compelling once one’s hori ons are expanded by the systematic considerations explored in this and previous chapters. After all, the goddess’s cult operated continuously across the LBA IA transition, and must have been appropriately sta ed throughout. 424 PART THREE KINYRAS AND THE LANDS AROUND CYPRUS 17 Kinyras At Pylos I m ortant e idence for a BA Kin ras comes from an unexpected uarter: 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 gure he was on historical Cyprus. Kinyras and the Priests The rst 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 nal phase of the Palace of Nestor’ at Pylos. Long interpreted as a workshop for chariots and leather goods,1 recent reassessment of its tablets and the associated small- nds has established the NEB’s broader function as a storage facility and administrative clearinghouse that managed the collection and subse uent disbursal of livestock, various goods, raw materials, and groups of workers. 2 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).3 The a series of tablets, recovered from the NEB, is the largest single group outside the AC itself.4 The twenty-four single-line, leaf-shaped tablets associate various individuals with the distribution (or perhaps receipt5) of from one to ve 1 2 3 4 5 Blegen et al. 1966 1:299 325; doxographic review in Bendall 2003, with references in 181n1. Hofstra 2000; Bendall 2003; Lupack 2008a: 467 ( uotation), 471. 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. For the exact nd-positions and contents of the NEB’s series (mostly from room 99), see Tegyey 1984:68 75; Palaima 1988:79, 155 g. 20, 213; Bendall 2003:198 199, 201 224. Two tablets ( a 1259, 1441) were found outside the NEB, presumably scattered during destruction of the site: Palaima 1988:79, 213; Melena 2000 2001:377. Cf. Bendall 2003:212 213. 427 Chapter Seventeen units of an unknown commodity.6 The latter is designated by the ideogram 189, consisting of 44 (KE) in a rectangular frame, probably giving the rst 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.7 A recent argument for the hides of sacri cial animals is attractive, but inconclusive.8 The entries do not follow a single xed formula, but exhibit at least four patterns.9 Because of this variability, some tablets elude de nite interpretation when they contain words not otherwise known, and/or when a word can be interpreted as PN or title.10 The following table is based upon the re-edition with new oins by J. Melena, towards his forthcoming corpus of the Pylos texts in The Palace of Nestor IV.11 Omitting tablets too damaged to be illuminating,12 I have arranged the entries rst 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).13 Kinyras’ comes at the end among the tablets of uncertain formula: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a 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. Blegen and Lang 1958:191 initially suggested hospitality gifts’ (ke-se-ne-wi-ja, ein a), but most of the recipients must have resided at or around Pylos itself, to udge 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 sacri cial 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 ). See Melena 2000 2001:380 384, proceeding from P Un 1482, concerned with leather products, in which the ideogram 189 is preceded by ke-ra-e-we; this he interprets as erah es, a plural formed from géras with the agent-su x -eús (i.e. things bestowing honour’, vel sim.). But see the criti ue of Killen 2000 2001, who reinterprets as horn-worker’, and would similarly connect KE with a derivative of kéras, horn’. 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. Thus a 1294 and 1304 are often analy ed 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 ( a 1290) is certainly Title TN. Melena 2000 2001. a 1302, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1441. In a 1291, 1305, and 1306 a PN is likely, but no further context survives; for possible identi cations, Melena 2000 2001:283; ISMP:192 193, 216, 241 242, 411. Transliteration of PNs follows ISMP, .v. for references. 428 Kinyras at Pylos The a Series PN alone 1297 a-pi-a2-ro 1292 -ke-ri- a-wo14 189 5 189 2 Amphihalos Enkherr’awon PN Title 1295 e-re-ma-o 1300 i- e-re- a 1303 ke-i- a 1289 ka-wa-ra 1296 a-o-ri-me-ne 1298 ne- e-u 1299 ka-e-se-u16 1308 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 Kuelemahos the Diviner( ) the Priestess: Keheia the Priestess:15 Ka-wa-ra the Priestess Ahorimenes the Priest Neikuheus the Shriner’( ) Kaheseus the Potnian the Sacri cer po- a-te-u i - e-re- a i- e-re- a i- e-re-u e-da-e-u po-ti-ni- a-wi- o17 p -ke-u18 Title TN 1290 i- e-re-u se-ri-no-wo-te PN TN 1294 pu-ti- a a-pu2-we Uncertain Formula 1304 a-te-ra-wo21 ka-ra-do-ro 125923 de-ka-ma24 1293 -nu-a2 1301 ki-nu-ra me-nu-a2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 1 1 1 189 The Priest at Se-ri-no-wo19 189 1 Pythia(s) at A-pu220 189 189 1 189 1 189 A-te-ra-wo at Kharadros22 Deiktas( ) the ( ) See below See below Melena 2000 2001:283 includes this man among his ambiguous cases; but ISMP:243 and n176 convincingly identi es him with the well-known e-ke-ra2-wo (see below). Or Priestess from ke-e’: Chadwick 1975:450. See also PP 2:56; Tegyey 1984:73; Melena 2000 2001:283; ISMP:282 and n271. PN at Mycenae: M Ge 602.4 (DMG:228, 485). 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). 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 a 1300 (Blegen and Lang 1958, pl. 47). For this TN, Palmer 1963:372; DMG:149, 581; DM s.v. sa-ri-nu-wo-te. In the Hither Province: DM s.v. a-pu2-de. 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). In the Hither Province: DM s.v. Joined with a 1335 (Hand 15, NEB): Melena 2000 2001:377. A hapax: for textual/interpretive issues, see Melena 2000 2001:377. 429 Chapter Seventeen As a general principle, con dence in the identi cation of homonymous individuals depends upon their appearance in overlapping contexts.25 Of the ve PNs in the a series that are otherwise attested at Pylos, four Amphihalos, Neikuheus, Enkherr’awon, and Pythias can be securely identi ed 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’).26 Neikuheus and Enkherr’awon in particular were ma or landholders, the latter possessing as much in the district of Paki ane as all other known tenants combined.27 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. 28 Thus, despite some ambiguities, the a series clearly deals with persons of conse uence. 29 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 itemi ed, with a third priestess plausibly restored (1303). Another gure is uali ed as Potnian ( a 1299, po-ti-ni-ja-wi-jo), thus serving the goddess Potini a/Potnia ( ueen/Lady’) in some capacity.30 These gures support cultic interpretations of other entries. Some kind of divinationpriest, oracle-singer, or ritual puri er’ is probably meant by po-qa-te-u (1295).31 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)’.32 The broken pa-ke-u of a 1308 can be taken as sphageús, sacri cial slaughterer’.33 Pu-ti-ja (1294) too might be read as a cult-title (Pythía),34 although this is more probably the same name and person attested elsewhere as a smith and military o cer.35 Still, the PN Pythias’ may itself have carried cultic connotations: there are other examples of Mycenaeans whose names re ect their professions (see below). 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 For the basic methodology and associated problems, PP 2:13, 177 204 et passim; ISMP:31 72. PP 2:190 193; ISMP:117 124, 139 140; cf. Franceschetti 2008b:314n27. At least 1,000 g trees and 1,100 vines (Er 880): ISMP:319 320. Bendall 2003:212. As wánax: DMG:265, 454; Chadwick 1975 ( uotation 453); PP 2:150 155; Palaima 1995b:134 135. Further bibliography on the controversy, Nakassis 2012:1n2; ISMP:244n181. The elite nature of the series was soon appreciated: Palmer 1963:372; DMG:485 ( uotation); Chadwick 1975:451. For the title, PP 2:125. DMG:485 ( uotation), comparing φοιβά ω ( prophesy’) and suggesting phoiguasteús, cf. Chadwick 1975:451; Melena 2000 2001:383n16, follows suit with phoibateús (i.e. phoiguateús), noting Hesykhios s.v. φοιβ τε ειν χρ σμῳδεῖν. 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. Lupack 2008a:483. Melena 2000 2001:383n16. Palmer 1963:372; ISMP:90, 139 140, 355. 430 Kinyras at Pylos 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 o cials.36 Moreover, the scribe who wrote all but three tablets of the a series (Hand 15)37 also composed Un 219, a list of commodities assigned to various gods and religious functionaries.38 It seems that this scribe’s special purview was allocations to the religious sphere. 39 It has been suggested indeed that the personnel of the a 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.40 Be this as it may, the a series itself is clearly connected with the cultic sphere. It is uite remarkable, therefore, to nd the entry ki-nu-ra me-nu-a2 in 1301. Because me-nu-a2 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-a2 is a title, and that conse uently ki-nu-ra should be read as a PN Kinyras.41 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-a2 preceded by ust enough space for the restoration of ki-nu-ra.42 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 a 1293 and 1301, since 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 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. For the identifying characteristics of Hand 15 and 33, see PTT 2:14, 16; Palaima 1988:79 80, 96. a 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 oin. Un 219 (from the AC): Palmer 1963:259; its personnel: Olivier 1960:122 125. Connection with Hand 15/ a series: Tegyey 1984:73; Palaima 1988:79n106. Lupack 2008b:128n359. The second scribe (Hand 33), known only from this series, wrote a 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. 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 identi cation of room 93 as a shrine. Blegen and Lang 1958:191; Gallavotti 1961:166 167; Morpurgo (Davies) 1963:148; DMG:485, 554; Chadwick 1975:451; Gallavotti 1976:56. A 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 A 64.14, which with A 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: Ruipére 1956:158 159. 431 Chapter Seventeen double-records in small sets are not unparalleled.43 Next, while Palmer’s understanding of me-nu-a2 as a TN is generally re ected,44 its interpretation as a title still lacks decisive etymological support. The word, with its probable graphic variant me-nu-wa,45 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 o ers no clari cation.46 A proposed linguistic link with Minos is e ually unilluminating.47 More promising, given the other entries in the a series, is a connection with m n ein, to disclose what is secret, reveal’.48 But any interpretation of me-nu-a2 as a title must still confront its unambiguous use as a PN at Knossos, and perhaps Pylos itself.49 While vacillation between PN and title is a known phenomenon,50 this makes it e ually possible in principle that ki-nu-ra, though a PN elsewhere at Pylos, could nevertheless be a title in a 1301.51 And even if it is a PN in the a 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 rst with the divergent dialect forms of later sources.52 The general agreement of the earliest 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 PP 2:94 95. Palmer 1963:144, 372, on the parallel of pu-ti-ja a-pu2-we in a 1294. See Rui gh 1967:56, for phonological discussion. Gallavotti 1961:166 167; Rui gh 1962:68; DMG:187, 485; Gallavotti 1976:56. Fluctuation of e/i is not uncommon in Mycenaean: see p206n106. For these and other interpretations see the extensive bibliography in DM s.v. me-nu-a2 and me-nu-wa. LSJ s.v. See Cataudella 1971:195 196, interpreting broadly as udge’ (discussing An 724), with a secondary sacerdotal dimension implied in the a series. As PN at Knossos: KN Sc 238, 60, d 7702; Rui gh 1967:56 and n46; Olivier et al. 1973:122; DM s.v. me-nu-wa 2). Parallelism does suggest that in A 218.14 (DMG:177 178) me-nu-a2 is a title (Rui gh 1967:56 and n46, although here too Palmer 1963:144 saw a TN). Me-nu-wa in P 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: Le eune 1958:260n14; MgP:82, 172; DMG:485; Killen 2008:170 171. PP 2:209 and further below. Nor is it entirely certain that anything preceded nu a2 on a 1293: for shape of the tablet’s lefthand edge, compare (in Blegen and Lang 1958) a 1290, 1295, 1304, 1298; for spacing of single-word uantity of 189, a 1292, 1297. The Ionic nominative Κιν ρ ς is found in Homer (Iliad 11.20); Κιν ρας should be shared by other dialects, and is so attested (cf. Eustathios on Iliad 11.20: Κιν ρας κοινῶς ωρικῶς καθ’ μ ρον ωνικῶς Κιν ρ ς). The Attic or Attici ing genitive Κιν ρου (Plutarch Moralia 310f, etc.) is also fre uent, but Alkman has the Doric Κιν ρα (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 432 Kinyras at Pylos authorities also encourages us to ignore the other possible phonetic renderings of the Pylian evidence namely /Kinnýras/, / in ras/, / inn ras/ permitted by the ambiguities of Linear B, which distinguished neither vowel length nor double consonants.53 Kinyras’ is also consistent with Mycenaean name-forming patterns.54 First, it oins the group of single-stem PNs that constitute seventy- ve percent of those studied by O. Landau.55 Of these, names in - are well represented at 3.7 of the total, ahead of many other su xes (if well behind 6.4 in tās and 11.2 in -eus).56 According to the scheme of A. Leukart, 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 ad ectival stems.57 Leukart grouped Kinyras’ with ad ectival nicknames like E-ru-ta-ra ( r thrās, 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.58 And yet leaving aside the possible etymological relationship between kinyrós and kinýra,59 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.60 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, 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 conventional Homeric/Ionic version of the Tyrtaios verses has the Ionic genitive Kιν ρεω, implying an earlier Κιν ραο 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). While Kinnýras is indeed attested, this re ects the reintroduction of the original double-n by a Syrian or Levantine scribe for whom such forms as kinn were still a living concern: see p214 215. The basic study is MgP; see also DMG:96 97; Barton k 2003:399 418. MgP:239 243. MgP:240 241. 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 - rather than - (cf. MgP:242; DMG1:84, 93 94). But the assumption of rst-declension nominative masculines in - is usti ed by Myc. genitives in - , which probably arose secondarily to disambiguate the new nominatives from earlier genitives in - : DMG:400; Risch 1974. Leukart 1994:215 and n218. For the Cilician Kinyras, see p496 512. See p188 and n7. See p272 276. 433 Chapter Seventeen long considered a seventh-century novelty,61 has now surfaced (indirectly) at Mycenaean Thebes.62 So di erent lyre-names could easily have been used in di erent parts of the LBA Aegean, or side-by-side within di erent generic contexts. When this is combined with post-palatial disruptions, lexical discrepancies between LBA and later usage are only to be expected.63 There is no reason, therefore, not to place Kinyras’ among the more numerous PNs in - that contain nominal stems.64 Ki-nu-ra would thus be man of the kinýra’, e ually intelligible as PN and/or title. This interpretation is well paralleled by other Mycenaean PNs. For the addition of - to a concrete noun, compare for instance E-ke-a Enkhé(h)as, , spear’.65 A still closer parallel 66 is Ma-ke-ra Makéllas, mákella ( mattock’). There are besides other PNs (of various formations) plausibly derived from musical instruments, including a-wo-ro (Aul n) and ru-ro (Lýros).67 PNs from professions are also common, with 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Arkhilokhos 54.11, 93a.5 IEG; Alkman 140 PMGF (κερκολ ρα); Sappho 44.33, 103.9, 208; Alkaios 307c; Stesikhoros 278.2 PMGF; Homer Margites fr. 1.3 IEG; Homeric Hymn to Hermes 422. 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 ( λυρά ω, against the later λυρί ω/λυριστ ς itself but slightly attested: Pliny Letters 9.17.3; Artemidoros Interpretation of Dreams 4.72): see Aravantinos 1996; ounger 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-Br gger 2006:115. 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. Schwart (communication, April 2012). The uestion needs further investigation, but preliminarily several suggestive phenomena, seen by Beekes as betraying the in uence 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 se uence: Can. inn r a Eteocypriot and/or Aegean pre-Greek kin(n)ýra (with loss of second-syllable length) Aegean pre-Greek knýra *nýra Myc./Gk. λύρα. Leukart 1994:210 213. KN 831.1; MgP:46, 174, 209; Leukart 1994:210, with further examples 210 213. The PN O-re-a2 (P Ep 705) ρέ(h)ας, ρος, 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 - as connoting membership in a social group, and the more general constructions involving nominal and ad ectival roots. KN 831: MgP:235, 242; Leukart 1994:210. A-wo-ro: KN B 800.3, cf. Aul n in Pausanias 3.12.9. Ru-ro: P 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) υ(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. du ); but the name could be an ethnic ( υ μ πανέαι, in Triphylia, Peloponnese). For these PNs, see MgP:18, 236; further references in DM s.v. 434 Kinyras at Pylos some born by people working in the associated eld.68 Others re ect cultactivity.69 These patterns all neatly converge in the PN Kinyras’ as kinýra-man’ or kinyrist’.70 There are good ANE parallels for this interpretation. Sum. bala , e uated with innārum at Ebla (ca. 2350), is found both as a PN-element and in the agent word bala .di.71 We saw a PN built on Kin(n)ar - at LBA Alalakh, and HurroSemitic agent-forms at both Alalakh and Hattusha.72 These hybrids, inherently practical, re ect a living music-culture in di usion, and generally support the idea that the Mycenaean world could constitute the western margin of SyroLevantine lyre-culture even if this was only secondarily or super cially through contact with Cyprus and Cypriots.73 Ki-nu-ra as a title in a 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 a series, it is worth recalling the industrial’ contexts in which Mesopotamian lamentation-singing is attested.74 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,75 Kýprios (ku-pi-ri-jo) and Alásios (a-ra-si-jo) are well attested at Pylos and Knossos as PNs or as TN-ad ectives describing the destination or origin of various commodities, with the contexts often relating to typical 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Examples from MgP:204 207 and 235 236 include several aptly named shepherds: Ko-ru-no (P Cn 131.4, 719.9) όρυνος, cf. κορύνη, shepherd’s sta ’; Ke-to-ro (KN C 954.1) έντρος, cf. κέντρον, goad’; also Ke-to (KN Da 1134) έντ ρ. Other PNs from professions are A-ko-ro-ta (Κ Mc 4459, M Go 610 ) γρότης, Hunter’ (or Landowner’); Ta-mi-je-u (P Jn 310.3, a smith) αμιεύς, cf. ταμίας, dispenser’; A-ke-ro (P Jo 438) γγελος, Messenger’ (cf. Plutarch Pyrrhos 2). Further examples: PP 2:95 and n4, 208 210; Barton k 2003:402 403. MgP:212 213: Tu-si-je-u (P An 19.7, warrior) υσιεύς, erer’, θύ , θύσις; A-wa-ta (P An 340) ρ ά τας, Priest’/ Pray-er’, ἀράομαι; Ma-ti-jo (KN 1024.1) άντιος (cf. Homer Odyssey 15.242). Cf. Franklin 2006a:47; Franceschetti 2008a:313 314, 316. Hartmann 1960:124; cf. p65 70. See p98. An instrument on a MM IIB prism-seal, variously interpreted as harp or lyre ( ounger 1998:76 cat. 56, pl. 23.4; Crowley 2013:221, E184a), has a at base and curling arms, which might be taken to show Levantine morphological in uence; 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; ounger 1998:79 80, cat. 67, pl. 25.2a b); but cf. SIAG:219n3. See p24, 30. Gallavotti 1976:56. 435 Chapter Seventeen Cypriot industries.76 One Kyprios at Pylos was a bron e-worker who received an allotment of the metal.77 Another is associated with alum, a versatile mineral of which Cyprus was a source.78 Other instances involve oil and perfumed-oil making, an important industry for both LBA Pylos and Cyprus (recall Alkman’s moist charm of Kinyras ).79 These words, which one way or another indicate signi cant commercial and cultural interactions with Cyprus, are Greek in formation with Cypriot and/or Cyprocentric roots. Kinyras the Shipwright The page-shaped n 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.80 n 865 is a list of twelve PNs after the heading na-u-do-mo.81 Line 7 contains nu-ra, the nal 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,82 and is generally accepted.83 Was this Kinyras the same or a di erent man than the ki-nu-ra of a 1301 Their identi cation nds no associative prosopographical support (that is, no other PN from n 865 reappears elsewhere alongside one from the a series). Evaluation of the alternative criterion contextual overlap between n 865 and the a 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.84 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 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. Jn 320.3. Un 443.1. See p330 332. Pylos’ perfume industry: Shelmerdine 1984; Shelmerdine 1985. PTT 1:257, 2:64; Palaima 1988:177 179, 217; ISMP:143. PTT 1:256. Judging from the indices of Le eune 1964:31 and Olivier et al. 1973:296. 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). Palaima 1991:287 288 with contribution of R. Stieglit . 436 Kinyras at Pylos As to the meaning of naudómos, two views are viable on orthographical and morphological grounds: (temple)-builder’ (cf. na w ) and shipbuilder’ ( naûs).85 The minority favoring temple-builder’ has advanced good arguments and responses, but the ma ority 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 ax to the palace.86 Such concessions were evidently granted to those whose professional activity was important to the state; others en oying this ax exemption include hunters and bron eworkers, where one may think of nets/snares and undershirts for bron e corselets.87 While builders might perhaps employ ax-products (textiles, cords), the large amounts involved fty 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).88 The tablet also contains the nal syllable of a TN that permits restoration as ro-o a, the probable port of Pylos.89 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.90 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 axen rope at this time).91 We may conclude, therefore, that the Kinyras of n 865 is indeed a shipwright.92 There being thus no obvious contextual overlap with the a series, 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Shipbuilders: Palmer 1963:435; DMG:298; PP 2:100; Palaima 1991:287; further references in DM s.v., 1 2. Temple-builders: Petru evski 1955:400; Stella 1958:50 and n119; Stella 1965:97; Billigmeier and Dusing 1981:14 and n14; DM s.v., 3. Montecchi 2011:172 ob ects 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. Na 568: DMG:298 299; PP 2:100; Palaima 1991:287 288 ( uotation). The tablets of the N- series (Na, Ng, Nn: DMG:295 301) are concerned with the ideogram SA, whose identi cation as some form of ax is guaranteed by Nn 228, which contains ri-no (λίνον) in its heading: Webster 1954:15; Robkin 1979:469. Na 248, 252: Webster 1954:15; Palaima 1991:287 288. Webster 1954:15; Palaima 1991:287 288. No emergency: Palaima 1995a. Palaima 1991:287 288; DM s.v. ro-o-wa. KN U 736.2. Palmer 1955:39; Heubeck 1958:121 122; Melena 1975:53 59; Palaima 1991:295 296; Montecchi 2011:172. The parallels are Hesykhios s.v. ἐντροπ σαι ἐνδῆσαι and ἐντροπίδες ποδήματα τροπός (already Homer), τροπ τήρ and τροπό (LSJ s.v.). 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 bron esmith in Jn 389. The e uation of these men is considered tenuous for lack of overlapping context by Nakassis (ISMP:372, accepting naudómoi as shipbuilders). But bron e-working could supply the necessary intersection, since ka-ko na-wijo (χαλκ ς νά ιος) in Jn 829 is better interpreted as temple-bron e’ than ship-bron e’ (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 uestion. · 437 Chapter Seventeen Nakassis considered the basis for interpreting ki-nu-ra in a 1301 and n 865 as merely tenuous. 93 Of course an individual might indeed be involved in two di erent spheres.94 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.95 But the real uestion here has hardly been recogni ed: what is the precise relationship between the Kinyras of myth and the homonymous Pylian(s) C. Baurain re ected the idea of a real’ god Kinnaru as fort excessif. 96 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 a series was rendered insigni cant, he argued, by Kinyras the shipwright ( une mise en garde contre des implications religieuses trop précises ).97 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.98 Conse uently, his priestly dimension would have to be a special Cypriot innovation, speci cally 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 en rist s Apollo. One might try to compromise with Baurain by admitting that a person named (or entitled) kinýra-man’ would nd 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 gure 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 93 94 95 96 97 98 ISMP:139 140, 291. And Nakassis himself seems to identify the two Kinyrases after all at ISMP:140. Astour 1965:139n5 (approved in Hemmerdinger’s review, REG 81 1968 :216); Kapera 1971:139; Baurain 1980b:305 306. Baurain 1980b:305; cf. Gese et al. 1970:169; contrast Kapera 1971:138 139. Baurain 1980b:305 306, Au vu de P n 865, cette possibilité devient cadu ue Il faut donc admettre ue ινύρας était un anthroponyme connu Pylos et ue son attribution ne paraissait pas liée des considérations religieuses. For parallels, see MgP:262 267; DMG:103 105. 438 Kinyras at Pylos form, as I have argued.99 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 a 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 eet, nous ne pouvons nier ue Kinyras est aussi lié une étrange historie de bateaux. 100 But this is a serious understatement, for Kinyras’ naval persona was as well developed as the priestly/mantic/musical (see Chapter 13). So n 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 ac uired secondary, metamusical attributes by the thirteenth century, was lending his name to ordinary mortals (and their children), especially those with appropriate professional interests. This uestion 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 n 865 was shipwright or temple-builder, since the latter was yet another role played by Kinyras.101 Contemplating this possibility raises further onomastic issues. While theophoric PNs are not especially common in the Mycenaean world, we do nd De-wi-jo ( Zeús, gen. Diwós), A-pa-i-ti-jo ( Háphaistos), A-re-i-jo ( ), and 102 several others. These are typically ad ectival constructions, but the uasiagent formation proposed for Kinyras may be compared with Di-wi-je-u ( Dieús, Zeús).103 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 ( eus, Enyalios).104 So a theophoric etymology for Kinyras is paralleled from within Linear B. et 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 See p55 57, 195 196, 272 276. Baurain 1980b:306n150. See p363. P An 519.10, KN L 588.1, P An 656.6. See further MgP:211 212. P An 656.9. De-wi-jo (P An 519.10); Di-wi-je-u (P An 656.9, a hequétas or military follower’); E-no-wa-ro (Py An 654.14) Enýalos, cf. E-nu-wa-ri-jo (KN 52.2), νυάλιος (later an epithet of Ares: Homer Iliad 17.211, etc.). See MgP:211 212. 439 Chapter Seventeen in the Aegean, are not uncommon in Linear B, and clearly attest the multicultural nature of the Mycenaean world.105 These include, besides the pre-Greek Aegean PNs one expects, a fair few paralleled in Hittite sources and by Hurrian PNs from Alalakh.106 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 fteenth centuries.107 One Alashiyan from Alalakh bears the single-stem name A-la-ši-ia, con rming that Mycenaean A-ra-si-jo is a genuine Cyprocentric PN, not ust a Hellenocentric ethnic nickname.108 Hurrian PNs are the most numerous after Semitic in the diverse Alashiyan onomasticon (compiled from, besides the Alalakh texts, Ugaritian, Hittite, and Egyptian sources).109 Nor is it unlikely on general grounds that at least some Cypro-Minoan tablets record a Hurrian dialect.110 The Alashiyan PNs e ually include Anatolian, Egyptian, and other unidenti able (presumably indigenous) specimens. Despite divergent interpretations of speci c PNs and the often loose relationship between a PN’s linguistic a liation and the ethnic identity of its bearer, Alashiya was clearly as multicultural as Ugarit and Alalakh, and of a uite similar mixture.111 The proposed LBA derivation of kinýra/Kinyras from (ultimately) a Canaanite dialect nds circumstantial support in six or seven Canaanite PNs, both single-stemmed and theophoricsentences, in the Alashiya texts. There was also one or more Canaanite-speakers among the scribes who produced those from Amarna,112 while the cuneiform sign-shapes in the new Alashiya texts from Ugarit seem to show Tyrian in uence.113 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Nikoloudis 2008. See MgP:268 273. 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 Amu ), 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. AT 385.2; Astour 1964:242. 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. Masson 1974:47 55; Faucounau 1994; for an agnostic criti ue 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. Cf. Knapp 1983:40. Cochavi-Rainey 2003:2 3, 118 119; PPC:322. Malbran-Labat 1999:121, 123. 440 Kinyras at Pylos We must also cast a glance at Ugarit. Canaanite PNs are found here too, north of the Canaanite dialect one proper.114 Alashiyans resident in Ugarit are also well attested.115 Nor is the use of occupational designations (naturally single-stemmed) uncommon in Ugaritic PNs; especially suggestive are the PNs Singer’ ( ) and Priest’ (khn, kmry).116 Also important are several theophoric PNs incorporating the craftsman god Kothar, one of which is professionally relevant (kšrmlk, Kothar-is-king’, a silversmith).117 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.118 The special signi cance 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 preGreek Cyprus. I nd, therefore, that the Kinyras(es) of Pylos are best explained on the hypothesis that Kinyras already existed as a complex, metamusical gure 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 ust such a development underlies the contemporary Kourion stands, where monarchy, music, metals, and other elite symbols are brought together in coherent, signi cant’ compositions.119 These conclusions about the Mycenaean evidence are not so alarming when it is seen within a larger CyproNear Eastern framework. After all, Kinnaru probably had a substantial prehistory to nd himself in the pantheon of thirteenth-century Ugarit. Despite the deep anti uity these hypotheses entail, the chronological pieces of the pu le actually t together very well. 114 115 116 117 118 119 See p55. 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). Astour 1964:245; Gr ndahl 1967:28 29. Kšrmlk (RS 19.16, 32 PRU 5 no. 11 ) is the Akkadiani ed form of rml , also attested. The other names are ku-šar-a-bi ( Kothar-is-my-father’), abdi-ku-ša-ri and ‘bdk r ( Servant of Kothar’), and bin-ku-ša-ri ( Son of Kothar’). See with references Gr ndahl 1967:79, 84, 152; Kinlaw 1967:299; KwH:62 63 and 131n70 71. See p167n100, 443n2. See p383 392. 441 18 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar T is c a ter confronts t e issue of Kinyras’ extra-musical ualities, which he regularly assumed on Cyprus, and which already seem to inform the Kinyras(es) of Pylos and the Kourion stands, both in the thirteenth century. I re ne and develop the position, taken by J. P. Brown and others, that Kinyras was productively implicated in a syncretic relationship with the WS craftsman god Kothar.1 I argue that on some parts of the mainland, the Divine Knr was sometimes absorbed by Kothar. On Cyprus, however, Kothar was himself absorbed by Kinyras. I reserve for separate discussion in Chapter 19 the traditions allying both Kinyras and Kauthar’ to Byblos. Kothar and Kinnaru We encountered Kothar at Ugarit as a bene ciary of state sacri ce, the armorer of Baal, and maker of A hat’s marvelous bow.2 He also appeared in the R p’iu 1 2 For Kothar generally, Albright 1940:296 297; Gaster 1961:161 163; GC:135 137; Gese et al. 1970:147 148 et passim; ella 1976; KwH; Morris 1992:79 100 et passim; Morris 1998; DDD col. 913 915 (Pardee). Kothar’ will refer both to the god as a wider Syro-Levantine gure and to his speci c manifestation at Ugarit (context should make the di erence clear); for the form, see n12. I reserve Khousor’ (Gk. ουσ ρ) for the complex Phoenician culture-hero presented by Philo of Byblos (see p445 452), probably with special Byblian associations. Kauthar’ will apply to the cognate gure in ps.-Meliton (Chapter 19). Note that the vocali ation of Ug. r as tharu (/ aru/), which entails taking Arabic a ar as cognate (KwH:51 80), is not always accepted; Huehnergard 2008:141 considers it by no means certain, noting that otherwise the Ugarit-Akkadian u ar ru (RS 20.123 Nougayrol 1968:248 (no. 137 I a.19) will e ually permit / aru/ or / aru/. et the latter form is in any case ruled out by Philo’s ουσ ρ ( n12 below), which establishes the long uantity of the rst syllable. And the Greek spelling in a third-century CE tombstone from Hama, Syria (Lassus 1935:33 no. 14), an Aramaean area, de nitely favors the Arabic form’s relevance to the reconstruction (as reali ed already by Albright 1938:593; cf. Brown 1965:199; KwH:77; S. Weninger, communication, May 2012); for the old diphthongal value is clearly indicated by Greek αυ, itself still diphthongal at this time (Allen 1987:79 80). It may still be, however, that at Ugarit u ar ru does re ect something closer to / aru/ than / aru/ (cf. p273 274). 443 Chapter Eighteen text (RS 24.252.2 5), where the eponymous king of eternity’ either sang, or was celebrated, With innāru and pipes, With drum and cymbals, With ivory clappers,3 With the goodly companions of Kothar.4 The parallelistic structure of the overall passage is clearly indicated by the repeated con unction (b, with’).5 Hence, the expression translated here as goodly companions’, whatever its exact meaning, must belong to the musical atmosphere, and so most plausibly designates the ensemble as a whole.6 This may imply some personi cation of the instruments, so that it is actually Kinnaru, in the rst position, who leads the group, ust as Ningirsu’s balang-god presided over his temple-orchestra.7 Consider too that only the instruments are named, not players; and yet players are needed if the instruments are to sound. This ambiguity is ust what we have seen with the divini ed instruments of Mesopotamia. If this interpretation is right, it would be welcome evidence that Kinnaru could indeed feature in (para)mythological contexts something one expects on the basis of the Sumerian and Syro-Hurrian treatment of divini ed cult-ob ects on the one hand, and Kinyras’ numerous appearances in Cypriot and Greek mythology on the other.8 In any case, the innāru and other instruments are apparently somehow subordinated to Kothar. arious cultic nuances may escape us, but one likely explanation is ready to hand: they were created by the divine craftsman. Recall that Kothar also made magical weapons for Baal, endowing them with proper names through a special ritual.9 Nor is this idea incompatible with M. S. Smith’s interpretation as the goodly ones bound/enchanted by Kothar’, detecting connotations of magical binding’ in r (traditionally companions ), 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For this interpretive issue, see p135n140. See p135, with text and comments. Good 1991:156 157; Clemens 1993:73. For those who interpret line three as referring not to another instrument but to cult-dancers (see p135n140), the goodly companions of Kothar will follow suit by parallelism: cf. Clemens 1993:73n57: pair of instruments (x2); personal participant (x2). et even this line of thinking is not incompatible with a musical Kothar, since both instruments and Kothar-dancers’ would obviously comprise an integrated performance. N. Wyatt (DDD col. 912) seems to envisage such a possibility, citing the passage in connection with Psalms 57:8 9 (cf. p164) as evidence of an older usage when minor gods of the pantheon were called upon to glorify their overlord. Cf. p6 7, 25 33, 103, 122 123. See p122. 444 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar since in Mesopotamia de nite ritual procedures governed the construction of cult-ob ects, their investment with divinity, and their dedication to sacred service.10 RS 24.252 is the one Ugaritic text that seems to attest a signi cant connection between Kothar and music.11 et the innāru’s divini ation in that city surely means that Kothar was not the only or primary musical god there, despite the lack of unambiguous evidence for a personi ed treatment of Kinnaru. Philo of Byblos: Khousor and His Retiring Twin When Kothar was discovered in the Ugaritian texts, he was soon recogni ed as the ancestor, and helped clarify the early nature, of the Khousor who is mentioned by two late Phoenician authors surviving only in fragments Mokhos of Sidon and Philo of Byblos.12 For Mokhos, reinterpreting his cosmogonic traditions under the stimulus of Hellenistic philosophy, Khousoros (sic) was the rst opener and the power of mind, since it rst distinguishes indistinct nature. 13 He en oys a very exalted position as son of Oulomos, the God who has been Thought. Oulomos’ is related to Heb. lām ( Everlasting’), an epithet of ahweh, with an Ug. cognate used of El.14 10 11 12 13 14 See p23 25. Support for a musical Kothar has also been sought from the Kotharat, the seven skillful’ goddesses who preside over marriage and conception rituals, arguably as songstresses (Margalit 1972). But this still would not guarantee a musical sense for Kothar himself, as one can suppose independent semantic developments of r. Dahood 1963 argued well for an allusion to Kothar in E ekiel 33:32, so that you are like a singer of love-songs becomes skillful with reed-pipes ( a Kothar on the pipes ); cf. Cooper 1981:386. The Greek’ orthography ( ουσ ρ) re ects normal Phoenician phonetic developments. The long ô of Kothar resulted from the monophthongi ation of P-S aw (see n2), and then underwent further development to û, whence it is represented by Gk. ου (since υ/ , having narrowed to /ü/ or / / by the later fth century, was no longer appropriate: see p196). As to the nal syllable, after the loss of nal short vowels in Phoenician, accented a was lengthened to and then to (by the same process which had produced the Canaanite Shift of in the second millennium, still exerting its in uence: Harris 1936:25 8, 34 35 11; Harris 1939:59 60; SL 21.13, 25.6). The stages of development are thus a aru aru r *Kû/ ār r Gk.’ ουσ ρ (cf. KwH:79 80). Initial k- can be represented by Greek χ from the Hellenistic period. Mokhos of Sidon (Tyre cf. Baumgarten 1981:148n33) FGH 784 F 4, preserved by Damaskios, a Syrian Neo-Platonist of the fth sixth century: ουσ ρ ν ἀνοιγέα πρ τον … τ ν νοητ ν δύναμιν τε πρ την διακρίνασαν τ ν ἀδιάκριτον ύσιν, n First Princi les 125c (1.323 Ruelle); also in Attridge and Oden 1981:102 103. See generally Barr 1974:47 49 (undermining the e uation of Khousor- Opener’ and Ptah advanced by Ho man 1896:253 254 and GC:193 196). λ μ ς νοητ ς θεός. See Cross 1973:18; Attridge and Oden 1981:104n7; Barr 1974:48 49). 445 Chapter Eighteen The account by Philo of Byblos (ca. 100 CE) partially preserved by Eusebios (ca. 260 339), bishop of Caesarea is comparatively conservative, and so more informative about the traditional attributes of Kothar/Khousor.15 Philo collected and combined material from the several Phoenician cities, and it is often not clear, no doubt intentionally, where a given tradition originates.16 The relevant passage is part of a long genealogy of culture heroes who map the perceived course of civili ation, beginning with a mythical foundation of Tyre, but wending its way towards a vaguely Byblian conclusion. It is di cult to know, therefore, whether Philo’s Khousor stems from one or the other city, or is more generally representative of Phoenicia.17 Khousor appears after the invention of huts, skins for clothing, the taming of re, the rst maritime adventure (on a log), and mastery of hunting and shing: And from them sc. Hunter and Fisher were born two brothers, the discoverers of iron and how to work it, of whom the one (th teron), called Khousor, cultivated the verbal arts (l ous) and incantations (e id s) and divination (mante as). And this one is known as Hephaistos, though he also discovered shhook, bait, shing-line, and raft, and was rst of all men to sail. Because of this they revered him even as a god after his death; and he was also called eus Meilikhios. And some say that his brother18 had the idea of walls made from bricks.19 15 16 17 18 19 For the character of Philo’s work and sources, see p123. See Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 1 (21); cf. Lokkegaard 1954:53. But see p472. Note that Philo’s later treatment of Sydyk and Misor and their children appears to double some of his Khousor material: see p510 511. We must follow Clemen 1939:50 (so tacitly Brown 1965:203; Baumgarten 1981:169) in emending to the singular (το ς ἀδελ ούς τ ν ἀδελ όν: see text in next note). The phrase θάτερον τ ν ουσ ρ clearly implies a pair of brothers and that a second will indeed be discussed, as is the case throughout the larger narrative; the traditional plural reading would re uire us to suppose three (or more) brothers, of whom only Khousor is named. The corruption may have arisen from the following accusative plural τοίχους, with the glossing of Khousor as both Hephaistos and eus Meilikhios in the relatively long intervening stretch making a careless scribe lose track of brotherly pairs (A’s reading α τ ν, their brothers, will have followed suit). Just possibly Khousor’s brother was in fact named, but has fallen from the text, through cavalier abstraction by Eusebios or in transmission; but the text reads smoothly. Some would connect Khousor’s anonymous brother with the Craftsman’ ( εχνίτης) who comes soon afterwards (Clapham 1969:108); but this gure has a named brother of his own ( ή νος υτόχθ ν). εχνίτης may however be a doublet of Kothar deriving from Philo’s con ation of regional Phoenician variants (Attridge and Oden 1981:84n70). Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (11) Eusebios Pre aration for the Gos el 1.10.11 12: γρέα κα λιέα … ἐ ν γενέσθαι δύο ἀδελ ο ς σιδήρου ε ρετ ς κα τῆς τούτου ἐργασίας, ν θάτερον τ ν ουσ ρ λόγους ἀσκῆσαι κα ἐπ ιδ ς κα μαντείας ε ναι δ τοῦτον τ ν αιστον, ε ρε ν δ κα γκιστρον κα δέλεαρ κα ρμι ν κα σχεδίαν, πρ τόν τε πάντ ν ἀνθρ π ν πλεῦσαι δι κα ς θε ν α τ ν 446 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar As Ho man rst pointed out in 1896, this dossier overlaps strikingly with what is credited to Kinyras.20 Another vital sympathy, he emphasi ed, is that Kinyras is father of Adonis, a role played by Kauthar in ps.-Meliton (see Chapter 19). Brown was able to expand the comparison on the basis of Kothar’s pro le in the Ugaritian texts.21 Following Ho man and Brown, I assembled further evidence in Chapter 13 for Kinyras’ nonmusical attributes, three broad areas of which, we now see, are closely paralleled by Philo’s Khousor: Kinyras discovered metals and metallurgical tools, promoted seafaring, and invented roofand/or wall-tiles. I may now add several further comparisons. Kothar too the Ugaritian god, that is, versus Philo’s Khousor had a maritime dimension, as a kind of divine steersman or protector of sailors invoked in a poem of the Baal cle;22 and indirectly through his overseas home on Crete in Ugaritian epic, symboli ing maritime palatial trade networks in daedalic luxury items and technologies.23 Kothar was, like Kinyras, a builder, constructing palaces for Baal and other gods Kinyras built Aphrodite’s temple and both worked in precious materials.24 Kinyras and Kothar are both credited with intricate decorative schemes involving animal guration.25 Both are also armorers: Kinyras makes and/or supplies Agamemnon’s breastplate(s), Kothar designs the weapons with which Baal subdues Sea, and delivers A hat his priceless compound bow.26 It is tempting to link Kothar the bowyer with the otherwise uite stray report in the 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 μετ θάνατον ἐσε άσθησαν καλε σθαι δ α τ ν κα ία ειλίχιον ο δ τ ν ἀδελ ν Clemen, see n18: το ς ἀδελ ο ς MSS α τοῦ A: α τ ν τοίχους ασ ν ἐπινοῆσαι ἐκ πλίνθ ν. Ho man 1896:256 258. Brown 1965. But his unawareness of Kinnaru led him to endorse the comparison of Kinyras with el u ni ir a (El, Creator of the Earth), now obsolete (cf. p5n27), and to re ect the etymology of Kinyras κινύρα (cf. p4, 189). RS 2. 009 5.155 KTU/CAT 1.6 vi.51 53. Kothar’s con unction with the sea is clear in this text, although the exact interpretation is debated: see RTU:145 and n126 with further references. Kothar’s homes in Crete (Caphtor) and Egypt: RS 3.361 (KTU/CAT 1.1 iii.1, 18 19); RS 3.346 (1.2 iii.2 3); RS 2. 014 (1.3 vi.14 16). For further evidence connecting Kothar and the sea, KwH:105 118; cf. Brown 1965:204; DDUPP:109. Kothar as a totali ing gure of second-millennium trade with the Aegean and Egypt: Morris 1992:93 et passim; Morris 1998; note especially the startling discovery of Minoan frescoes at Avaris and elsewhere: Bietak 2005, etc. The interpretation of Kothar as sherman of Athirat/Asherah’ (see Baumgarten 1981:167, 200), and so a close connection with the Lady of the Sea’ (DDUPP:72; OSG:14 with references in n25), has been abandoned: see Smith and Pitard 2009:377. Kothar as palace-builder: RS 3.361 (KTU/CAT 1.1 iii.27 28); RS 3.346 (1.2 iii.7 11); RS 2. 008 (1.4 v.41 vi.38). See generally Gaster 1961:161n I ; Gordon 1966:22 23, 48 49, 58 60, 63 64 (somewhat out-of-date); Gese et al. 1970:148; Baumgarten 1981:169 170; KwH:218 250, 310 350; Morris 1992:83 84. Kinyras and Agamemnon’s breastplate: Homer Iliad 11.24 28; see p1, 322 323. Kothar’s gift for Athirat: RS 2. 008 (KTU/CAT 1.4 i.23 43). Baal’s weapons: RS 3.367 (KTU/CAT 1.2 iv.11 15); A hat’s bow: RS 2. 004 (KTU/CAT 1.17 v.10 28, vi.20 25). 447 Chapter Eighteen Pindaric scholia that Apollo loved Kinyras for being an archer.27 Finally, we have seen that in early Greek poetics, Kinyras was proverbially wealthy and often connected with h ris a display of generosity that results in beholden friendship. This too may echo Kothar, since the root r, the basic idea of which was build/work’, led secondarily in Semitic languages to associations with success, prosperity, and abundance.28 Note that Philo glosses Khousor as eus Meilikhios (the mild’ or gracious’).29 The sympathies of Khousor and Kinyras, already undeniable, become uite remarkable when one considers Philo’s attribution of lógoi, e ida , and mante ai to Khousor. Although these powers can be paralleled to some extent for Kothar in the Ugaritian texts,30 they accord much better with what one expects of a Divine Lyre, both on the basis of Mesopotamian and Hurro-Hittite parallels for divini ed instruments, and the performance contexts known for the innāru itself. Khousor’s appearance early in the development of civili ation, culminating in the invention of writing by Taautos ( Thoth), encourages us to understand lógoi in pre-literate, performative terms as the artistic use of language’. After all, even in the literate cities of the LBA Levant, traditions of poetry and liturgical music must have remained basically oral, notwithstanding the Hurrian hymns with musical notation’.31 Lógoi comfortably embraces the full verbal range needed in cult and court: ritual prescriptions, praise-hymns, laments, epic poetry or other narrative song.32 Such powers go well beyond the known realm of Kothar.33 A similar point may be made about e ida , incantations’. True, Kothar recites spells while making Baal’s weapons, a procedure be tting metallurgy as a kind of magic.34 The Mesopotamian Ea/Enki, whom the scribes and theologians of Ugarit e uated with Kothar, has been invoked as a parallel here, since he 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Pindar P thian 2.30g (Abel 1891): see p226. See especially KwH:51 80, convincingly upholding the relevance of Arabic cognates, including a ar abundant goodness’; so too SL 29.9. For Kothar as eus Meilikhios, see Baumgarten 1981:168 169; contrast KwH:113 114. For scenes in which Kothar appears to be prophetic, see Smith 1994:336. For incantations, see below. See p97. The Greek does not support the idea that λόγους ἀσκῆσαι here is de ned by κα ἐπ δ ς κα μαντείας (KwH:443: the verbal arts’ of Khousor do not include music, but spells and prophecies’ ). όγοι are a separate category various forms of poetry that (as typically in the ancient world) will have had a musical aspect. KwH:442 445 rightly emphasi ed the tenuous basis for supposing a musical Kothar; cf. Brown 1965:206; Good 1991:157 ( it remains pu ling that the Ugaritic texts do not place Kothar in a musical context apart from RS 24.252 ). See p394n127. Cf. Obermann 1947:208; Gaster 1961:161 163; KwH:119. 448 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar was credited with divination, magic, and an array of other cultural inventions, including music.35 et it is not clear how far Ea’s musicality per se is paralleled by Ugaritian Kothar (versus Philo’s Khousor), whose association with musical instruments in RS 24.252, I have suggested, is due mainly to his magical craftsmanship.36 And the Greek word e ida has considerably wider connotations than what is attested for Kothar.37 The word’s root, aoid , means song’, with e i ( upon’) distinguishing simple song from the e cacious singing of ritual acts.38 Herodotos, for example, uses the word of the Magi’s theogonic singing during Persian sacri ces; according to the mysterious er eni Pa rus, the Magi’s incantation has the power to banish interfering spirits. 39 Plato refers to itinerant diviners (m nteis) who claimed to compel the gods through sacri ces and e ida . 40 Other applications of e id included healing and puri cation.41 Highly relevant for the uestion of Kinyras/Khousor are authors who treat ritual lamentation as a type of e id , notably in the context of Adonis-cult.42 Divinatory arts (mante ai) would also be most appropriate for a Divine Lyre, recalling Kinyras’ guise of priest and prophet, still cultivated by the Paphian Kinyradai in the Roman period.43 And Philo’s plural invites further parallels the 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Kothar as Ea: RS 20.024, 15; RS 20.123 , I a.19, etc.: Nougayrol 1968:44 45 (no. 18), cf. 51; 240 249 (no. 137). Cf. Clapham 1969:107; Gese et al. 1970:98 99, 147; Lichtenstein 1972:104n57, 110; Baumgarten 1981:166; SURS:861 and n1116 with further references. Ea is invoked in various incantations from Ugarit, but is not uni ue in this: SURS:1020 1021. See p444 445. Ca uot 1976:300 rightly understood ἐπ δαί broadly chants (ou des incantations) but anachronistically retro ects this to Kothar himself. The Getty hexameters’ contain much relevant language: text in Faraone and Obbink 2013, 10 11 (note especially lines 1, 6, 23 24). Herodotos 1.132.3 (μάγος ἀν ρ παρεστε ς ἐπαείδει θεογονίην, ο ην δ ἐκε νοι λέγουσι ε ναι τ ν ἐπαοιδήν); er eni Pa rus col. 6.1 11 (ἐπ ιδ δ μάγ ν δύν α ται δαίμονας ἐμπο δ ν γι νομένο υς μεθιστάναι, 2 3, ed. Kouremenos et al. 2006). I assume that the papyrus speaks of Persian Magi speci cally (for the issue, Lightfoot 2004:103; Kouremenos et al. 2006:166 168 with references), although apotropaic and cathartic incantations were of course more widely spread in the ANE. Plato Re u lic 364b; cf. m osium 202e. Plato exploits the overlap between singing and incantation in the Laws, when his Athenian, after a discussion of the positive psychagogic e ects of a proper musical education for children, reali es that what we call songs ( δάς) now appear in fact to have been incantations (ἐπ δαί) for the soul (Plato Laws 659d e, following Bury’s text in the Loeb edition). Sources in AGM:32 (beginning with Homer). Sophokles Ajax 582: θρηνε ν ἐπ δάς; Bion ament for Adonis 91, 94 95: α άριτες κλαίοντι τ ν υ έα τ ινύραο … χα ο ραι τ ν δ νιν ἀνακλείοισιν, δ νιν, / καί νιν ἐπαείδουσιν ( The Graces beweep the son of Kinyras the Moirai too invoke Adonis, Adonis’, / and sing incantations over him ). Tacitus istories 2.3 4; Clement of Alexandria iscellanies 1.21. See Chapter 16. Cf. Ho man 1896:256; Brown 1965:204. Extispicy in the hands of a Divine Lyre may con ure a rather grotes ue image. But recall that the slaughtering of a bull for making the divini ed lilissu-drum was governed by a highly elaborate series of ritual actions and incantations (see p23 26). Hermes’ 449 Chapter Eighteen coercive communication with Ningirsu through the divini ed balang in the Gudea Cylinders; the ecstatic song-acts of inn r-prophets in the Old Testament; or the hexametric oracles of the Delphic priests.44 Thus, the overlap between Khousor’s powers and what is attested for Kothar at Ugarit is only very partial. et all three abilities would suit a Divine Lyre very well. Philo’s musicali ed Khousor indicates that in one or more traditions Kothar took over the territory of a more musical unior brother’, whose very name he eclipsed. A reciprocal tendency may be glimpsed in Philo’s assignment of ironworking not only to Khousor but to his anonymous sibling. The latter is further associated with the techni ue of wall-building from bricks the closest parallels being Pliny’s attribution of te ulae to Kinyras, and of bricks, clay vessels, bron e, and gold to Cinaras’ by tienne de Lusignan.45 While some would explain Philo’s pair of builder-brothers through Kothar’s dual name at Ugarit (Kothar-wa-Hasis, Clever and Wise’46), Khousor’s mantic/musical skills and the Kothar-like ualities of Kinyras show that the situation is more complex.47 The Ugaritic texts reveal that divine couplings were a rather exible phenomenon in the thirteenth century; of the thirty-three pairs enumerated by J. C. de Moor, seventeen featured gods who appeared elsewhere in di erent combinations.48 Some were clearly ad hoc uxtapositions. He concluded that: combinations of the type X w Y meant nothing more at rst than bringing two deities who were thought to be somehow related closely together. At this stage they kept their individuality. Later such assimilations’ came to be regarded as the double-barreled name of one divine being ; this is seen sometimes already at Ugarit, where for instance Kothar-wa-Hasis can be referred to in the singular. Also relevant is that a divine pair was sometimes called collectively by its rst member; for instance Anatu and A tartu ( nt trt), who are often paired,49 are 44 45 46 47 48 49 invention of his divine-voiced (see p6n32, 411n68) lyre involved eviscerating a turtle, aying a cow, and disemboweling a sheep: omeric mn to ermes 39 51 (handwashing is not mentioned). See p26 33, 161 165. Pliny atural istor 7.56.195; horo ra a p. 13a, 14a, 87 ( 28, 37, 590); escri tion pp. 27a, 30a, 224a. See p325. So Clapham 1969:108; KwH:83 84, 170. I retain for convenience the conventional vocali ation of ss; but note the further considerations in van Selms 1979:741; KwH:85 90. It may well be, however, that Kothar’s dual name invited con ation with another god, betterde ned than Hasis’, as a means of better di erentiating the two brothers’. And doubtless a Divine Knr would be considered wise’. For the following points, see de Moor 1970:227 228. Smith 2015:49 5, 57, 64 65. 450 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar once the Two Anatu-goddesses’.50 One may compare the Dioskouroi, who were sometimes ust the Castors’.51 These patterns suggest various routes by which Kothar and a Kinnarugure may have coalesced. While Kothar and Kinnaru were evidently distinct at Ugarit, this need not have been universally true in the Levant, about the speci cs of whose cults and mythology we remain largely ignorant, especially for the second millennium. If Kothar were himself represented as a nr-player somewhere, he could have assumed a byname akin to Kinyras (the lyre-player’), and taken on such musical powers as one sees with Philo’s Khousor. Or Kothar and a musical brother could have been known eventually as simply the Kothars’. It is certainly understandable that the great craftsman-inventor might absorb such a sidekick like a parasitic twin. Even at Ugarit, the R p’iu text suggests a familiar’ relationship between Kothar and innāru/Kinnaru, the former apparently en oying the more prominent position. The wide-ranging and abundantly attested52 Kothar may have been a sort of immediate superior’ to Kinnaru at Ugarit and elsewhere. His e uation with Ea may also have been a factor, since at Ugarit at least local gods who were identi ed with international counterparts (Sumero-Babylonian, Hurrian) achieved greater prominence in the state cult.53 Kinnaru, by contrast, stood out for lacking a heteronymous counterpart in the Akkadian versions of the pantheon texts.54 Recall that Enki/Ea created the lamentation-priest (gala) to calm the anguished Inanna.55 An Ea-Creator’ string is also attested in the Akkadian version of the Mesopotamian tonal system, which somehow underlies the Hurrian hymns from Ugarit.56 Here, potentially, is an important link between Kothar-as-Ea and Kinnaru-as-lyre-tradition.57 Despite the sporadic illumination provided by the Ugaritian texts, there is no particular reason to suppose that Philo’s musicali ed Khousor is a direct diachronic development of Ugarit’s Kothar. We know enough about rstmillennium Phoenician cults to be sure that there was considerable diversity from city to city in the LBA too.58 I have already argued, on the basis of the Kinyras(es) of Pylos and the thirteenth-century Cypriot stands, that a metamusical Kinyras 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 De Moor 1970:228 and n75. For the Castors’, Pliny atural istor 10.121 (noted by Brown 1965:206). KwH:51 collected forty- ve instances. SURS:1105 1112. But see p121 122. See p29. See p59, 97. One may note here the application of carpentry metaphors for the tuning process in both Akkadian ( itnu) and Greek (harmon a, the phonology of which reveals its Mycenaean pedigree): Franklin 2002b:2, 9, 15; Franklin 2002a:677 (with n26 for Akkadian itnu); elaborated in Franklin 2006a:55n42. DDUPP passim. 451 Chapter Eighteen had emerged by this time on the island. Whether this development was original to Cyprus, or had earlier roots in a mainland city other than Ugarit for instance Byblos will be considered in Chapter 19. Étienne de Lusignan: Cinaras and His Retiring Twin While Khousor’s absorption of a musical brother is understandable, the reverse, as one has with Kinyras, is more surprising. And it is uite remarkable how the two processes mirror each from island to mainland. It is of a piece with this that, while Kinyras’ persisted as a Grecophone PN,59 the element nr is not certainly attested in Canaanite or Phoenician/Punic PNs, nor at Ugarit60 although we did see a fteenth-century example from nearby Alalakh.61 Kothar/Khousor exhibits the opposite distribution. Absent from inscriptions and texts not stemming from Syria and the Levant, Khousor’s longevity and popular appeal is clear from Amorite and Ugaritian PNs going back to the MBA and LBA, respectively,62 and Neo-Punic and Aramaean PNs enduring to the third century CE.63 The early names especially suggest that Kothar was regarded as a kind of king and/or patron of kings.64 Here is another parallel with Kinyras. A still more remarkable inversion is found in tienne de Lusignan who, we saw, echoes the metallurgical inventions that Pliny assigned to Kinyras, yet adds a number of independent, Kothares ue details, including bricks, bowls, and other shaped vessels.65 Recall that Philo attributes bricks to Khousor’s unnamed 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 See p334 335. See Pardee 1988a:139n87 for gods in the Ugaritian pantheon texts who are absent from PNs. In the Punic sphere, a KNRSN, son of B L LK may be attested as a member of a mar ea , dedicating a temple at Maktar, Tunisia ( rst century CE): KAI 145.40, with the reading going back to Févrer 1956 (who considered it douteux 30 , but compared liby ue KNRSN in Chabot 1940 1941 no. 232). A KNRD T appears in KAI 139.1 (gravestone inscription, Chemtou, Tunisia, n.d.); the certainty of this reading is a rmed by Chabot 1918:296 301, but the name, vocali ed as Kanrad t, is taken as Libyan/Numidian. For Alalakh, see p98. Amorite royal name r in the Execration Texts of MK Egypt (ca. 1900): Sethe 1926:46 47; Albright 1940:297 and n47; Goet e 1958:28; GC:136n65. Amorite PNs at Mari: Gelb 1980:131; KwH:58. Ugaritian names: Gr ndahl 1967:152; KwH:62 63. Phoenician/Punic: Ho man 1896:254 255; Ben 1972:131, 336; Brown 1965:201; KwH:74, 77; DDD col. 914 (Pardee); Krahmalkov 2000:244; DDUPP:109 111. For αυθαρ’ at Hama, Syria, see p443n2. Besides the Amorite king r of the Execration Texts (see n62), there is the Ugaritian theophoric PN rml , Kothar-is-King’ (see p167n100 above); and King Kushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim (Judges 3:8, 10), rendered as Khousarsathom or Khousarsathaim in L , and Khousarsathos in Josephus Anti uities of the e s 5.180.3, 183.2 (Ho man 1896:256 258; but see Pardee, DDD col. 914 915). See p325. 452 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar brother. But the most startling detail in Lusignan’s whole ancient Cypriot history is his assertion that The god Pa o Paphos had two sons, Cinaras and another; the latter was not numbered among the gods.66 Once again, no extant Classical source mentions a brother for Kinyras.67 Fraternal pairs, we have seen, were a traditional mythological construction in the region; but they are not otherwise prominent in Lusignan’s account. The historian will hardly have invented an anonymous non-entity who plays no role in the ancient Cypriot dynastic se uence in which his Cinaras’ looms large, and is otherwise so arti cially contrived.68 We are very fortunate indeed that Lusignan bothered to include this point, which must be a vestige of something signi cant. That he himself felt this way is shown by the later escri tion, which, though containing rather less ancient material, still troubles to mention Pa o/Paphos and his two sons before again discussing only Cinaras.69 Unless one supposes that Lusignan’s source for this retiring twin’ was some ancient source now lost, he must have drawn on the island’s conservative oral traditions. In either case, I conclude that he attests a Cypriot version of the same process that informs Philo the fusion of Kinyras and Kothar, with a record kept in the family’ through an anonymous twin. The historical and cultural circumstances behind this melding of Kinyras and Kothar have remained elusive.70 Clearly the phenomena are geographically conditioned, with complementary outcomes on Cyprus and the mainland. et the two were never fully sundered. This insularity and connectivity of Cyprus will be especially important for understanding the interchangeability of Kinyras and Khousor/Kauthar at Byblos as late as the third century CE.71 The Craftsman-Musician Twins Mytheme The melding of Kothar and Kinnaru appears to be a special instance of a more general Syro-Levantine pattern. Philo’s long se uence of brotherly pair’ culture-heroes probably perpetuates an early Canaanite mythological device, 66 67 68 69 70 71 horo ra a p. 20 ( 68): uesto Dio Pa o regnando, hebbe dui gliouli, Cinara, un’ altro; il uale non numerato fra li Dei. Our Lusignan passage answers Baurain 1980a:9, who critici ed Brown 1965 for failing to produce a sibling for Kinyras to parallel Khousor and his brother. See Appendix G. escri tion p. 38: Cestuy sc. Paphe eut deux enfans (sic). Cf. Parker 1970:244n9: Exactly when and where Kinnar/Kinyras sic took over other attributes of Kothar must remain a matter for speculation. The phrase uoted is that of Knapp, PPC. 453 Chapter Eighteen also seen in Cain and Abel, and perhaps the Ugaritic divine pairings.72 The most conspicuous musical example is in Genesis, where Lamech’s son Jubal was the mythological ancestor of lyre- and pipe-players, while his half-brother TubalCain was instructor of every arti cer in brass and iron. 73 Here too, as with Kinyras/Khousor, is a surprising con unction of music and metalworking, once more in a fraternal relationship. Its pro ection into the deep past nds startling circumstantial support at Beni-Hassan (Figure 3 4.1 , ca. 1900).74 Popular etymology may also have played a role.75 Lamech and his children were particularly mutable in the NE reception of Biblical stories. Because the family was responsible for much early culture, they were often ad usted to t local traditions, and we nd many changes to their discoveries, especially the musical.76 I have already discussed the remarkable variant in which Lamech invents lamentation and the lute at a stroke.77 The treatment of Jubal and Tubal-Cain shows that the brothers’ names and roles were highly unstable, yielding phenomena very similar to the melding of Kinyras and Kothar. Theodore Bar Koni, for example, the eighth-century Nestorian exegete from Kashkar in southern Mesopotamia, introduces Cainan and Tubal-Cain as a pair of metallurgists: Some say that Cainan and Tubal-Cain, who were of the family of Cain, were the rst who invented the three tools of the art of working in iron the anvil, hammer, and tongs It is said that Jubal was the father of all who play lyre and pipes, because the Cainites had bands 72 73 74 75 76 77 Brown 1965:206; Baumgarten 1981:141. Ugarit: de Moor 1970:227 228; KwH:81 84; del Olmo Lete 1999:82. Lokkegaard 1954:60 61 proposed that Philo represents a trend for dividing or speciali ing the gods according to the splitting up of society in new trades and guilds following the demands of advancing culture and more re ned art. But his numerous pairs are probably due more to combining regional variants into a master scheme. Genesis 4:22. See p43 46. See p44 45. For possible associations between qayin ( smith’), nā ( composition, dirge’), and inn r, see p44n5. D’Angour 2011:64 84 now proposes connecting the Greek myth of Kaineus with qyn ( forge’), interpreting him as Spear-Man’ and parallel to Kinyras as embodying a Levantine cultural practice. For Syriac, Persian, and Arabic sources, see Budge 1886:29 and n5 (see below); Farmer 1929:6 7; Robson and Farmer 1938:9 and n4; MgB 3/2:24; SOM 1:10 11, 153; also Jacobson 1996:303 is is Tubal-Cain in Philo Judaeus. In the Armenian commentary on Genesis attributed to St. Ephraim, Jubal is connected exclusively with the lyre tradition; pipes are traced rather to the wife of Tubal; Horace’s am u aiae and their relations ( atires 1.2.1: see Appendix C) make this more interesting than an inner Armenian corruption or misunderstanding of the Syriac (Mathews 1998:55 and n111). Similarly, Michael the Syrian (twelfth century), crediting Jubal with both inn r and ith ra, eliminates pipes ( hronicle 1.6: Chabot 1899 1924 1:10). See p312. 454 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar who played the pipes to make evil spirits ee so that they would not a ect people.78 Here the metalworking Tubal-Cain has been bifurcated and endowed with a twin. Bar Koni then reverts to the Biblical account by uoting the original’ verse about Jubal; but note that Jubal is not called the brother of Tubal-Cain, who after all already has Cainan. Since this second metalworking sibling is apparently a local innovation, it is perfectly possible in principle that the family’s musical contributions were e ually reworked, and yet are masked here by the Biblical uotation. This speculation is well usti ed by a parallel passage in the oo of the ee a sort of theological rumination on various historical’ topics drawn from Biblical legend by Solomon of Akhlat, bishop of Basra (Ira ) in the early thirteenth century. While the rst part of his account is taken over verbatim from Bar Koni (hence the ellipsis below), the metalworking twins go on to share credit for musical inventions, hile u al has no disa eared: Cainan Tubal and Tubal-Cain constructed all kinds of musical instruments, harps, and pipes. Some say that spirits used to go into the reeds and disturb them, and that the sound from them was like the sound of singing and pipes.79 There is a telling error’ here. The oo of the ee rst follows Bar Koni in naming the brothers Cainan and Tubal-Cain. But in its musical se uel uoted above which contains several deviations from Bar Koni, including the relocation of evil spirits from the patients into the pipes themselves the brothers reappear as Tubal and Tubal-Cain. There is no way to decide the correct’ reading. One might suggest that Tubal’ is a mistake for Jubal’, but this would still leave Tubal-Cain partaking in both metals and music; and given the novel pairing of Cainan and Tubal-Cain, an error of Tubal for Jubal would itself be symptomatic of the mutability of the brothers’ names and relationships. These texts present striking parallels with Philo’s Khousor and Lusignan’s Cinaras, and strongly suggest that the reception of Tubal and Jubal was shaped by a wider mythological pattern the craftsman-musician mytheme with pagan mythology leaving its imprint as in a palimpsest. 78 79 Theodore Bar Koni i er scholiorum, imrā 2.97: the rst part of my translation comes from Budge 1886, since the passage was taken over verbatim into the oo of the ee 19; the second part is after Hespel and Draguet 1981 1982 1:116. oo of the ee 18: translation from Budge 1886; cf. Budge 1927:79 80. 455 Chapter Eighteen Confounded Lyres? The last issue bearing upon Kinyras and Kothar is potentially the most crucial, since it concerns a comparable crossover in lyre terminology and morphology, apparently at the Greek and Syro-Levantine linguistic and cultural interface. In 1938, soon after Kothar was resurrected at Ugarit, H. L. Ginsberg proposed connecting tharis and ith ra common Greek words for lyre-playing and lyre, respectively, and of no certain etymology with the Sem. r from which 80 Kothar also came. The words’ triconsonantal shape would certainly accord with a Semitic origin. But a direct derivation is made unlikely by the lack of any certain lyre-name from this root in Semitic languages, where nr was so productive and persistent.81 An indirect etymology via some special semantic development, however, has seemed possible to some. J. P. Brown, while exploring the sympathies between Kinyras and Kothar, noted that Ginsberg’s suggestion would lead to the neat hypothesis (which unhappily goes beyond the evidence) that the inn r sic was Kothar’s instrument, and that both words went into Greek as in ras itharis, but with reversed meaning.82 It must be stressed that Brown was not proposing to derive ith ra from nr, as has sometimes been thought.83 Such a suggestion, once made by K. von Jan, was already re ected by H. Lewy in 1895, and has thus mostly remained out of play (but see below).84 Brown’s proposal was rather a chiasmus whereby under mutual 80 81 82 83 84 ίθαρις r: Ginsberg 1938:13; Nougayrol 1968:51. The potential parallel of Kinyras/ in ra and Kauthar’/ ith ra was rst noted, so far as I have found, by Lenormant 1871 1872:255n1 in connection with the dual tradition at Aphaka (for which see Chapter 19). The proposal of Good 1991:156 157 to see such an instrument in RS 24.252, 5 (KTU/CAT 1.108), rather than the god Kothar, was refuted by Clemens 1993:73 74 (cf. p135n141). There remains the issar, applied to some traditional lyres of East Africa (Plumley 1976). But this word probably derives from Greek κιθάρα under Hellenistic-Egyptian in uence (versus rar enar: see p58n65). Lyres per se, however, are probably older in the region: cf. Athenaios 633f on the harplike instrument played among the Troglodytes’ (reported by the Hellenistic explorer Pythagoras: AGM:76n126). The e ena, a last surviving giant lyre’, is attributed to the Israelite tradition and associated with David (p58n65, 167). See further Kebede 1977:380; MGG 5:1042 1043 (G. Kubik); K. Wachsmann and U. Wegner in GMO s.v. Lyres, 3 Modern Africa, with bibliography. Brown 1965:207. So apparently Morris 1992:79 80n26. And beware Braun’s confusing statement in MAIP:146 (punctuation and capitali ation preserved): The root of the word itself, nr, appears fre uently sic! in divine names such as in ras, innaraas sic! , uthar . The same hodgepodge appears in MGG 1:1516. Jan 1882:5, 35n142; Lewy 1895:164 (whence Ros l 2013:181). The idea is perpetuated by Hoch 1994:324 and in n45; but his further argument, that the modi cation of innāru to κίθαρις (sic) must have preceded the Canaanite Shift (whence no κίθορις or κίθ ρις), does not follow in any case since the hypothetical borrowing could have been at an oint from an unshifted’ dialect in North Syria. See further below. 456 The Melding of Kinyras and Kothar semantic in uence, each root, nr and r would have produced both a god- and instrument-name, but with opposite outcomes in Greek’ and Levantine areas: Lyre God/Hero Greek’ ith ra Kinyras Levantine in ra/ inn r Kothar Remember that for Brown, without knowledge of the Divine Kinnaru, Kinyras was but a hero of Greek mythology. et the phenomenon of divini ed instruments a god invested in a cult-ob ect might o er a way through the ma e.85 With this, the lines of symmetry are rearranged: Root Lyre God nr innāru naris in ra Kinnaru/Kinyras r ith ra tharis Kothar When one considers that Kothar and Kinyras were variously confounded in Phoenicia and Cyprus; that Syro-Levantine and Cypro-Aegean lyre-types coexisted on Cyprus probably from the time of Aegean immigration in the twelfth century, and certainly by the ninth (Chapter 11); and that it is precisely on Cyprus, the eastern rim of the early Greek linguistic continuum, that Kinyras most conspicuously survived in an expanded form that incorporated Kotharlike powers under these very particular circumstances, it would be remarkable indeed if the mirror-image lyre-terminology were accidental. Nevertheless, accident it may be. A development of Sem. nn or n to Gk. th is not inconceivable perhaps via some Anatolian channel (given a certain lability between dentals and li uids in Hittite, Lydian, and Carian).86 This problem needs further investigation.87 Preliminarily, one may note that an interchange of n and th in a Cypro-Anatolian context is seen with the city of Gergitha in the Troad; according to tradition, this was once called Gergina and was founded by one of the Gerginoi a kind of secret police in Cypriot Salamis descended from 85 86 87 This can also answer the reservation of KwH:77: Ginsberg’s proposal is plausible, but it assumes a thematic transmission from the PN to the name of an instrument. This transmission cannot be veri ed. And the melding of Kothar and a Divine Knr would accommodate his later remark at 145n137: Against Ginsberg’s proposal, there is no indication from Ugaritic as to why a word for lyre’ should develop from the PN Kothar and not a di erent musical instrument (why not a tool ). Heubeck 1959:24 27; Heubeck 1961:19 21. I have found no exact parallels in Melchert 1994, although the simpli cation of geminates in Lydian (e.g. /nn/ /n/: p340, cf. 372 9) would be relevant. 457 Chapter Eighteen prisoners brought by Teukros, who in a later generation returned to the Troad.88 Any underlying historical reality is obviously obscure.89 But on circumstantial evidence, western Anatolia is a plausible environment for the entry of tharis, ith ra, and en ithar ein into Aeolic/Ionic epic diction, where they exist marginally alongside h rmin and its relations.90 And the early Greco-Lesbian tradition maintained that the ith ra was formerly called Asiatic’ because of its association with Lydia that is As a, Hitt. A u a.91 Given the unshifted’ forms naris and inar esthai,92 one might posit a development via some North Syrian channel, with or without Cyprus as an intermediary. Recall that some of the earlier Cypro-Phoenician’ symposium bowls with lyre-ensembles are actually of North Syrian workmanship, and that these workshops were active and even dominant in the ninth/eighth-century Aegean markets.93 88 89 90 91 92 93 Athenaios 256b c. HC:86n2. Note the Tro an context of Homer Iliad 3.54. Franklin 2010:20 22; Franklin 2012:745 746. See p198 199. See p262. 458 19 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos Kinyras, Kinnaru, and the Canaanite Shift O it e lainin Kinyras’ arrival to Cyprus simply through the island’s proximity to the mainland, and a general emulation of its neighbors’ institutions. But in this and the following chapters, I shall attempt to trace more speci c geographical connections. One will naturally think rst of Kinnaru and Ugarit. This is certainly well usti ed by the city’s known political relationship with Alashiya, and the indications of their theological common ground (Chapters 1, 15). And while Ugarit itself was destroyed ca. 1200, leaving not even its name, a more general association of Kinyras with coastal North Syria and Cilicia is indeed well supported by several traditions (Chapter 21). But there is a complication. The forms kinýra and Kinyras must derive from originals in the Canaanite dialect one. This terminated well south of Ugarit, with its northern limit approximately Byblos.1 And that very city, as it happens, is connected with Kinyras by several Greco-Roman authors. This chapter will consider the complex uestion of how directly these sources re ect real cultural traditions at Byblos. Are they representations of Byblian legends in Greek or Greco-Cypriot terms, no deeper than Hellenistic settlement in the Levant Or do they stem from some older history shared between island and mainland, in which some form of Kinyras’ was more intimately involved We have seen that the coordination of comparable regional divinities has a long history in the ANE (Chapters 6, 15). Greek-Cypriots lived such patterns long before Herodotos o ered his e uations of Olympian and barbarian’ gods. And for communities of the Hellenistic and Roman East, divine uxtapositions were not ust intellectual exercises, but a familiar dimension of popular religious life. 1 ne could e content See p55 56, 195 196, 272 274. 459 Chapter Nineteen Of course, the ministers of various cults will have had a special, professional interest therein, leaving plenty of room for arti ce.2 Symptomatic of this later period are hybrid myth-clusters, two of which, found in Syriac sources, contain further important evidence for the complex interaction of Kothar and Kinyras. In Chapter 18, I discussed their melding in rather general geographical terms, and suggested that it need not have developed uniformly throughout the region. We now come to consider how the phenomenon may have unfolded at Byblos, which one Syrian author envisioned as the realm of king Kauthar’, who came to control Cyprus itself.3 This same Kauthar is represented by Lucian and other classical authors as Kinyras. The situation is further complicated by Theias a doppelganger of Kinyras known only as father of Myrrha/Smyrna when the terrible tale is set at Byblos.4 Before beginning, it must be stressed that a Cypro-Byblian Kinyras would not prevent a separate Divine Lyre from having been known on LBA Cyprus in a dialectal and conceptual form closer to Kinnaru of Ugarit. We may be dealing with parallel phenomena connecting di erent Cypriot and mainland cities/ regions let us say hypothetically Ugarit (and/or Ki uwatna) and Enkomi/ Salamis, versus Byblos and Paphos. Alternatively, a more or less monolithic pan-Cypriot, Alashiyan Kinyras’ may nevertheless have been referred to with some dialectal variety as would be t the LBA island’s cosmopolitan population.5 Later Greco-Roman sources show that the Canaanite/Phoenicianderived Kinyras’ generally prevailed in the IA. For Cyprus this would be readily explained by dialectal pressure during the Phoenician colonial period. But since 2 3 4 5 Exemplary studies include Teixidor 1977; Millar 1993 (cases in Part II); Dirven 1999 (Palmyra/ Dura Europos); OSG (Hierapolis and parallels); papers in Kai er 2008; Ali uot 2009 (the Lebanon). I follow Albright 1940:296 in the English spelling Kauthar’. Ps.-Meliton’s text (see below) presents kwtr, where w is a mater lectionis which normally re ects either or . Without the bene t of the comparative evidence, especially Arabic a ar (see p443n2), Cureton rendered the name Cuthar ; E. Renan opted for Cyther (in Pitra 1854: LII, cf. Cureton 1855:iin1). While the diphthong aw was typically monophthongi ed in the Aramaic dialects, it could be preserved in Syriac when not resulting in a doubly closed syllable (in which case it was reduced to û or ô, respectively, in western and eastern Aramaic): Brockelmann 1899:28 60; ICGSL:55 8.101; SL 175 22.10. But the spelling at third-century Hama, Syria clearly re ects the old diphthongal value (see p443n2). Greek θ, on the other hand, was by now often fricative (Allen 1987:23 26). Ps.-Meliton’s kwtr lacks the diacritical dot that would usually let one distinguish between a plosive or fricative value for t (Brockelmann 1899:10 10). But while the P-S interdental fricative (/θ/) developed to t in Aramaic dialects by the mid- rst millennium BCE (ICGSL:29 8.18), in Syriac the dental and other plosives were eventually (re)spiranti ed after vowels (Brockelmann 1899:22 42; SL 13.8). It must be this consideration that caused Cureton to give Cuthar, which is happily corroborated by the Greek spelling at Hama. The corruption Thoas’, found in a codex of Apollodoros and Probus on ergil Eclogues 10.18 (see comments of Matthews 1996:256 257), occasionally persists in modern scholarship. See p440 441. 460 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos kinýra’ itself can mask considerable cultural and dialectal variety,6 the same may well have been true of Kinyras’ in Syro-Cilician traditions although of course Cilicia itself was sub ected to considerable Phoenician in uence by the eighth century. Lucian: Kinyras at aphaka Lucian of Samosata was a literary phenomenon of the second century CE, who, though Syrian by birth, became one of the great Greek stylists. His On the Syrian Goddess is a fond homage to Herodotean ethnography, centered on the customs, rites, festivals, and myths connected with the cult of Atargatis at ancient Manbog Hierapolis, as it was redubbed in the Hellenistic period near Aleppo in North Syria.7 This goddess was variously interpreted as the Assyrian Hera, Rhea, or Derketo, and details of her statue reminded Lucian of Athena, Aphrodite, Selene, Artemis, Nemesis, and the Fates.8 Modern scholars see her as combining elements of Astarte, Anat, and Asherah.9 The narrator asserts that he himself is an Assyrian or Syrian, and a devotee of the goddess.10 His information comes, he says, both from autopsy and, for more ancient material, the priests themselves. When he asked them how old the sanctuary was, and the identity of the goddess, Many tales were told, of which some are sacred (hiroí), some wellknown (emphanées), and some distinctly fabulous (m th dees); others again were un-Greek (bárbaroi) though some were in agreement with the Greeks.11 This may seem a generic bid for readers’ faith, following the dubious example of Herodotos in Egypt. But it is now well established that the work, despite its whimsical tone, is rich in evidence for Syrian religious history.12 The clergy of Hierapolis, and the other Syro-Levantine holy sites that Lucian visited, will have had standing repertoires of tales with which to regale and illuminate pilgrims 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 See p213 216. The work’s authorship and basic ethnographical authenticity allowing for Lucian’s amusing emphasis on the bi arre and grotes ue has been well defended by Oden 1977:41 46 et passim; OSG:184 221, cf. 205 207 for Lucian’s ethnicity and its special relevance to religious matters. Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 1, 14 15, 32. Oden 1977:58 107; OSG:13 15 (for the form Atargatis’), et passim. On the Syrian Goddess 1, 60. For the terms Assyria’ and Syria’, see p3n11. Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 1, 11 (πολλο λόγοι ἐλέγοντο, τ ν ο μ ν ροί, ο δ ἐμ ανέες, ο δ κάρτα μυθ δεες, κα λλοι άρ αροι, ο μ ν το σιν λλησιν μολογέοντες κτλ), 60. See n7 above. 461 Chapter Nineteen and other tourists.13 This medium would permit the persistence of uite ancient mythological elements, whether through oral or written tradition. Evidently the priests of Manbog still knew the Sumerian ood-hero iusudra, whom they rendered as Sisythes’ and e uated with the Greek Deukalion.14 The tale of Stratonike and Kombabos, developed by Lucian as an embedded novella’,15 also has deep roots. Kombabos’ must take his name from Kubaba, the Great Goddess most famously associated with nearby Karkemish, who was also interpreted as a form of Ishtar/Astarte (hence Stratonike’).16 Kombabos’ self-castration aetiologi es the gálloi, familiar to Classicists as priests of Kybele, but surely connected at some remove with the transgendered, lamenting gala-priests of Sumerian tradition.17 No doubt such tales could be ad usted to suit visitors of di erent ethnicities. A lyre-playing god at Hierapolis, for instance, was presented to Lucian as Apollo’, but was otherwise regarded as a form of Babylonian Nabu or Orpheus’. In fact, both labels probably mask an older Syrian divinity connected with the region’s innāru-culture.18 Lucian himself mentions Kinyras, though not in connection with Hierapolis but Byblos. The work begins with a brief history of religion, Lucian alleging in good Herodotean manner that the Egyptians were rst to conceive of gods, establish temples and sacred precincts, and assign festivals ; nevertheless, there are also temples in Syria which are nearly contemporary with those in Egypt, most of which I have seen. 19 Lucian mentions brie y the sanctuary at Tyre; relates the 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For the close connection between mythology and tourism of ancient sites in this period, see Cameron 2004:234 235 et passim. This depends P. Buttmann’s proposed correction, widely accepted, of ευκαλί να τ ν ισύθεα τ ν κύθεα (On the Syrian Goddess 12). Such late knowledge of iusudra is supported by fragments of two Hellenistic authors of Babylonian lore, though the forms they give are closer to the original ( ίσουθρος, Berossos FGH 680 F 4; ίσουθρος, Abydenos FGH 685 F 2b 3b). Note also the several reservations of Lightfoot (e.g. Scythian associations of Deukalion) and her argument that Lucian followed a Jewish ood account (OSG:340, 342 343). Still, most of Lucian’s details can be found in the various Mesopotamian versions known to us (Oden 1977:24 36; CANE:2344 2347 B. B. Schmidt , with a useful comparative table); parallels in the Rabbinic tradition (OSG:339 340) may themselves re ect general ANE in uence. OSG:384 402. For Kombabos/Kubaba see OSG:384 402 (note especially Hesykhios s.v. ύ α ος θεός . For Stratonike’ as re ecting Ishtar/Astarte, compare Straton’ of Sidon (p489 493) et al., and cf. Oden 1977:36 46 and DDUPP:106 though both believe that Kombabos should be connected rather with Humbaba, known from the Epic of Gilgamesh as guardian of the cedar forest and servant of Ishtar (rightly refuted by Lightfoot). For this problem, see p315 and n213. See further p495 496. On the Syrian Goddess 2. 462 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos Sidonian Astarte temple to the Greek myth of Kadmos and Europa; and admits to not having visited Heliopolis-Baalbek.20 This se uence culminates in a dis uisition on Byblos (that ultimately emphasi es the still greater stature of Hierapolis).21 Lucian’s Byblian Aphrodite is Baalat Gebal, Lady of Byblos. Worship of this goddess goes back to the third millennium, when she was already considered a form of Ishtar/Astarte (see further below). By the MBA (or earlier) she was recogni ed in Egypt and associated with Hathor.22 In Hellenistic and later sources, both Syriac and GrecoRoman, Baalat Gebal was variously e uated with Aphrodite Ourania, Isis, Dione, and of course Astarte.23 Lucian’s Byblian detour contains his famous description of annual Adonis-laments: They say that the boar’s deed against Adonis happened within their territory. And each year, as a memorial of his su ering they beat themselves and sing threnodies and carry out his rites and institute great su erings for themselves throughout the land. But after they have beaten themselves and left o their wailing, they rst sacri ce to Adonis as though he were someone dead; but afterwards, on the next day, they tell a myth that he lives, and send him on his way up into the open air.24 The signal for this mourning, Lucian says, was given by the nearby Adonis river the modern Nahr ’Ibrahim which, with spring storms, washes reddish soil down from Mount Lebanon.25 This phenomenon was interpreted as Adonis’ blood, though another Byblian o ered a plausible natural explanation. Lucian’s investigation of the matter explains his next step, where we suddenly stumble upon Kinyras: But I also climbed up into the Lebanon, a day’s ourney from Byblos, having learned that there was an ancient temple of Aphrodite in that 20 21 22 23 24 25 On the Syrian Goddess 3 5. On the Syrian Goddess 6 9. DDUPP:67 68, 70 72. DDUPP:70 79; Bonnet 1996:19 20. On the Syrian Goddess 6: λέγουσι γ ρ δ ν τ ργον τ ἐς δ νιν π τοῦ συ ς ἐν τ χ ρ τ σ ετέρ γενέσθαι, κα μνήμην τοῦ πάθεος τύπτονταί τε κάστου τεος κα θρηνέουσι κα τ ργια ἐπιτελέουσι κα σ ίσι μεγάλα πένθεα ἀν τ ν χ ρην σταται ἐπε ν δ ἀποτύ νταί τε κα ἀποκλαύσ νται, πρ τα μ ν καταγίζουσι τ δ νιδι κ ς ἐόντι νέκυι, μετ δ τ τέρ μέρ ζ ειν τέ μιν μυθολογέουσι κα ἐς τ ν έρα πέμπουσι κτλ. I leave aside the issue of sacred prostitution’. See Jide ian 1968:124; for the river in the civic topography and mythical imagination of Byblos, Ali uot 2009:58 61. 463 Chapter Nineteen place, which Kinyras had established. I saw the temple, and it was ancient.26 Despite the terseness of this little epilogue, it is clear from his preceding discussion of the Adonis that Lucian is now talking about ancient Aphaka (modern Af a) at the river’s source, twenty kilometers up.27 There, according to other accounts, the goddess embraced Adonis for the rst time, or the last after his boar-wound.28 Kinyras must therefore function here as the father of Adonis, and the Aphrodite’ temple must relate somehow to Adonis-laments (see below). As Lucian does not bother to explain any of this, he clearly has no ulterior rhetorical motive strong evidence that he did indeed make the ourney. Lucian’s wording indicates that he learned of the temple, and its attribution to Kinyras, from informants in Byblos itself whether from popular legend or the local priesthood is unclear, although the latter is perfectly probable (as at Hierapolis). One must wonder, however, whether Kinyras’ was a Helleni ing substitute provided for Lucian’s edi cation (like the Hierapolitan Apollo’), since Kinyras was well known to Greek-speakers as Adonis’ father.29 Or whether Lucian himself introduced Kinyras for his readers, ust as he used Aphrodite’ for Aphaka’s ancient goddess whom in another work he calls simply the goddess of Mount Lebanon. 30 Either way one might dismiss the entire scenario as having been falsely transferred from Cyprus into Byblian territory, with Kinyras masking a local gure. As it happens, two further gures are named as the father of Adonis/ Tammu at Byblos Theias and Kauthar. Before turning to their claims, however, let us beware the knee erk assumption that Kinyras is an interpretatio Graeca. After all, his very name betrays Syro-Levantine roots. The same may said of Aphrodite’, whose linguistic kinship to Astarte seems inevitable.31 Adonis too, though known to us through a Greek lens, has a Semitic etymology and ultimately derives from Levantine theology and cult.32 In principle therefore it is 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 On the Syrian Goddess 9: νέ ην δ κα ἐς τ ν ί ανον ἐκ ύ λου, δ ν μέρης, πυθόμενος α τόθι ἀρχα ον ρ ν ροδίτης μμεναι, τ ινύρης ε σατο, κα ε δον τ ρόν, κα ἀρχα ον ν. This has long been recogni ed: Fra er 1914 1:28 30; Drexler, Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyras; Brown 1965:198; Ali uot 2009:258. Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ακα ύρ ν μ ν ἐστ ν λέ ις δύναται δ καθ λλάδα γλ σσαν, ε δε τ δημ δες ε πε ν ῆμα, περίλημμα, περιλα ούσης τ ν δ νιν τῆς ροδίτης ἐκε τ ν πρ την τ ν ἐσχάτην περι ολήν Cf. Ulbrich 1906:85. In this region and period Kinyras may have been more canonical than Hesiod’s Phoinix, for whom see p313. Lucian The Ignorant Book-Collector 3. DDUPP:105 108 suggests that the Aphrodite’ of Aphaka may not have been identical with the Byblian goddess. See p380n58. See p314. 464 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos perfectly possible that the Kinyras’ of Aphaka thinly masks a homonymous Canaanite/Phoenician cousin; that this gure was himself glossed as Theias and/or Kauthar; and that here we may be dealing precisely with what Lucian called barbarian tales agreeing with the Greeks. 33 Aphaka is certainly a promising locale for the persistence of a BA mytheme. Mountainous regions tend to be culturally conservative (Arcadia, ermont). The site was clearly regarded as very ancient in Lucian’s time. It has not been systematically excavated, though the present ruins, of the Roman period, do show traces of an earlier structure.34 While early archaeological evidence for Canaanite/Phoenician mountaintop shrines is at present uite limited, going back only to the EIA,35 the divine treatment of mountains in the LBA is well known illustrated for instance by Mount Kasios, a local home to the Hurrian storm-god Teshup and Ugarit’s Baal (as Ha i/Saphon), and connected with Adonis himself in one tradition.36 The Bible also regularly associates early Baal worship with high places’.37 So the absence of an early built structure at Aphaka would be no argument against much older traditions there.38 Aphaka’s conservatism is indicated by its cultic tenacity in later centuries. The temple’s destruction was ordered by Constantine (306 337) in his sweeping attacks on pagan worship;39 if it was rebuilt under Julian (361 363),40 there was presumably another demolition under Theodosios (379 395).41 Even so, osimos refers to ongoing pagan veneration in the late fth or early sixth century, describing a lamplike re in the sky and a kind of water-divination whereby votive ob ects thrown into the pool were accepted if they sank (a recipe for success).42 The church erected above the old temple, also implying 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Cf. Ulbrich 1906:86: Die mythologische Figur des Kinyras kann man, wenn sie auch fr h in den hellenischen Sagenkreis einbe ogen wurde, als die let te Spur der Erinnerung an die alte, ph ni ische eit betrachten. Krencker and schiet schmann 1938:56 57, with further references. See also OSG:328 331; Ali uot 2009:258 259. Ali uot 2009:19 20. Cf. DDUPP:83. Adonis and Kasios: Servius Auctus on ergil Eclogues 10.18 (see further p514). Ali uot 2009:21 23. Cf. DDUPP:105 106; Elayi 2009:201. Jide ian 1968:129 130. Among the early Christian authors who attest the emperor’s action, Eusebios stands out for his vivid portrait of an orgiastic sexual culture (Life of Constantine 3.55.1 3 In Praise of Constantine 8.5 9). Baudissin 1911:363n1; Teixidor 1977:155n38. Jide ian 1968:130. osimos New History 1.58. The fth-century So omenos (Ecclesiastical History 2.5.5), corroborating Constantine’s action, adds interesting detail about the pagan cult that con rms osimos’ emphasis on the importance of the waters: the prayers of adorants would call down a celestial re into the Adonis (which was channeled into a sacred pool, as can be seen in the remains). 465 Chapter Nineteen cult memory,43 eventually succumbed to earth uake and landslide, leaving the place a pictures ue ruin of luscious description.44 et the river is still thought to have healing properties, and would-be or worried mothers Christian and Muslim alike hang strips of cloth and other o erings on a tree near the ancient walls. It is called Seiyidet Af after the The Lady of Aphaka’ whose husband was killed while hunting a clear vestige of very ancient myth.45 It is not improbable, all told, that the Kinyras of Aphaka by whatever name he was known locally in Lucian’s day was a gure of deep anti uity. Kinyras and Theias Kinyras’ associations with the region are not limited to Aphaka. We may deduce from On the Syrian Goddess that Lucian would have accepted Kinyras as father of Myrrha, when he holds up the tale as best representing Phoenicia in a wellrounded pantomime’s international repertoire.46 Lucian’s Kinyras of Aphaka was thus king of Byblos and its hinterland. This view of Kinyras’ domain is corroborated by Strabo, for whom Byblos was his royal seat (basíleion) and a sacred city of Adonis. 47 Eustathios adds an important uali cation: Byblos was Kinyras’ most ancient capital (basíleion arkhaiótaton). 48 Elsewhere he asserts that Kinyras was the son of Theias ( Godlike, Divine’).49 But this is probably a simple rationali ation of two parallel gures. For Theias is elsewhere always the Byblian father of Myrrha/Smyrna. He and Kinyras are thus practically twins, distinguished only by the latter’s association with Byblos and Cyprus. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Krencker and schiet schmann 1938:59; Donceel 1966:232, noting also a By antine pillar’ (reuse ) engraved with a cross. Note especially Fra er 1914 1:28 30. Renan 1864:297; Curtiss 1903:174; Paton 1919 1920:55 56 and g. 1 ( To this saint vows are made both by Metawilehs and Christians, and sick people are brought to be cured by lying beside the water. ); Albright 1940:299; Jide ian 1968:130; Teixidor 1977:155n38. G. Fawkes saw cloth-strips in 2002. Lucian On Dancing 58. Strabo 16.2.18: ύ λος, τ τοῦ ινύρου ασίλειον, ερά ἐστι τοῦ δ νιδος. It has been inferred from the se uel ν τυραννουμένην λευθέρ σε ομπήιος πελεκίσας ἐκε νον that Kinyras was the name of the tyrant deposed by Pompey: Fra er 1914 1:27 28 (whence Thubron 1987:170); BMC Phoenicia:lxii; B mer 1969 1986 5:113. This is certainly wrong: Kinyras is mentioned in a clearly mythological context (Adonis), and an anonymous antecedent for ἐκε νον is readily inferred from ν τυραννουμένην. This was rightly seen by Brown 1965:205n4; Jide ian 1968:110; Baurain 1980a:286n39. Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 912: δ ύ λος … δ νιδος ερά, ινύρου ασίλειον ἀρχαιότατον. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 11.20 (cf. ). 466 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos Panyassis, our earliest authority for the Myrrha myth, made Theias a king of Assyria.50 Similarly for Hyginus, Kinyras was an Assyrian king.51 Still others call Adonis Assyrian.52 Fra er saw in such descriptions a well-founded belief that the religion of Adonis, though best known to the Greeks in Syria and Cyprus, had originated in Assyria or rather Babylonia ; Adonî ( My Lord’), he believed, was merely the title taken by Tammu that is, Mesopotamian Dumu i when his cult spread to the Canaanite/Phoenician world (see further below).53 But caution is needed here. It may be that King of the Assyrians was in some authors a willfully vague reference to the exotic and distant Orient.54 Besides, in Greek usage (As)syria’ can include Phoenicia,55 and Antoninus Liberalis (following Panyassis ) is usefully speci c in locating the Theias tale on Mount Lebanon note his oread wife Oreithuia and calling him son of Belos, a normal Greek representation of Baal.56 This mountainous setting obviously implies Aphaka, so here too Theias meets Kinyras. The twinning of Kinyras and Theias naturally led to confusion. Lykophron alludes cryptically to Myrrha in making Byblos a stop in Menelaos’ long search for Helen.57 He goes on to mention the tomb of goddess-wept Gauas, an obscure and allegedly Cypriot name for Adonis, slain by the Muses. 58 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Assyrian’ Theias: Panyassis fr. 22ab EGF fr. 27 PEG Apollodoros Library 3.14.4, cf. p284 above; Probus on ergil Eclogues 10.18: sc. Adonis lius <ut Panyassis ait,> Thiantis, qui Syriam Arabiamque tenuit imperio (for supplements, see Matthews 1996:256 257, following West; Cameron 2004:205 206); John T et es Exegesis of Homer’s Iliad 435.5 15 Papathomopoulos. Ps.-Probus’ inclusion of Arabia in the realms of Panyassis’ Theias has probably been in uenced by Ovid; ps.Apollodoros mentions only Assyria’. Assyrian’ Kinyras: Hyginus Fabulae 58, 242, 270; Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.51. Adonis as son of Theias and Myrrha/Smyrna, hence an (As)syrian prince: Apollodoros Library 3.14.4 Panyassis fr. 22ab EGF fr. 27 PEG; Kleitarkhos FGH 137 F 9 ( Stobaios Anthology 40.20.73); Lykophron Alexandra 829, 831; Oppian Halieutika 3.403, 3.407; Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839 1841) 4:183.15. Bion calls Adonis an Assyrian lord ( σσύριον πόσιν): Lament for Adonis 24. Lucian refers to the tale of Myrrha/Smyrna as τ σσύριον ἐκε νο πένθος (On Dancing 58). Myrrha/Smyrna, daughter of Theias, is re ected as mother of Adonis by Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ος ad n, 502. Fra er 1921 2:86n1; cf. Langdon 1931:351; Greenberg 1983:171. Such an impulse is seen in the tale’s treatment by Cinna and Ovid, who bring Myrrha to Arabia and even the fabulous Panchaea. See p287. See e.g. Herodotos 2.116 117 and above p3n11. Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 34, with comments of Matthews 1974:122 123 (arguing for his dependence on Panyassis). Lykophron Alexandra 828 830: εται δ τλήμονος / ύρρας ἐρυμν ν στυ, τῆς μογοστόκους / δ νας ἐ έλυσε δενδρ δης κλάδος κτλ ( he will see wretched / Myrrha’s mighty city Myrrha whose hard birth-/pains an arboreal branch delivered ). Lykophron Alexandra 831 832 (τ ν θε κλαυσθέντα αύαντος τά ον / μουσ φθαρτον) with : α ας δὲ δωνις παρ Κυπρίοις καλεῖται ( Adonis is called Gauas among the Cypriots ), fancifully etymologi ed as γῆ α εσθαι ( for the dead are dried out in the earth, αύας ἐτυμολογε ται νεκρ ς παρ τ γ α εσθαι ο γ ρ νεκρο τ γ ηραίνονται). See further Atallah 1966:306. 467 Chapter Nineteen A scholiast here, referring to popular ambivalence about the location of these tales, proposes two youths named Adonis, one the son of Kinyras on Cyprus, the other son of Myrrha and Theias of Byblos. A scholion to Dionysios the Periegete attempts a di erent compromise: Kinyras, though king of Cyprus, nevertheless sent the body of Adonis to Byblos, where it was buried by the river that took his name.59 Whether this riparian setting implies Aphaka or a tomb in Byblos itself is not clear, though the former is not improbable.60 Evidently Kinyras and Theias are two names for one and the same gure. Despite Theias’ exclusive connections with Byblos, it is Kinyras, with his Canaanite/Phoenician etymology, that would seem to have the greater claim to authenticity, Theias being a transparently Greek formation. Was Theias introduced, by Panyassis or someone else, to disambiguate the famous Cypriot Kinyras from a Byblian namesake I have suggested that Theias’ might correspond roughly to the divine determinative that accompanies Kinnaru at Ugarit.61 One should also recall the Greek idea of the theîos aoidós, the divine singer’ who is endowed with th s is aoid , god-uttered song’; and the epithet thespésios, which Kinyras may bear in one Paphian inscription.62 Theias has also been taken to gloss El ( God’),63 the WS pantheon head. But Theias’ position as son of Belos in Antoninus Liberalis would suggest rather an interpretation in terms of divine kingship and covenant metaphors ust as the rulers of Ugarit replicated on earth the kingship of Baal.64 On this view, Theias and Kinyras could be neatly reconciled as a lyre-playing king under divine patronage and at the head of a royal line. The semi-divine David, son’ of ahweh, is close to hand, and Kinyras occupied ust such a position vis-à-vis the Kinyradai of Paphos. Ps.-Meliton: Kauthar at aphaka Whatever Theias’ precise relationship to Kinyras, his Greek etymology keeps us at arm’s length from Byblian realities. More intimate insight is promised by 59 60 61 62 63 64 Dionysios the Periegete 509 (FGH 738 F 3a). For the scholiast’s comments here, containing further rare information about Kinyras encountering Egyptians on Cyprus, see further p512 516. The location of Adonis’ tomb is a matter of scholarly debate, some following ps.-Meliton to place it in Aphaka (Renan 1864:296 297; Krencker and schiet schmann 1938:60; Servais-Soye 1977:41 43), others seeking a site in Byblos itself (references in Ali uot 2009:60 and n132 133). See p123. See p6, 411 412. Redford 1990:827n28. See generally Cross 1998:3 22. 468 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos the Kauthar’ a Syrian form of Kothar’ who appears as king of Byblos in a key Syriac text the Apology attributed to Meliton, second-century bishop of Sardis. In 1843, more than three hundred Syriac manuscripts were ac uired by H. Tattam from the convent of St. Maria Deipara in the Nitrian Desert Wadi El Natrun, northwest Egyptian delta.65 This monastery was particularly rich in early texts, thanks to the 250 codices that Abbot Mushe of Nisibis brought back in 932 from a ve-year ourney to Baghdad; a large proportion, ac uired from centers of learning in North Syria and Mesopotamia, including Edessa, antedated the seventh century.66 It was most likely one of these that holds ps.-Meliton’s treatise.67 The traditional ascription is now universally re ected; but the work itself, a hortatory Christian polemic addressed to an Antoninus Caesar, does apparently date to the late second or third century CE.68 Publication by W. Cureton in 1855 raised an initial urry of interest, with its new evidence for Syro-Levantine religion.69 The author uses this material, along with blander fare from Greco-Roman myth, to support his euhemeri ing argument that the gods were in origin but particularly illustrious kings and ueens a provocative stance vis-à-vis Roman emperor cult.70 This remarkably frustrating text, after languishing in obscurity for many decades, has attracted renewed attention of late.71 Among ps.-Meliton’s illustrations is a dense little narrative relating to Aphaka a tangled romance of Syro-Levantine, Mesopotamian, Hellenic, and Cypriot gures: The people of Phoenicia worshipped Balthi, ueen of Cyprus, because she fell in love with Tammu , son of Kauthar king of the Phoenicians, and left her own kingdom to come and dwell in Gebal Byblos , a fortress of the Phoenicians. At the same time she made all the Cypriots sub ect 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Cureton 1855:i; White 1932:456 and n3. The main purpose of Mushe’s expedition was to appeal to the Caliph al-Mu tadir for remission of a tax upon the bishops and monks of Egypt: White 1932:337 338; Brock 2004:16 17. British Museum Additional Manuscripts 14658. For the text, Cureton 1855:41 51, with the passage in uestion (fol. 178a col. 2) on 44; also Otto 1872:426. Cureton dated the MS to the sixth or seventh century on palaeographic grounds (i). It is not among the sixty that carry de nite ac uisition notes (hence its absence from the catalogue of White 1932:443 445). But very few of the MSS ac uired before or after Mushe are older than the eighth century, whereas a high proportion of his are; it is therefore very likely that other very early manuscripts belong to the collection (Brock 2004:17). For general discussion, including the uestions of its original language(s) and sources, see with further references uasten 1951 1:246 247 and Lightfoot 2004:76 82 et passim (also Lightfoot 2009). Both argue for Syriac as the original language. See the detailed retrospective of Ulbrich 1906:70 77. For the particularities of ps.-Meliton’s euhemerism, see Lightfoot 2004:69 73, 81 82, 90. Millar 1993:243 ( uotation), 477 478. See now especially Lightfoot 2004. 469 Chapter Nineteen to king Kauthar; for before Tammu she had been in love with Ares, and committed adultery with him. Hephaistos her husband caught her, and came and slew Tammu in Mount Lebanon while he was hunting wild boar.72 From that time Balthi remained in Gebal, and died in Aphaka where Tammu was buried.73 Cureton promptly saw that Kauthar here was analogous to Kinyras king of both Byblos and Cyprus, father of Tammu (corresponding to Adonis: see below), with Balthi evoking in e ual measures Baalat Gebal and (as ueen of Cyprus ) the Cypriot Aphrodite’.74 G. Ho man went on in 1896 to connect Kauthar with Khousor in Philo of Byblos and Mokhos of Sidon, noting other sympathies between those gures and Kinyras, as discussed in Chapter 18. Further assessment of Kauthar’s presence in ps.-Meliton, and his relationship to both Kinyras and the Cypriot ueen’, must confront several interrelated issues. How much of the material is genuine tradition, rather than the author’s own imagination and store of learning 75 And to what extent is he presenting interpretationes Syriacae at variance with his ostensibly Cypro-Byblian scenario For Balthi’, like Kauthar’, is a distinctly Syrian linguistic formation.76 Tammu is fre uently e uated with Gk. Adonis’ by authors of the early Syrian church, implying a fairly general popular identi cation at the Levantine/SyroMesopotamian interface by Roman imperial times.77 It is therefore possible in principle that all three names cal ue heteronymous Phoenician gures, and that the entire myth is a Syro-Mesopotamian fantasy with little connection to Byblian or Cypriot tradition. Fortunately ps.-Meliton is controlled by an alternative version, also in Syriac, from Theodore Bar Koni in his late eighth-century commentary on E ekiel. Of the famous allusion to women lamenting Tammu outside the Jerusalem temple (8:14 15), Bar Koni wrote:78 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Textual corruption here led to E. Renan’s startling Latin translation Cyniram ( ) vero vertit in aprum (so in Pitra 1854: LIII); for the issue, see Cureton 1855:90 (Renan altogether wanders from the meaning ). Meliton Apology (Cureton 1855:44.12 22, adapting his translation). Cureton 1855:90; Otto 1872:467n159; Ho man 1896:256 258; Ulbrich 1906:86 87; Albright 1940:296 297; Albright 1964:171; Pope and R llig 1965:296; GC:147 148; Brown 1965:198; Gese et al. 1970:148; Ribichini 1981:51 52. Cf. Ulbrich 1906:86. Cureton 1855:90; DDUPP:73; Lightfoot 2004:90. See the udicious assessment and cautions of Baudissin 1911:94 97 (beginning from Origen Selecta in Ezechielem PG 13:797D 800A: ν λεγόμενον παρ λλησιν δ νιν, αμμούζ ασι καλε σθαι παρ ραίοις κα ύροις κτλ); cf. Ribichini 1981:185 188. For Bar Koni, see p454. 470 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos This Tammu , they say, was a shepherd and he loved a woman who was very famous for her beauty. She was from the island of Cyprus; her name was Balthi, her father’s was Herakles, her mother’s Ariadne, and her husband was Hephaistos. Now this woman ed with Tammu , her lover, to Mount Lebanon; it is indeed she who is also called Astarte, a name which her father gave her on account of her text corrupt . Her father lamented over her for seven days in the month of abit , which is the second of kanoun January . They cooked some bread on the ground and ate it, which even now is called cake of Bet abit’ by the pagans. Now Hephaistos followed her to Mount Lebanon, and Tammu met and killed him; but a boar gashed Tammu himself, and he died. His paramour, out of love for Tammu , died of grief over his body. Her father, learning of her death, lamented during the month of tammouz July . His parents also wept for Tammu : these are the tears that the impious weep, and the Hebrew people imitated them.79 Bar Koni, by expressing obviously cognate material in somewhat di erent mythological terms, guarantees that the myth was not contrived by ps.-Meliton himself. We must at least suppose an anterior source, though whether Kauthar himself was found there, or introduced by ps.-Meliton, is not immediately clear.80 The speci c aetiology adduced by Bar Koni, as well as his se uel on the goddess’s cult statue, seem to look beyond Byblos to a broader Mesopotamian and North Syrian religious milieu.81 Nevertheless, the identi cation of Balthi’s parents as Herakles and Ariadne establishes a genuine Cypriot aspect to the myth,82 and this encourages us to pursue the simplest solution that Balthi and Kauthar were ready dialectal variants for transparent Byblian cognates.83 There is obviously no problem in taking 79 80 81 82 83 Theodore Bar Koni: Liber scholiorum, imrā 4.38, cf. 11.4; translation after Hespel and Draguet 1981 1982 1:263 264; cf. 2.214. There is further related material in several other Syriac sources. These include the ninthcentury Biblical commentator Isho dad of Merv, who contains the same points of interest I shall emphasi e in Bar Koni; but both lack Kauthar. The connections between these texts, and anterior sources, await full explication. See Baudissin 1911:75 76; Leonhard 2001:52 54, 72 73, 82, 221; Lightfoot 2004:74 75, 86 91 with references. Cf. Lightfoot 2004:88. The late persistence of Tammu -lament is attested by Isaac of Antioch for the fth century (2.210 Bickell; cf. Baudissin 1911:95 97), while an Arabic source reports it for the Sabians of Harran in the tenth (Chwolsohn 1856 2:27; Baudissin 1912; cf. Langdon 1935:120; Greenberg 1983:171). Herakles corresponds to the Phoenician Mel art on Cyprus and elsewhere in the Phoenician/ Punic world: DDUPP:291. For the myth of Theseus and Ariadne at Amathous, Paion FGrH 757 F 2 with Kypris:107; cf. Lightfoot 2004:89n117. Cf. Baudissin 1911:74. 471 Chapter Nineteen Balthi as Baalat Gebal, whom Philo of Byblos himself Helleni ed as Baaltís.84 True, Balthi’ could ust as readily describe the Cypriot goddess, who was known as ueen’ (Wánassa) on the early island.85 But that divine honori c is common enough, and any such distinction between Cyprus and Byblos is neutrali ed by the myth itself, which allies Balthi to both places, with the latter her ultimate home. Of course this does not free us from addressing the special Cypriot dimension that ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni both assign her. A similar reading of ps.-Meliton’s Kauthar as Phoen. Khousor, though ready to hand, is considerably complicated by the latter’s interchangeability with Kinyras. The problem presents many subtle facets.86 But I see four main possibilities, of which only one is really satisfactory. First is that Kauthar and Kinyras both correspond to some third Byblian gure; but here surely we may apply Ockham’s Ra or.87 The second and third scenarios are complementary: either Kauthar is linguistically cognate with the Byblian original’ (Khousor), and was glossed as Kinyras by Lucian; or Kinyras is linguistically cognate with the Byblian original’ ( Kinn r vel sim.), and was glossed as Kauthar by ps.-Meliton. Now a Byblian Khousor is inherently likely. It is not that ps.-Meliton somehow outweighs Lucian, who was himself from Syria.88 But the idea is strongly corroborated by the roughly contemporary testimony for a Phoenician Khousor in Philo of Byblos, combined with that author’s own Byblian identity.89 And we shall see that several further points favor a Byblian Khousor. Even so, a Byblian Khousor will not resolve the problem, for it remains the case that some were prepared to call this gure Kinyras. And if this was true outside of Byblos, some Byblians must also have been aware of the e uation, if only peddlers of hieroì lógoi. We must therefore support a fourth permutation that the Byblian gure was variously known by both names, and that Kinyras and Kothar were somehow doublets in a Byblian context. And, after all, Kinyras is linked to Byblos by a handful of Greco-Roman sources, while only ps.-Meliton speaks for Kauthar. A key point favoring the reality of a Byblian Kinyras is the prominence of lamentation in all this material. Besides Lucian’s crucial account of the annual 84 85 86 87 88 89 Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (35). Lightfoot 2004:89. Cf. p441 above. See Lightfoot 2004:89 91, leaving the problem as a non liquet. Gk. Theias’ could gloss a Kinyras- gure ust as aptly as a Kothar, recalling the royal associations of both (Kothar in theophoric names, Kinyras in mythology: see p321 323, 407). Cf. Millar 1993:247: The fact of having been written in Syriac did not necessarily prevent Christian analyses of pagan cults in Syria from representing the same concatenation of confused and incompatible elements as Lucian himself reveals ; Similarly Lightfoot 2009:399: The use of Syriac ipso facto certainly does not imply a closeness to local realities that is somehow unavailable to speakers of a classical language; as much account has to be taken of literary fashioning with ps.-M eliton as it does with Lucian and Philo of Byblos. See p445 452. 472 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos Adonis’ rites, the classical myths’ emphasis on the tears of Aphrodite obviously aetiologi es such ritual performances. Bar Koni envisions three separate occasions for lament by Balthi’s father, by Balthi herself, and by Tammu ’ father and mother. Ps.-Meliton is not explicit, but his statement that Balthi died in Aphaka where Tammu was buried parallels her death of grief there in Bar Koni. These passages imply ritual lamentation at Aphaka itself, not ust Byblos proper; and this in turn clari es Lucian’s attribution of the temple to Kinyras.90 Of course ps.-Meliton would have called Aphaka the work of Kauthar, who as the bereaved father would also be well usti ed in lamenting Tammu /Adonis. A lamenting Kauthar can be supported by the incantations’ (e ida ) of Philo’s musicali ed Khousor, which in turn consolidates Khousor’s own association with Byblos.91 Even so, this grieving Kauthar would return us ultimately to Kinyras the Lamenter, since the mourning of father for son was a common threnodic theme (Chapter 12). It is precisely this performative stance, indeed, that can explain the otherwise arring genealogical subordination of Adonis that is, the Byblian Baal (see further below) to the lesser Kinyras and/or Kothar. I conclude from this initial comparison that, despite slightly di erent terms and a super cially Syro-Mesopotamian perspective, ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni do indeed reproduce a genuinely Cypro-Byblian’ mytheme that invites closer analysis, both of its internal structure and external sympathies. In pursuing this, we shall be usti ed in treating the ancient vacillation between Kinyras and Kauthar/Khousor as a valid heuristic tool. Goddess, King, and Copper We may begin with a further proof of Kinyras’ essential compatibility with ps.Meliton’s Kauthar: whereas Strabo and Eustathios saw Byblos as an ancient part of Kinyras’ realm, ps.-Meliton presents Cyprus as a novel addition to Kauthar’s. These conceptions must be cognate. But whereas the classical authors give no further context for the Byblian Kinyras, ps.-Meliton’s Kauthar tale implicates a Cypriot king Hephaistos’, whose kingdom passes under Byblian control through Balthi’s a air with Tammu . This Cypriot Hephaistos shared by Bar Koni and thus fundamental to the myth has deep Cypriot roots beneath a partly Helleni ed surface. For the Olympian smith-god is conspicuously absent from the early island, thanks to the ancient prestige of an indigenous metallurge like the Ingot God.92 This gure was e ectively wedded to the Cypriot 90 91 92 Even if a tomb of Adonis’ was displayed in Byblos itself (see n60 above), Lucian refers to lamentation rites throughout the land (ἀν τ ν χ ρην). See p448 452. Borgeaud 1975. 473 Chapter Nineteen goddess herself through shared ingot iconography and his-and-hers adyta in the sanctuary at Enkomi, with his’ metallurgical facilities housed within her’ realm.93 By contrast, the pairing of Hephaistos and Aphrodite has no basis in Aegean cult, it being rather Ares with whom the goddess typically received oint worship.94 So Homer’s famous tale of their adultery exposed by Hephaistos, with the goddess’s chastened return to Paphos is an arti cial satire on Aphrodite’s cultural gyrations between Greece and Cyprus, where indeed a smith-god husband would cherish her return.95 By the logic of Homer’s narrative this should be Hephaistos; but cultural realities re uire us to infer an unnamed Cypriot counterpart. This is precisely Hephaistos’ role in ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni. But here the marital escapade moves eastward, merging with a very old motif of distinctly Mesopotamian aspect the faithless goddess that was rooted in divine patronage of actual sovereigns. In two Neo-Sumerian epic tales (preserved in later copies/versions), royal ascendancy is marked by securing the love’ of Inanna, who abandons a rival king.96 Hence the famous scene in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the hero taxes Ishtar with her history of broken lovers.97 We saw a similar alliance of myth and royal ideology in the Hittite Ritual and Prayer for Ishtar of Nineveh, where it was feared that the goddess had defected to one of the many other royal cult-centers that claimed her of which one was Alashiya itself.98 This pattern ultimately shaped Aphrodite, whose many paramours included (besides Ares and Hephaistos) Ankhises, Phaethon, Adonis, and Kinyras himself.99 Her promiscuity provided fuel for Christian attacks, and ps.-Meliton himself was clearly so motivated.100 That he interpolated Homer’s Ares for good measure would explain the inorganic complication of Hephaistos’ discovery leading to the death not of Ares but of Tammu ; this suggestion is corroborated by the absence of Ares from Bar Koni’s version, where Hephaistos plays 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 See p394 395. Ares/Aphrodite: Farnell 1896 1909 2:622 623, 653 655, 700 703; GR:220. This latter pairing must itself re ect original attributes of the eastern goddess, who in Mesopotamian tradition unites war and love in a single gure. See Kypris:136 for the possible correspondence between Ares and the Ingot God, whose smiting pose is as striking as his ingot-base. Homer Odyssey 8.359 366. See Franklin 2014:223 224; cf. Burkert 1993:153; EFH:57. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (ETCSL 1.8.2.3), especially 25 32, 102 104, 227 235; Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird (ETCSL 1.8.2.2), especially 290 321, 345 356. Epic of Gilgamesh vi.24 79: ANET:84. The passage is discussed by George 2003, 1:472 474. See p376. Cf. e.g. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.33: ροδίτη δ ἐπ ρει κατ σχυμμένη μετῆλθεν ἐπ ινύραν κα γχίσην γημεν κα αέθοντα ἐλόχα κα ρα δ νιδος κτλ. Cf. Lightfoot 2004:86. 474 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos the war-god’s sometime role of homicidal cuckold.101 But in a striking twist, Bar Koni’s Hephaistos is himself slain before Tammu falls to the tusk. I conclude that the myth presents a distinctly Cypriot and/or CyproByblian fusion of two ideologies that derive from the BA: the divine protection of royal copper-production, and political ascendancy represented by the love of Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte. With Balthi’s defection, the island passes from a Cypriot metallurge to a Byblian, represented as Hephaistos and Kauthar, respectively. Whereas Kauthar’s relevance to Bar Koni’s aetiologies of lament is not immediately obvious, he is perfectly uali ed for the current context. This representation of ancient history’ becomes uite tangible when one recalls that the trade in copper, and control thereof, was the single most important factor structuring Cyprus’s internal political organi ation and its relationships with the outside world, from the early second millennium down through the Aegean and Phoenician colonial movements (Chapter 1). Now if we had no reason to consider Kinyras and Kauthar/Khousor doublets, we might reasonably expect ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni to have named their ancient Cypriot king not Hephaistos but Kinyras. After all, Kinyras had long been known as the island’s ancient metallurgical monarch (Homer) and beloved of Aphrodite (Pindar). While epichoric myths were often converted into Olympian currency, this principle was not consistently applied by ps.-Meliton, as shown by his Kauthar and several other gures. And since Kinyras and Kauthar/Khousor do appear to be doppelg ngers most obviously in the present Byblian context ps.-Meliton’s Hephaistos must represent an indigenous metal-smith whose control of Cyprus antedates that of Kauthar/Kinyras. This conclusion is corroborated by its startling agreement with the report of the Paphian priesthood, discussed in Chapter 16. There an ancient memory (vetus memoria) of Aerias/Aeria interpretable as Mr. and Mrs. Copper’ was contrasted with a more recent legend (fama recentior) of Kinyras and Aphrodite.102 This unexpected harmony can hardly be coincidence; it is of a piece with the complementary Greco-Roman and Syrian views of Byblos’ dominion under Kinyras/Kauthar. We are dealing with cognate myths, and our analysis of ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni must expand accordingly to embrace the hieroì lógoi of Paphos. One immediate bene t is that we can esh out Tacitus’ spare epitome of the Paphian report. That the priests saw Kinyras as not merely secondary to their cult, but a parvenu from the mainland, is a ready deduction from his immigration in other sources (Chapter 21). And whereas Tacitus otherwise seems to 101 102 For sources and discussion, see Ribichini 1981:108 123. See p401 404. 475 Chapter Nineteen link Aerias and Kinyras only through relative chronology, ps.-Meliton lets us suppose a causal relationship of geopolitical aspect between the two strata’. This neat convergence strongly suggests that the insular and mainland traditions derive from a shared historical reality of considerable depth. One might try to see here, for example, the breakdown of centrali ed control on Cyprus at the end of the LBA ( Hephaistos), followed by Phoenician pursuit of copper in the EIA ( Kauthar/Kinyras). But this is not deep enough. So far as we know, it was not Byblos, but Tyre, that dominated the Phoenician colonial movement.103 And as I have argued on independent grounds, any historici ing interpretation of Cypriot Kinyras must start from his pre-Greek presence.104 While metal-hungry kings of IA Phoenicia would certainly have had their own reasons to promote a cult of Kothar/Khousor, for them too the industrial superpower of Alashiya will have loomed large in legend. And if there was one Levantine god as likely as Astarte to come to LBA Cyprus, it was Kothar. A crucial issue here, raised above in connection with the Ingot God and Goddess,105 is the epithet Kythéreia, which Aphrodite bears in Greek epic and beyond.106 It has long been recogni ed that this word, with its short epsilon ( th reia), cannot derive directly from the island Kythera ( th ra), despite ancient sources, beginning with Hesiod, that assert or imply ust this (one would otherwise expect th reia).107 West, reviewing the issue, nevertheless urged that the two words must be related, but perhaps not in that way, and approved those who would see in Kythéreia a female counterpart of Kothar, presumably his consort.108 Now the form itself, A. Cassio has recently shown, is a relatively late epic concoction.109 That it derives speci cally from Cypro-Aegean interaction in the Orientali ing Period (ca. 750 650) nds good general support in our evidence for the Cypriot engagement with Homeric’ epic at this time, culminating most 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 But note the gods of Byblos in a fragmentary fourth-century votive inscription from Larnaka t s Lapethou: Honeyman 1938 (line 9), with comments on 296 297; HC:99 100n6, 182n1; Green eld 1987; Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1987:337. See p368 369. See p404. Homer Odyssey 8.285 288 (cf. Franklin 2014:223 224); Homeric Hymn 10.1 ( υπρογενῆ υθέρειαν); Sappho 140a (lament for Adonis); Ovid Metamorphoses 10.717 720; Manilius Astronomica 4.579 581; Nonnos Dionysiaka 3.109 111. Cf. Brown 1965:216 219. Hesiod Theogony 192 193. Gruppe 1906 2:1359; Brown 1965:216 219; GR:152 153; EFH:56 57 with further references. Cassio 2012 3: an arti cial bardic creation devised so to speak in cold blood, and at a late stage ; he sees it as patterned after the e ually arti cial Gk. eupatéreia, which appears in the same verse-end position. See further his contextual arguments. 476 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos notably in the episodes that were excised from the Kypria by the fth century.110 The epithet’s special connection with the island is established by the tenth Homeric hymn, where the goddess is invoked not as Aphrodite but rather Cyprus-born Kythéreia she who rules well-founded Salamis / and Cyprus-onthe-Sea obvious signs of a Cypriot singer and/or performance setting.111 et such on-the-ground cultic realities e ually re uire Kythéreia, though a seventhcentury neologism in the Aegean, to refer to some older religious reality on Cyprus itself. Kythereia will not have materiali ed from thin air. A female Kothar’ is not without Levantine parallels. The linguistic kinship of Kothar and the Kotharat goddesses of Ugaritian and Canaanite/Phoenician tradition is undoubted, though how their spheres intersected is unclear.112 The Kotharat typically appear as a group; but Philo of Byblos, who calls them Artemides’, singles out one as the spouse of Sydyk the Just’, our most likely prototype for Sandokos, Kinyras’ father in ps.-Apollodoros.113 Philo also knew a Khousarthis who brought to light the theology of Taautos Thoth which had been hidden and concealed in allegories a description less like Philo’s own Khousor than that of Mokhos though how this female Kothar might mesh with Cypriot Aphrodite’ is hardly obvious.114 Finally, there is the Assyrian Kythéreia of Nonnos, whose Byblian context could further corroborate the connection with Byblos of both ps.-Meliton’s Kauthar and Philo’s Khousor.115 The proposed association of Kythereia and Kothar raises two linguistic issues that help us focus the historical view. First is the discrepancy between the short upsilon of Kythéreia and the long ô of Kothar ( P-S aw). Here a plausible explanation is at hand in the changes one may expect at a linguistic interface.116 That such a mutation could occur precisely on Cyprus is supported by the short upsilons of both Kinyras and Myrrha (versus the long vowels of Semitic cognates).117 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 See generally Franklin 2014 and above p1, 211. Homeric Hymn 10.1, 4. The association is also clear at Hymn 6.18. For the Kotharat, see above p445n11; Margalit 1972:55 (resumed in Margalit 1989:285 286); Selms 1979:73 74; KwH:466 472; DDD col. 915 917 (Pardee), with earlier literature. Apollodoros Library 3.14.3. For Philo’s Artemides as the Kotharat, see GC:143; Baumgarten 1981:204, 227. Cf. below p123n74, 510. Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 10: θε ς ουρμου ηλ ς ουρ τε μετονομασθε σα ούσαρθις ἀκολουθήσαντες κεκρυμμένην τοῦ ααύτου κα ἀλληγορίαις ἐπεσκιασμένην τ ν θεολογίαν ἐ τισαν Cf. Brown 1965:215; GC:138 139n73; Selms 1979:744; Attridge and Oden 1981:104n4; Baumgarten 1981:68 74 for Philo’s understanding of Taautos. Nonnos Dionysiaka 3.109 111. By contrast the false Kythéreia < Kýth ra supposes an internal Greek development, whatever the anterior etymology of th ra itself. See p199n71, 274. 477 Chapter Nineteen The second issue concerns the Semitic interdental fricative in r/Kothar. This sound could only have emerged as the Greek theta of Kythéreia if the underlying adaptation went back to at least ca. 1300, and probably rather earlier.118 The correspondence of Semitic and other ANE fricatives/laryngeals with early (LBA) Greek aspirates (th, ph, kh) still lacks a comprehensive study, but H. . Priebatsch showed that the Greek aspirates could indeed have a spirant uality in the LBA, or at least represent such sounds in loanwords. That uality was typically lost in the EIA, reappearing only in later centuries.119 This situation brings the island of Kythera back into the discussion, since it was already so named by the fteenth century, when it appears in an Egyptian itinerary’ text and somewhat later as an ethnic designation at Mycenaean Pylos.120 It is true that traditions of Phoenician settlement on Kythera including the island’s sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania and the eponymous Kytheros son of Phoinix might be su ciently explained by EIA trade expeditions.121 et a deeper connection between Kythera and Kothar is well supported by the god’s persistent link to Minoan Crete in Ugaritian legend Kaptara is his royal house, Egypt is the land of his inheritance. Kothar’s international realm here 118 119 120 121 By this time the twenty-two letter Proto-Canaanite alphabet shows that the three interdentals , , merged in Canaanite with dental and palato-alveolar fricatives (Harris 1939:40 41; SL 13.7, uotation). After the merger, P-S would have yielded s in Greek, hence Ug. r/ Gk’. ουσ ρ; cf. σίγλος ( shekel’)/Ug. l, Pun./Heb. šql, Akk. šeqlu (Emprunts:34 37); σάκκος ( coarse cloth’ sack/garment’)/Akk. šaqqu, Imperial Aramaic šqq (Emprunts:24 25, where Phoen. šqq is assumed the source). See Priebatsch 1980. Note e.g. the famous problem of Gk. χαιοί/Hitt. A iyawa (329), and Gk. χρυσός ( gold’ ku-ru-so in Lin. B., which lacks separate signs for aspirates)/Can. ar u (329 330). Albright’s ob ection to the derivation of Kythera from r ( GC:136n65) is no longer relevant. He insisted that the name would have to go back improbably far to the third millennium, believing that was already pronounced š by the early second millennium because of its representation in the Sethe execration texts and Akkadian documents of Ugarit. But these correspondences are now attributed to une ual phonetic inventories in the relevant scripts/ languages, and it is generally accepted that the interdental was still pronounced at Ugarit (Segert 1984 34.27; KwH:80; Gordon 1997:51; Pardee 2008:292; Huehnergard 2008:230 231). It may, however, have been a conservative, literate/o cial usage: occasional interchanges of and š hint at coalescence (SL 13.6), and some tablets using the twenty-two letter script have been found (Gordon 1997:49). This would support a rather earlier date for a link between Kothar and Kythereia and/or Kythera than the Ugaritic texts themselves. Ktir is found on an inscribed statue base from the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1403 1364) in a list of other Aegean TNs perhaps an itinerary describing a route (or a speci c voyage) to mainland Greece and Crete : see with further references EFH:6 and n12, 57n238; Cline 2007:194 ( uotation). For Lin. B ku-te-ra (nominative plural, women of Kythera’), see Nikoloudis 2008:47 (P A- series). Herodotos 1.105.3 (temple of Aphrodite); Stephanos of By antium s.v. ύθηρα, νῆσος … ἀπ υθήρου τοῦ οίνικος; repeated by Eustathios on Homer Iliad 10.269; Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 498. Further evidence and discussion: Morris 1992:79 80n26 (connection with Kothar is attractive ), cf. 135n142; Lipi ski 2004:176 178; Dugand 1973:245 247 arrives at a di erent etymology. 478 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos symboli ed the LBA palatial trade network, one strand of which reached from Crete via Ugarit to Mari and Babylon, through which the Minoans secured tin for making bron e.122 One might even speculate that Ug. Kaptara’ itself derives from Kothar, at an earlier linguistic stage than he is found in the Ugaritic texts ( a ar ). A cuneiform inscription found on Kythera relating to Naram-Sin of Eshnunna (ca. 1712 1702 BCE) in far-o Babylonia helps compensate for the lack of contemporary Levantine material on the island, where a Middle Minoan presence is however well documented.123 Whatever the case with Kythera, Cyprus will have been as central as Ugarit itself to that city’s mythological vision of Kothar’s domain. This follows rst from simple geography and the region’s seasonal sailing routes.124 It is clinched by the island’s dominant international position in the production and working of copper (Chapters 1, 14). The whole situation is perfectly exempli ed by the Uluburun wreck.125 Material record, historical context, linguistic considerations, the iconography of the Ingot God and Goddess faced with this combination of evidence it is hard to doubt that some form of Kothar was active on LBA Cyprus, an importation parallel to Ishtar/Astarte herself (Chapter 15), and that this echoed on in the Greco-Cypriot epithet Kythéreia. We need not assume that a separate male Kyther(os) still existed in the seventh century, as Kothar could have been internali ed’ as an aspect of the goddess as of Kinyras himself centuries earlier. On the other hand, given the island’s substantial Phoenician population, some conscious conceptual link between goddess and Kothar/Khousor may indeed have persisted into historical times. With this we return to our crux the melding of Kinyras and Kothar, and how this transpired between Byblos and Cyprus. In what follows, I shall attempt to account for all data so far presented, and incorporate our hypothetical Byblian Kinyras/Kothar into the larger picture of BA royal cult-music and divini ed-instruments explored in Part One. The Cypro-Byblian Interface I have now made independent cases for the presence of both a Kothar and a Divine Knr in one or more pantheons of LBA Cyprus a perfectly credible idea given their o cial co-existence at nearby Ugarit. A third investigation explored, 122 123 124 125 Primary texts, discussion, and further references in Strange 1980:83 87, 90 93, 101 102; Cline 1994:120 128; cf. Morris 1992:92 95, 98, 100, 102, et passim. Weidner 1939; Lipi ski 2004:176 178. For which see Murray 1995. See p326. 479 Chapter Nineteen in the thirteenth-century bron e stand from Kourion, the con unction of music, metalworking, and goddess-worship in a royal context (Chapter 15). A fourth set of evidence, from the roughly coeval Pylos tablets, seemed to imply a metamusical Kinyras with Kothar-like seafaring skills (Chapter 17). This converging material, I believe, indicates that some Kothari ation of Kinyras rmly established as a metallurgical king already for Homer was underway on Cyprus by or before the thirteenth century. We are left needing to explain how a mirror image a Kinyradi ed Khousor could arise in Phoenicia, speci cally at, or at least including, Byblos. Given the early hori ons sketched above for Cypriot Kinyras, it would seem that he and the Byblian Kinyras/Khousor were parallel regional developments of a speci c Canaanite tradition in which Kothar and the Divine Knr were unusually intimate already in the LBA. A likely guess is that they were treated as mythological brothers, whence the vestigial siblings known to both Philo and tienne de Lusignan.126 We must evidently posit a speci c cult importation from Byblos to Cyprus at some pre-Greek historical uncture. This agrees well with our argument of Chapter 15 that the immigration’ of Kinyras was connected with a theological reinterpretation of the Cypriot goddess in terms of a mainland Astarte gure. We need only add some form of Kothar, or Kothari ation, to the formula. Such a moving goddess’ is after all ust what we nd in ps.-Meliton and Bar Koni. In both, Balthi, despite the deep (EBA) anti uity of the Byblian goddess herself, begins the story as ueen of Cyprus. (Compare Hesiod’s account of Aphrodite’s birth, where the goddess is wafted from the Aegean and Kythera to what was in fact her home at an earlier stage of development, Cyprus).127 There are several signi cant elements here. The original independence of the Cypriot ueen’, who then moves eastward, is mirrored by the dramatic displacement of Byblian Balthi’ to Cyprus thus a kind of westward movement. (The latter tra ectory is also implied by the gure of Kypros’, daughter of Byblos’, in a fragment of Istros.128) This structure implies a mutual assimilation of historically distinct divinities. 126 127 128 See Chapter 18. Brown 1965:206 207 compared Kothar and Kinyras with the Dioskouroi, as being two sets of twins, both pairs associated with the sea. A special Cypriot version of the twins ( our Dioskouroi ) is seen in the loyalty oath to Tiberius (see p205). There is also Theokritos’ description of them as horsemen kitharists ( ππῆες κιθαρισταί, Idylls 22.24), which recalls the Cypriot terracottas of horse-riding lyrists: CAAC II:III LGC 1, cf. LGC 9; Aspects:89 no. 67 and g. 76 (ca. 750), 91 92 no. 69, g. 79, with references (ca. 800 750). But Theokritos receives a uite di erent and attractive explanation from Power 2010:282 285. Hesiod Theogony 191 193. Istros FGH 334 F 45. See further p515 516. 480 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos The Cypriot Goddess and Baalat Gebal, as known from later times, do have some resemblances. Both cults were of deep anti uity, dominating their respective territories. Aniconic representations were prominent at both sites, and though such betyls’ were not uni ue to Byblos, their archaic uality suits the scenario envisaged here.129 The Lady of Byblos, like other forms of Astarte and Aphrodite herself, was a protectress of sailors.130 She was also a royal patroness.131 For Philo of Byblos, the goddesses were closely related. His Byblian Baaltis is Dione’; linguistically a female eus’, Dione most famously appears as Aphrodite’s mother in an eccentric episode of the Iliad, much discussed recently for its Near Eastern and Cypriot sympathies.132 But, while this could potentially imply that Baaltis was older than her Cypriot counterpart, in Philo himself Dione is the sister of Aphrodite, with whom he e uates Astarte; Rhea, probably a form of Asherah, is the third triplet, all being wives of Kronos, that is Elos’ or El.133 But none of these correspondences is de nitive. They represent the same ongoing collation’ of regional deities that was so well attested for the LBA (Chapter 15). Those early phenomena, often induced by on-the-ground religious uxtapositions and cult transfers, make it uite possible that our CyproByblian myth ultimately does re ect some religious reality of that time. Unfortunately, we know very little about speci c relations between BA Cyprus and Byblos. The latter’s early history is fairly dark outside the narrow window of its fourteenth-century sub ection to Egypt; Cyprus is darker still. One Amarna text from Rib-Hadda, the king/ governor’ of Byblos, does mention sending a certain Amanmashsha to Alashiya; but the mission’s purpose is not stated.134 Alashiya also follows Byblos in the eleventh-century ( ) itinerary of Wen-Amun; the context is the turbulent period of the Sea Peoples, but it is implied that 129 130 131 132 133 134 The Temple of Obelisks at Byblos goes back to the MBA (DDUPP:67, 77 79, with further references in n83). The famous stone of Paphos (Tacitus Histories 2.3, with Heubner 1963 1982 ad loc. for other ancient descriptions; also ExcCyp:179) is generally attributed to the BA (Paphos:99 100 and g. 83). It is shown in many variations on Roman coins from Augustus to Caracalla/ Geta (BMC Cyprus:cxxvii cxxxiv and 73 87 passim and pl. I .3, 7 8, .1 4, 7 8, I.2, 4, 6 9, II.4 6, 8 10, I.3, 6; Head et al. 1911:746; Blinkenberg 1924:7 17 with gs; HC:74; Paphos:84, g. 65 67, 103 g. 87; Gaifman 2012:169 180). A very similar conical stone is represented on a Byblian coin from the reign of Macrinus (ca. 217 218 CE): BMC Phoenicia:102 no. 36 (pl. xii, 13); cf. Millar 1993:277; DDUPP:76 with references in n68. Aniconic stones within temples are also shown on imperial-era issues from Emesa (sanctuary of Heliogabalos) and Seleucia Pieria in Syria: Price and Trell 1977:168 170; Gaifman 2012:177 178 with references. It is impossible to verify if the black stone’ displayed at modern Kouklia as Aphrodite’s image is indeed that (Gaifman 2012:179 180). DDUPP:72. For Aphrodite, see p330. See p407n45. See p403n16. Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (22, 35). Cf. Baumgarten 1981:200 201; DDUPP:74 75. EA 114. Cf. HC:43; AP:51; Moran 1992:190n12. 481 Chapter Nineteen such a route was once normal.135 But that is hardly surprising given the island’s proximity. Nevertheless, we can be sure that regular o cial relations did exist, and that these revolved precisely around the copper trade. The enormous uantity of bron e excavated from second-millennium levels of Byblos shows that the city was a ma or manufacturing center.136 Moreover, state control, as on contemporary Cyprus, is indicated by another Amarna letter that refers to the Byblian king’s production and supply of bron e weapons to both Egypt and Tyre.137 This industry must have involved the Byblian monarchs in close dealings with their cupreous insular peers. Since royal control and divine protection of copper is otherwise well documented for LBA Cyprus (Chapter 15), it is easy to imagine this ideology and associated cult practices being extended to, or adapted by, the island’s partners in the metals trade. This, I suggest, is the best context for ps.-Meliton’s myth, and full usti cation for Kauthar’s starring role. Ritual Lamentation and the ‘Damu’ of Byblos At the same time, a Byblian proto-Kinyras of LBA date and a lamenting father of Adonis/Tammu should imply signi cant exposure to Mesopotamian theological concepts and practices, since the divini ation of instruments and other cult ob ects evidently originated in EBA Babylonia (Chapters 2, 5, and 6). As one probable environment for the spread of such ideas I identi ed the increasing involvement of Amorite and traditional Mesopotamian cultures during the Ur III and OB periods. This would make Kinnaru of Ugarit and the proposed Byblian Kinyras parallel regional manifestations at the western end of a cult-music continuum. While Byblos’ early religion is nearly as obscure as its political history,138 several points are noteworthy here. First, while the city en oyed close cultural relations with Egypt for much of the Bron e Age,139 its engagement with Syria and Mesopotamia was ust as early and longstanding. Southern Mesopotamian in uence on the city’s material culture can be traced back to the EBA, while its temples and other public buildings show that Byblos avoided the collapse of the southern Levant ca. 2400 2000 (EBA I ), sharing rather in the urban apogee 135 136 137 138 139 CS 1 no. 41. Falsone 1988:80 ( indubbiamente uno dei maggiori centri produttori di bron o di tutto l’antico icino Oriente ). EA 77 with Liverani 1997. For a general introduction, see DDUPP:67 114. There was probably a hiatus during the First Intermediate Period, ca. 2180 2140: cf. Helck 1971:38. 482 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos of Syrian sites like Ebla the archives of which attest regular commerce with Byblos.140 In the Ur III period, two economic texts from Drehem (ancient Pu rishDagan, one of Ur’s ma or redistribution centers) document diplomatic relations between Amar-Suen (ca. 2046 2038) and a Byblian king Ibd di or Abd-(H)addi (Eb-da-di3) alongside other Syrian monarchs (of Ebla, Mari, and Tuttul).141 These tablets were once taken as evidence for Ur’s political control of Byblos, but this idea has been discarded with further understanding of the state’s provincial administration.142 Nevertheless, they remain precious indicators of cultural contact at the royal level. And several cuneiform inscriptions have been excavated at Byblos itself, one from the Ur III period (see further below) and two of OB or MB date.143 The fourteenth-century Amarna letters show Mesopotamian scribal culture rmly ensconced in the Byblian royal court. This in itself need not imply any theological in uence. But a detail in one letter does indeed support the idea. This is a petition from the aforementioned Rib-Hadda, who begs pharaoh to protect the cult-property of a deity rendered as my DAMU (dDAMU-ia).144 Scholars have di ered as to whether DAMU refers to the Sumerian god of that name,145 or is a scribal gloss for a local Byblian deity. In his recent reassessment, T. Mettinger argues persuasively for the latter, identifying the underlying gure as the Baal of Byblos, consort of Baalat Gebal attested in a tenth-century inscription, and probably the living god of another Amarna letter.146 This Baal of Byblos must be the storm-god Haddu, whose cult is attested by the theophoric element in Rib-Hadda’s own name, and that of the aforementioned Abd-(H)addi.147 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Saghieh 1983:129 132 et passim; Gen 2010:207, 211 212; Arnaud 2010:167 168. Amherst (Pinches 1908) 82 rev. 19, with the parallel discussed by Sollberger 1959/1960:121 122; cf. DDUPP:68. The older interpretation was based on the Byblian ruler’s designation as en5-si, as the title en-si2 was used of Ur’s provincial governors. It is now known to have been applied also to foreign monarchs; only the emperor was lugal. See with references Saghieh 1983:131; Steinkeller 1987:36 37; Michalowski 2009:19 20. Dossin 1969. EA 84.33. Arnaud 2010:175 proposes to reread dDAMU-ia as dDa-mu-az!, that is, Tammu /Dumu i; but this would not resolve, only displace, the interpretive problem posed by DAMU (see below). So Schroeder 1915; cf. Ribichini 1981:189 192. Mettinger 2013:137 145, 217 219, with the doxographic review of dying-and-rising god skeptics in Chapter 1, and a convincing refutation of Na’aman 1990, who saw in dDAMU-ia a reference to the city’s goddess. For the new reading of Baal in KAI 4, Bonnet 1993; DDUPP:89; Mettinger 2013:140. For the living god’ of Byblos (EA 129.51), see also Moran 1992:211n23; for a further possible attestation in a late third-millennium Egyptian Pyramid Texts, see Redford 1990:826; Mettinger 2013:144 145 with references in n166. See DDUPP:79 80. 483 Chapter Nineteen So far, so good. But one must still explain why Baal/Haddu was glossed as Damu’ rather than say dI KUR, used elsewhere of storm-gods. Damu, associated with the annual cycle of plant life, is one of several Mesopotamian gures who fall in their youthful prime much like Dumu i, with whom Damu was eventually assimilated, Dumu i himself being connected rather with pastoralism.148 The precise character of these gods’ death and any return has been debated since Fra er; Mettinger, while carefully eschewing monolithic, transhistoric de nitions, has forcefully revived the idea that these and several other gures were truly dying-and-rising’ gods. Storm-gods, by contrast, do not normally die, as is well illustrated by ahweh (for the Baal of Ugarit, see below).149 The same discrepancy is illustrated by Adonis, whose name, it has long been recogni ed, must derive from Semitic ’dn ( lord’). This honori c is attested for a number of Syro-Levantine gods, apparently including the Byblian Baal himself.150 et Adonis, with the noteworthy exception of his predilection for mountainous areas, does not resemble a storm-god. Beautiful young lover of the goddess, haunter of the countryside, his untimely death, her lament, a seasonal return to life, dividing the year between his earthly lover and the ueen of the underworld this is a distinctly Dumu i-like portfolio.151 And so I believe Mettinger is right to suggest that the Byblian Baal-Damu’ is a hybrid due to Mesopotamian in uence on the city’s royal cult: The proximity of Adon(is), Damu, and Dumu i should alert us to the possibility that Byblos was a site where Adon(is) was part of a syncretistic development in which he adopted features originally connected with the Sumerian and Akkadian myths of ourneys to the Netherworld.152 The most tangible and appropriate vehicle for a focused importation of such ideas, as well as their survival into IA myth, is a cult of royal ancestors, akin to the Rephaim’ of Ugarit.153 Such developments would have to be placed rather 148 149 150 151 152 153 RlA 2:115 116 ( Damu, Ebeling); Black and Green 1992 s.v. Damu. Mettinger 2013:144, 207, 218, 220. See with earlier references Loret 1984; Mettinger 2013:125 126, 140 141 (citing Bordreuil 1977 for Adonis’ ’dn , alongside the goddess herself, in a tenth-century Byblian inscription). Smith 2001:117 118; Mettinger 2013:218 219. The Byblian cult-myth of Adonis’ return, as described by Lucian, can hardly be dismissed as emulation of Christian theology. For those who have held this desperate position, and a convincing refutation, see Mettinger 2010:26 29, 135 136, 153 154, 217 218. Mettinger 2013:144; cf. Ribichini 1981:190; Smith 2001:117 118. This context was rightly emphasi ed by Ribichini 1981:192 197, 202; cf. Grottanelli 1984:36 38 et passim. For Ugarit, see Chapter 7. 484 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos early, uite possibly well before Rib-Hadda’s letter and Baal’s death and return in the Ugaritian Baal Cycle for which Mettinger posits a parallel reception in Ugarit of the descensus mytheme from the cults of Mesopotamian Dumu i. 154 For the enith of Damu’s cult was the Ur III or OB periods, when he was honored especially at Ur, Isin, Larsa, and Girsu.155 Dumu i en oyed an e ually deep anti uity, being known at Mari for instance already in pre-Sargonic times.156 Mettinger’s hypothesis, I suggest, can e ually explain the Byblian Kinyras, whom we wish to connect with Levantine cultic practices under some Mesopotamian in uence. Damu, like Dumu i, was a sub ect of lamentation-singing in the Ur III and OB periods, when both were involved in the ritual poetics of royal cult, including the mortuary.157 Both are also associated with divini ed instruments. We saw that Dumu i featured thematically in lamentations performed at Mari with or in the presence of the divini ed balang Ninigi ibara, servant to the mourning Ishtar.158 These passages clarify the attestation of a balang counselorgod for Damu himself in the god-list An:Anum.159 Kinnaru of Ugarit, we saw, may be approached along similar lines.160 (As more general chronological support one should recall that Egyptian instruments with gods’ heads are well attested in the MK.161) Our hypothesis re uires that the lamentations of historical Byblos perpetuate a traditional practice going back to the Bron e Age. This idea, inherently plausible given contemporary ANE parallels, can now be supported by a cuneiform text of Ur III date from Byblos itself. The tablet was originally interpreted as a sign-list executed by a scribe-in-training.162 The further inference, that Byblos was already well within the orbit of Mesopotamian elite culture, with literate administrative personnel, remains reasonable.163 But D. Arnaud has now shown that the text is in fact a dedicatory inscription relating to some restoration of the temple and/or cult of the Byblian goddess.164 Though the larger context is damaged, several important details survive. 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Mettinger 2013:218, cf. 220 for echariah 12:11 ( On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo ). For further evidence of Damu at Ebla ( ), Ugarit, Sidon, and Tyre, see DDUPP:190 192. See n148. Mettinger 2010:201 and n87. See Cohen 1993:465 481; Smith 2001:113; PHG 37 and n143, 147, 183, 197n31. See p64 and Heimpel, Balang Gods, Section 2c, 4a 5; 23b, 23f, 47a. Heimpel, Balang Gods, 53 168; cf. PHG:113. See especially p134 146. See p60 and n81. Dossin 1969, especially 245 248; cf. Saghieh 1983:131; Dalley et al. 1998:15, 17. Gen 2010:211. Arnaud 2010:164 174 (Eš6-tar2-e 3 at reverse 3). 485 Chapter Nineteen First, the goddess is explicitly called Ishtar’ (Eš6-tar2-e 3) very early con rmation of classical authors that identify Baalat Gebal as Astarte. We should not be too categorical, of course, since Hittite and Ugaritian sources show that many regional goddesses could be considered forms of Ishtar. But this fact is itself signi cant for its implications of supralocal theological thought. Second, the text itemi es several appurtenances of the goddess’s cult. These include not only a bed presumably for processions involving the cult image but a female singer (mi2-nar), and a female player of the balang’ (mi2-bala -ti, or munus bala -di3, as Heimpel reads the signs).165 Arnaud rightly connects these cult-musicians with ritual lamentation, given the common association of balang and lament in Mesopotamian contexts.166 et balang’ itself need not refer narrowly to a Sumerian instrument of that name; more probably it masks a local counterpart. That this was precisely innārum so vocali ed in Byblos at this early date is a ready guess given the same lexical e uation at Ebla (Chapter 4) and the many parallels for female knr-players in the region like the later lyre-players who play for a goddess on the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls (Chapter 11). Remember that Bar Koni attributes lamentation of Tammu not only to his father but his mother, and that in Mesopotamian laments Dumu i was variously mourned as the goddess’s spouse, son, and brother a range that re ects the reality of women crying over their dead husbands and children. 167 While balang’ is not written with a divine determinative in our text, we can at least say, on the basis of the parallels, that this instrument was the sacred property of the goddess, dedicated to use in her cult.168 Circumstantial evidence therefore indicates that by the late third millennium Byblos hosted a cultic environment that is consistent with the eventual emergence of a Byblian Kinyras’. Conclusion I propose that Kinyras, Kauthar, and Theias are three names for a single complex Byblian gure in whom a Kothar was fused with a Divine Knr independent of Ugarit. While this Kinyras’ was confused’ with Kothar at Byblos, the opposite outcome transpired on Cyprus, where Kothar was more severely e aced. This resulted in a curious inversion whereby Cypriot Kinyras could be seen as originating in Byblos, while others saw Byblian Kauthar’ extending his reign over Cyprus. This mirrored distribution, I have argued, re ects a speci c 165 166 167 168 Cf. Heimpel, Balang Gods, Section 3c1. Arnaud 2010:173. PHG:37 38. See p101 102. 486 Kinyras, Kothar, and the Passage from Byblos cult-connection between island and mainland in the pre-Greek period. While Alashiya is already attested textually in the nineteenth century, the material record shows clearly that Cyprus’ great cosmopolitan age began rather later. The historical moment’ between Byblos and Cyprus, if such there was, might be related to the founding’ of Paphos by Phoinix’, which Eusebios dated to 1425. This tradition, I have suggested, may be connected with monumentali ation of the goddess’s sanctuary towards the end of the pre-Greek period.169 A speci c link here with Byblos would explain the structural agreement between ps.Meliton and the fama recentior of the Paphian priesthood. 169 See p363. 487 20 Kinyras at Sidon? The Strange affair of abdalonymos T is c a ter addresses a curious ro lem that may entail a further mainland Kinyras’, this time at Sidon. Abdalonymos Servant of the Gods’ in Phoenician (Abd-elonim) was said to be an impoverished member of the Sidonian royal house, installed by Alexander as king of that city in 333 332 after deposing Straton’ (that is Abdastart III) following the battle of Issos.1 He is epigraphically attested and appears in several further Alexander episodes.2 A sarcophagus from the royal necropolis of Sidon, showing a battle-scene in which Alexander is accompanied by a Companion in Persian dress, is usually thought to have been dedicated by him, or to contain his remains.3 How long he reigned is unknown, but he will have been deposed by one of Alexander’s successors before the end of the fourth century.4 Despite his realness, however, our accounts of Abdalonymos’ promotion have a fablelike uality, tending towards the moral that kings owe their position to Chance, and keep it by irtue. The basic story must go back to Kleitarkhos, the early and colorful Alexander-historian who favored reversals-of-fortune.5 It is told, with cosmetic variations, by Plutarch and the so-called vulgate authors who followed Kleitarkhos Curtius Rufus, Diodoros Siculus, and Justin in his 1 2 3 4 5 See generally Lane Fox 1980:184; Green 1991:246; Heckel and ardley 1997:143. Clearly the variant forms Balonymos (Diodoros), Aralynomos or Alynomos (Plutarch), and Abdellonymos (Pollux Onomastikon 6.105) result from textual corruption (cf. Hammond 1983:119), as well perhaps as variations in rendering the Phoenician name. The etymology of Alynomus’ attempted by Ribichini 1982:496n67 is thus unnecessary. See Lane Fox 1980:184. Grainger 1991:61 62; Palagia 2000:188 189, plausibly noting that Abdalonymos, as a parvenu, would have had good reason to portray himself at Alexander’s side. But for a new reading of the monument, see Heckel 2006. Grainger 1991:61 62; Palagia 2000:186. Hammond 1983:43, 113, 119. 489 Chapter Twenty epitome of Pompeius Trogus.6 Curtius Rufus and Justin correctly place the events at Sidon, an agreement that indicates that this was true of Kleitarkhos too. Diodoros moves the tale to Tyre perhaps for reasons of dramatic pacing but his identi cation of the deposed king as Straton betrays Sidon as the original location.7 Unexpectedly, however, Plutarch transfers the tale to Paphos, and applies it there to the last of the Kinyradai. This concise version, which otherwise contains all essential features, may be uoted in full: And again in Paphos, when the reigning king was clearly un ust and wicked, Alexander cast him out and began seeking for an alternative, since the race of the Kinyradai seemed to be waning and giving out. But there was one, after all, who they said still survived an obscure pauper of a man, maintaining himself carelessly in some garden.8 Those who had been sent for him arrived, and he was found drawing water for his garden beds. He was really shocked as the soldiers laid hold of him and ordered him to march. And when he had been brought in his cheap garments to Alexander, he was proclaimed king and assumed the royal purple, and became one of the so-called Companions. His name was Abdalonymos.9 Some scholars have suspected the in uence of Persian or other ANE folktale patterns, a rags-to-riches kingship along the lines of Sargon, Moses, David, or Cyrus the Great.10 One may also see the imprint of Hellenistic moral philosophy,11 especially in the version of Curtius Rufus, where Abdalonymos recalls the old man of ergil’s Georgics a natural Epicurean whose well-tended garden makes 6 7 8 9 10 11 Diodoros Siculus 17.47.1 6; Curtius Rufus 4.1.16 26; Plutarch Moralia 340c e; Justin Epitome 11.10.8 9. Hammond 1983:43; Grainger 1991:34. Diodoros includes the colorful touch that Abdalonymos was working as a hired laborer: λα εν α τ ν ν τινι κήπ μισθοῦ μ ν ἀντλοῦντα (17.47.4). Plutarch Moralia 340c d: πάλιν ἐν ά , τοῦ ασιλεύοντος ἀδίκου κα πονηροῦ ανέντος, ἐκ αλ ν τοῦτον λέ ανδρος τερον ἐζήτει, τοῦ ινυραδ ν γένους δη θίνειν κα ἀπολείπειν δοκοῦντος να δ ο ν ασαν περιε ναι πένητα κα δο ον νθρ πον ἐν κήπ τιν παρημελημέν ς διατρε όμενον ἐπ τοῦτον ο πεμ θέντες κον, ε ρέθη δ πρασια ς δ ρ ἐπαντλ ν κα διεταράχθη τ ν στρατι τ ν ἐπιλαμ ανομέν ν α τοῦ κα αδίζειν κελευόντ ν ἀχθε ς δ πρ ς λέ ανδρον ἐν ε τελε σινδονίσκ ασιλε ς ἀνηγορεύθη κα πορ ύραν λα ε κα ε ς ν τ ν ταίρ ν προσαγορευομέν ν ἐκαλε το δ δαλ νυμος. For the corrupt variants of his name, see n1. Lane Fox 1980:184; Hammond 1983:43. Cf. Hammond 1983:119. 490 Kinyras at Sidon? him more fortunate than a king. Abdalonymos’ poverty is due to his essential probity; he goes about his work blissfully ignorant of the events rocking Asia.12 According to the more detailed accounts of Curtus Ru us and Diodoros, Alexander bade Hephaistion recruit a suitable replacement for Straton. When Hephaistion o ered the position to a guest-friend (or two), it was declined on the grounds that the appointment should be made from the royal stock; Abdalonymos was then put forward. All accounts focus on his surprise at being suddenly sei ed, clad in royal purple, and enthroned, before becoming a favorite in Alexander’s Companions. A genuine member of the royal house may well have been necessary to secure public goodwill and cultic approval; and a relatively disempowered scion would make a more reliable client-king.13 But how on earth did this tale become connected with Paphos and the Kinyradai 14 Plutarch himself may not be responsible for the error. In treating Alexander, he often relied on the various fabricated documents (letters, diary) that in later Hellenistic times lled public appetite for new or better information about the great con ueror.15 This complex process would provide ample opportunity for the development of a spurious morali ing anecdote. Still, the tale’s attachment to Paphos cannot have been random, and calls for some explanation. Alexander is not known to have set foot on Cyprus personally. All the Cypriot kings, going over to Alexander after Issos and contributing ships for the siege of Tyre, were indemni ed for having served the Persians under compulsion.16 A famous catastrophe was already on record for Nikokles and the whole royal family in 310/309 after Alexander’s death.17 But the ancient controversy about whether the disaster befell Nikokles of Paphos or Nikokreon of Salamis arose 12 13 14 15 16 17 Curtius Rufus 4.1: Causa ei paupertatis sicut plerisque probitas erat. Intentusque operi diurno strepitum armorum, qui totam Asiam concusserat, non exaudiebat. Scholars have attempted various historical explanations. For Lane Fox 1980:382, Abdalonymos’ insulation from the decadence of the court made him a kindred spirit to Alexander ( ust the oriental to see something congenial in Asia’s new and unexpected king ). Green 1991:246 sees a calculated dramatic move designed to establish an unfailingly loyal client-king. Grainger 1991:34 suggests that Abdalonymos was purposefully excluded from the court by his royal relations, and even from the city limits. The Paphian version was accepted as factual by Fra er 1914 1:42 43; Ribichini 1982:496. While HC:152 rightly saw it as fabulous, that cannot completely discredit the historicity of the Sidonian version (see below). NPHP:26, though considering it a myth, gives credence to Paphos as the proper locale since the decadence of the Paphian kings became a topos in the fourth century: see Athenaios 255c 257d, who cites both Antiphanes fr. 200 PCG and Klearkhos of Soloi fr. 19 Wehrli; cf. Paphos:205. See e.g. Powell 1939; Pearson 1955. Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 2.20.3. Diodoros Siculus 20.21.2 3; Polyainos Stratagems 8.48. For this episode’s rightful location at Paphos, see p416n95. 491 Chapter Twenty very early, being re ected already in the Parian Marble (inscribed in 264/263).18 The transfer of the con agration to Salamis may have left a vacuum in some minds as to what became of the famous Kinyradai at Paphos. But why should the particular tale of Abdalonymos have lled this gap One would hardly expect a member of the Paphian royal house to have a good Phoenician name.19 An alternative hypothesis should therefore be contemplated that Kleitarkhos connected the Sidonian royal house to Kinyras’, using the name as the most appropriate Greek’ gloss for the city’s dynastic ancestor. This is made uite possible in principle by the evidence for Kinyras at Byblos (Chapter 19). H. Lewy boldly suggested long ago, without reference to the present problem, that Agenor, the mythical king of Sidon whose son Kadmos pursued Europa westwards, was a linguistic doublet of Kinyras.20 While Agenor’ does have a clear Greek etymology ( very manly’), one might plead folk remodeling. Also worth noting are Kadmos’ association with the lyre, and his well-toned wife Harmonia.21 An appropriate Sidonian royal cult is also ready to hand: the Astarte whose name was piously born by Straton/Abdastart and his predecessors, who served as her priests a distinctly Kinyras-like role.22 As it happens, Kleitarkhos also discussed the tale of Myrrha, presumably in connection with Alexander’s Phoenician campaign.23 Although he followed Panyassis in making her father Theias and locating the myth at Byblos,24 this would be understandable if he connected Kinyras rather with Sidon in explicating the a air of Abdalonymos. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Parian Marble B 17 (FGH 239). While Greek and Phoenician royal names alike appear at Lapethos (p339, 510), the explanation for them remains open; and the known Paphian royal names are all Greek. Lewy 1895:226. Astour 1965:139n5, though agnostic on this point, nevertheless (p. 308) interpreted Kynortas one of the pre-Dorian kings of Sparta, brother of Hyakinthos (Pausanias 3.1.3; Apollodoros Library 1.9.5, 3.10.3) as knr-player’; and even connected Kynortion and Myrtion, the names of two peaks above the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros (Pausanias 2.27.7), with Kinyras and Myrrha. Both ideas, though approved by Dugand 1973:200 202, are highly doubtful. Nonnos has him pretend to have surpassed Apollo on the instrument; his alleged punishment is not the usual death, but the breaking of his strings (Dionysiaka 1.485 505), and he is rewarded with marriage to Harmonia, herself with lyric associations (2.663 666). For Harmonia, see Franklin 2006a:55 and n42; but note that I no longer hold to my interpretation there of Nikomakhos Excerpts 1 (MSG:266): instead of χαιο ς δ π άδμου τοῦ γήνορος παραλα ε ν (suggested by R. Janko), I would revert to Jan’s π άδμον in MSG. In other words, the Achaeans did not receive the lyre from Kadmos’ (which would contradict the passage’s earlier assertion that Orpheus rst received it from Hermes), but in the time of Kadmos’ (a sign that the passage comes from an early chronographic source, perhaps Hellanikos: see for now Franklin 2003:302n12; Franklin 2012:747). See p407n45. Kleitarkhos FGH 137 F 3 ( Stobaios Anthology 40.20.73) with Jacoby in RE 11 (1922), 638. Cf. p284. See p284. 492 Kinyras at Sidon? Another line of evidence that may be relevant relates to Euagoras I and the self-styled Kinyrad dynasty of Salamis.25 At the height of his power, Euagoras controlled Tyre and several other Phoenician cities.26 I have argued that his Kinyrad posture was meant to have broad appeal on Cyprus, including to its Phoenician communities; if so, it could have availed e ually well in his mainland possessions.27 His son or grandson, Euagoras II, was expelled from Salamis, probably during the revolt against Persia in 351. Persian support for his restoration there was eventually undermined by court slander, but Diodoros tells us that he was assigned a mainland kingdom, and good numismatic evidence indicates that this was precisely Sidon. Ruling poorly for only a few years (ca. 344 341), he was compelled to ee; it is not clear whether he alienated his own citi ens, crossed the Persians, or both. He was succeeded there by Straton who ruled for about ten years before being put down by Alexander.28 Meanwhile, Pnytagoras, apparently grandson of Euagoras I, had followed Euagoras II at Salamis; he was among the Cypriot kings who sailed into Sidon with 120 ships for Alexander’s expedition against Tyre.29 Could Alexander have agreed to reestablish the Salaminian dynasty in the city In this case, Abdalonymos’ might be seen as a throne-name designed to present a native aspect, and his humble origin a means of obscuring the scheme. A Sidonian Kinyras, in any form, would provide a ready stimulus for the displacement of the tale to Paphos, with which most Aegean Greeks will have associated the Kinyras. When the story’s rags-to-riches appeal gave it a popular life of its own, it would gladly wander from Sidon and come to its more obvious home, whose last kings, rightly or wrongly, were as famed for decadent power as Straton himself.30 The moral thrust of the story presupposes an essential enduring righteousness of the royal line, when not corrupted by despotism and luxury, which is uite in tune with the virtuous Kinyras examined in Chapter 13. On this point, at least, Kinyras is a plausible prior cause for the story in any of its forms.31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 See p346 347, 351 359. Diodoros Siculus 15.2.4; HC:135 136; cf. p347. See p535 359. Diodoros Siculus 16.46.3; HC:146 147 and n3. Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 2.20.3. For Pnytagoras’ relationship to Euagoras, see HC:143n3. See n14 above. Cf. Ribichini 1982:496: La distin ione tra il prestigio del ricchissimo sovrano del tempo del mito’, e la miseria del timido e povero suo discendente dei tempi reali’ non poteva essere pi chiaramente delineata. 493 21 Syro-Cilician Approaches K innaru of U arit, I have argued, was probably but one regional manifes- tation of a more widespread pattern. Kinnaru himself, of course, belongs to a Syrian milieu. We also saw that material from the Hurrian sphere, stretching across Syria and into Cilicia/Ki uwatna, documents both its second-millennium innāru-culture, and divini ation of cult tools and ob ects (see Chapter 6). This background can help explain the curious oracular statue, enrobed and bearded, which Lucian saw beside the throne of Helios’ at Hierapolis/Manbog.1 This was presented to him as Apollo’, but Lucian emphasi es its departure from typical Greek representations; the priests maintained that it was undigni ed to portray the god as a youth (an imperfect state).2 One thinks of the bearded Apollo’ who, seated or enthroned, plays an asymmetrical nr-type lyre on two fourth-century (Persian-era) Samarian coins.3 Other Syrians will have regarded the Hierapolitan Apollo’ as Nabu, the Babylonian scribe-god and son of Marduk whose cult ourished especially in the Neo-Babylonian period (626 539).4 Nabu’s identi cation with Apollo was promoted especially by the Seleucids, harmoni ing the former’s importance in the Babylonian royal cult with their own alleged descent from the Olympian.5 Ps.-Meliton con rms that Hierapolitan Apollo’ could indeed be called Nabu in Lucian’s time; yet this very passage described by F. Millar as a salutary warning as to the impossibility of arriving at a true’ de nition of the nature of Near Eastern deities 6 simultaneously reveals that Nabu’ itself was not a fully satisfactory label to the priests: 1 2 3 4 5 6 See p462. Lucian n the rian Goddess 35 37. See Figure 5.1 above; DCPIL:45 and g. 1 with references; SAM:118 no. 78. See generally Pomponio 1978; RlA 9:16 29 (Seidl and Pomponio Nab A and B). Dirven 1999:130 131; OSG:456 466; Bounni 1981:108; Erickson 2011:57 59. Millar 1994:243. 495 Chapter Twenty-One But touching Nebo, which is in Mabug, why should I write to you; for, lo all the priests which are in Mabug know that it is the image of Orpheus, a Thracian Magus.7 When Lucian’s Apollo’ and ps.-Meliton’s Orpheus’ are read together, it becomes clear that the Hierapolitan god was depicted as a l re la er.8 Such a Nabu is corroborated by explicitly labeled representations from Palmyra and Dura Europos, which, while sometimes exhibiting iconographical in uence of Apollo ithar id s, e ually contain many native Syrian elements, including instrument morphology.9 Some are uali ed as Nbw qnyt, which scholars have variously interpreted as Association of Nabu’, Nabu the Citharode’, or Nabu’s Lamentation’.10 And yet, though Nabu the lyrist’ was clearly a popular conception in the region, this appears to be a local innovation, as Babylonian sources do not obviously connect Nabu with music, much less the lyre.11 The problem needs further investigation,12 but preliminarily it would seem that, in parts of Roman Syria, Nabu absorbed an indigenous, oracular, lyre-playing god; his name was displaced or forgotten, and he could be variously cal ued as Apollo or Orpheus. This must be the same gure whom the Sabians of Harran venerated as the prophet Or f ’ ( Orpheus).13 In what follows, I shall argue that Syrian and Syro-Hurrian innāru culture has also left its imprint on several mythological traditions tracing Kinyras to North Syria and Cilicia. These complement, rather than contradict, Kinyras’ Byblian, and perhaps Sidonian, connections discussed in Chapters 19 and 20. And whereas with Byblos one must uestion whether Kinyras was a secondary accretion through his association with Adonis, the present material makes Adonis himself seem ancillary. While the geographical orientation of these sources is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ps.-Meliton A olo 44.34 36, trans. after Cureton 1855. Dirven 1999:130n17; OSG:456 457; Lightfoot 2004:99 and n174 ( The discovery of representations of Nebo in the form of Apollo Citharoedus has borne out Clermont-Ganneau’s con ecture that the god’s identi cation as Orpheus is most probably visual, and rests on the image of a god wielding a lyre ; cf. Clermont-Ganneau 1885 1907 3:212 216, Orphée-Nébo Mabboug et Apollon ). For the apparently incompatible description by Macrobius aturnalia 1.17.66 68, see Bounni 1981:11 with references. Baur and Rostovt e 1929 1952 7/8:266; Ingholt et al. 1955 no. 237, 301 302, 310; Du Mesnil du Buisson 1962:230, 285 287 and g. 176, 566 567; Pomponio 1979:228; Bounni 1981 pl. II.2 3, III.1 2; Dirven 1999:128 and pl. II. See Ingholt et al. 1955:43 ( Association of Nabu’); Milik 1972:159 160 ( Nabu the Citharode’); Du Mesnil du Buisson 1962:286 ( La lamentation de Néb ’), proposing a connection with Nabu’s laments for Marduk in Babylonia ( allusion un rite des f tes de N san ), 567. Cf. Pomponio 1978:226 228, 230. Cf. Lightfoot 2004:76, 78 79, 98 105. Chwolsohn 1856 1:780, 800 801. 496 Syro-Cilician Approaches unambiguous overall, they present many pu les, often insoluble. It is all the more welcome, therefore, that Cilicia has produced our most compelling iconographic evidence for a Divine Lyre the so-called Lyre-Player Group of Seals, an analysis of which will appropriately conclude this study. We have already seen one obli ue link between Kinyras and Cilicia in the Tamiradai, the obsolete priestly order that yielded divination rights to the Kinyradai of Paphos.14 Another connection is o ered by an elegiac couplet in the Gree Antholo All Cilicians are bad men. But among the Cilicians is One good man, Kinyras though Kinyras too is Cilician.15 These verses, traditionally assigned to Demodokos of Leros (late sixth century BCE), are now considered a post-Archaic, slavish imitation of the poet’s two authentic fragments.16 Those are very close in structure and thought, but feature Milesians and Lerians instead of Cilicians.17 This makes it uncertain whether Kinyras appears here for any special legendary associations with the region, or has ust been plugged into the formula as a handy PN. The couplet does at least suggest the currency of the PN in Cilicia, and may well relate to the irtuous Kinyras’ discussed in Chapter 13. More revealing evidence comes from two mythographic passages that share a basic framework, beginning with a descent from the Athenian hero Kephalos and leading to Kinyras’ marriage with Pygmalion’s daughter on Cyprus. The Kephalid genealogy is managed uite di erently in each text, with the integration of disparate epichoric material presenting many interpretive challenges. But the uni ue names of Pygmalion’s daughter (Metharme or Thymarete, obviously variants) and Oxyporos, her son with Kinyras, show that this much of the two constructions is cognate; and that in turn permits a degree of comparative analysis that implicates a third text, bearing on what may be called the Egyptian Detour. The origin of these Kephalid genealogies is obscure and probably complex. The presence of Kephalos himself, however, presumably originates in fthcentury Athenian political interests in Cyprus and Cilicia, perhaps nding mythographic expression in one or more Atthidographers.18 We have already 14 15 16 17 18 See p402 406. Gree Antholo 11.236 Demodokos fr. 3 PLG/IEG: άντες μ ν ίλικες κακο ἀνέρες ἐν δ ίλι ιν / ε ς ἀγαθ ς ινύρης, κα ινύρης δ ίλι . See PLG 2:67; FGE:39 40. West points out that καὶ δέ is post-Archaic usage. Demodokos fr. 1 2, especially 2 (κα τόδε ημοδόκου έριοι κακοί ο χ μέν, ς δ ο / πάντες, πλ ν ροκλέους κα ροκλέης έριος See p355 356 and n113. 497 Chapter Twenty-One seen that other Athenocentric myths were linked to Akamas, Soloi, and Khytroi, and pondered how Euagoras of Salamis may have pro ted from an Athenian Kinyras’. 19 So I shall concentrate here rather on what happens in the genealogies after Kephalos. Aoios and Paphos: Two Cilician Crossings The rst passage is a scholion attached to a verse of Dionysios the Periegete’s escri tion of the World (second century CE), where Cyprus is described as the lovely land of Aphrodite, daughter of Dione. 20 At rst sight, the scholiast’s comments seem rather gratuitous: Hyon the Egyptian settled this island when it was called Kerastis Horned’ 21 Hyon whose son Kettes died with no male heir (ápais).22 But Kephalos, son of Pandion and Herse, settling in Asia, did have sons Aoios and Paphos. The latter, crossing to Cyprus, founded the city named after him, and begot Kinyras; Kinyras held sway over the island alongside Pygmalion, whose daughter Thymarete he married, and begot Oxyporos and Adonis; after Adonis died at the tusks of a boar, Kinyras put it about that he had been abducted by Aphrodite, and sent him o to be buried at Byblos in Phoenicia, beside the river which is called Adonis.23 We shall leave aside for now the introductory Egyptian myth, its possible relationship to what follows, and the marriage into Pygmalion’s family these 19 20 21 22 23 See p340 341. Dionysios the Periegete 508 509: Κ προς ἐπ ρατος α α ιωναί ς φροδίτ ς. The l ἄστυ (for α α), appearing in the scholia, Eustathios’ commentary, and many MSS, can be applied to islands in epic diction; α α is thus generally favored as di cilor lectio (retained by Lightfoot 2014). In any case, α τ ν shows that the scholiast’s comments apply to the whole island. But note that Ovid ( etamor hoses 10.220 237) locates his Cerastae at Amathous speci cally (see below). Κεραστία is usual (see p516 below), but for Κεραστίς cf. Nonnos ion sia a 5.614, 13.441, 29.372. For the meaning, see p135. For this sense of ἄπαις, cf. LSJ s.v. For its signi cance in the present myth, see below. Note that both Hyon’ and Kettes’ are emendations (of υἱ ς and Kέλτ ς, respectively) based on the parallel in Servius Auctus on ergil clo ues 10.18: see further below. Dionysios the Periegete 509 (GGM 2:450) FGH 758 F 3a: Κεραστὶν α τ ν καλουμέν ν κισεν ων ἰγ πτιος, ο υἱὸς Κέττ ς ἄπαις τελευτ . Κέφαλος δὲ ανδίονος καὶ ρσ ς εἰς τ ν σίαν οἰκῶν σχε παῖδας ῷον καὶ άφον, ς διαβ ς εἰς α τ ν π λιν κτί ει άφον, ο υἱὸς Κιν ρας προσέσχε τ ν νῆσον καὶ υγμαλίων οίνι , ο θυγατέρα υμαρέτ ν γαμεῖ Κιν ρας, καὶ ποιεῖ πορον καὶ δωνιν, ν πὸ συὸς ἀποθαν ντα λέγειν πεισεν ς ἥρπασται πὸ φροδίτ ς, καὶ πέμ ας θα εν ἐν βλῳ τῆς οινίκ ς παρ ποταμὸν, ς δωνις καλεῖται. 498 Syro-Cilician Approaches discussions re uire supplementary material from the second passage and begin by examining Aoios and Paphos. Presumably their mother is to be understood as Eos, the Dawn goddess, well known for her loving abductions of beautiful mortals, including Kephalos. But the abduction motif itself has evidently been suppressed. This is suggested both by Kephalos’ settling in’ (oi n) Asia potentially embracing Syria or even wider hori ons, although a special connection with Cilicia will emerge below and the euhemeri ing version of Adonis’ death, which treats tales of divine abduction as deliberate falsehoods and misunderstandings. This may also be why Pandion features here as Kephalos’ father, not Hermes (as in the second passage to be considered).24 As to Paphos’, this is only one of several genealogical constructions connecting Kinyras to the city of that name. A Pindaric scholion makes Kinyras’ parents Eurymedon and a Paphian nymph (or the nymph Paphia’).25 Eurymedon, if it is not a speaking-name,26 could indicate autochthonous connections with southern Anatolia, as there was a Pamphylian river so called, and a region near Tarsus in Cilicia.27 If this is the right approach, it would imply some crossing to Cyprus, either by Kinyras or Eurymedon himself, since the nymph-bride suggests a local Paphian birth (for both her and her son). An alternative Paphian mother is probably to be found in the Paphos’ whom Ovid makes the o spring of Pygmalion and his ivory beloved. Although this child’s gender is obscured by variant readings, a female Paphos is more likely on our current understanding of the textual tradition.28 A male interpretation is found in Medieval mythographers like Theodontius and Boccaccio, who not unreasonably assumed that Ovid intended a dynastic se uence Pygmalion Paphos Kinyras (see Appendix F, G). And, indeed, a father Paphos was evidently the norm. Besides the Dionysian scholion obviously independent of Ovid Paphos is probably given as Kinyras’ father by another Pindaric scholion.29 Then there is an early third-century CE papyrus of Greek uestions’, in which Paphos, unambiguously male, is called m tro ole t s, citi en of the mother city’ a designation Paphos en oyed is is the rest of Cyprus in the Roman period.30 Clearly the uestion assumed 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 But the variant was itself traditional: a fth-century vase by Douris shows Eos pursuing Kephalos as Pandion stands by (Getty Museum 84.AE.569, noted by Gant 1993 1:238). Pindar P thian 2.28: υ ς δ ρυμέδοντος κα α ίας νύμ ης. Remember that Paphia’ is a title of the goddess herself. See p333. Stephanos of By antium s.v. ρυμέδων ποταμὸς αμφυλίας καὶ τ πος κατ αρσ ν. Cf. Engel 1841 2:124; Baurain 1980a:280n13. Ovid etamor hoses 10.297 298: see comments of B mer 1969 1986 ad loc. The issue hinges on de uo versus de ua in 297, and hac in 298. Pindar P thian 2.27a: ν δ ο τος πόλλ νος υ ς, ά ου κατ ἐνίους. Pa 2688 lines 4 13, with άφου το μ τροπολείτ ου υἱ ς in 6, where υἱ ς ( son’), if correct, will refer to Kinyras (see below). The unusual sense of μ τροπολείτ ς here is clari ed by the 499 Chapter Twenty-One that Paphos himself founded the city. If the text has been rightly supplemented with a reference to his son, it attests an otherwise unknown episode in which Kinyras steals something from Aphrodite and takes it to his house; the goddess comes, sees it in his hand, and seduces him in mortal guise. This explained some Paphian cult-practice involving garlands of roses. Adonis’ metamorphosis into the rose (through his blood) was presumably a parallel aition.31 Returning to the passage at hand, the scholiast tells us nothing about Aoios, and one wonders if this was true in his source; for this obscure and remarkable gure is something of a doublet to Paphos, and uite probably older. It is, after all, not Paphos, but Aoios, whose name means He of the Dawn’ or The Eastern One’ ( Gk. a s/ ),32 that is the more natural son of Eos. By a lucky chance, two ancient lexica preserve crucial material collated by some benevolent scholar of re ned tastes.33 Here we learn that Aoios was made son of Kephalos and Eos by the early Athenian geographer Phileas ( . ca. 425 400), who further stated that Aoios was the rst king of Cyprus and gave his name to a mountain there, from which ran two rivers, the Setrakhos (or Satrakhos) and the Aplieus.34 Presumably, the idea that Aoios was an old name for Adonis, and that the Cypriot kings were his descendants, also goes back to Phileas. The lexicographer went on to note an allusion by Parthenios ( rst century BCE), who called the Setrakhos Aoios’ with reference to the river of this name that ran underground at the Corycian Cave in Rough Cilicia, where Typhon was supposed to be buried.35 Evidently, Parthenios had the Cilician Aoios resurface on Cyprus, and he probably made this the meeting place of Aphrodite 31 32 33 34 35 intercolumnar to Pa 3000: νῆσος Κ προς, μ τρ πολις άφος, lines 1 3 (see note of Parsons/Lloyd-Jones ad loc.; for this text, see further below). The editor tentatively suggests Aristotle’s onstitution of the riots as a source for the story (Aristotle fr. 526 527 Rose). For Paphos Cyprus, Servius/Servius Auctus on ergil Geor ics 2.64 (Pa ho insula); for this usage of Roman provincial capitals, OCD s.v. m tro olis (b). Bion ament for Adonis 65 66; Servius Auctus on ergil clo ues 10.18. See Chantraine 1968 s.v. ως; Lightfoot 1999:184. t molo icum Genuinum s.v. ῷος and t molo icum a num s.v. ῶος (sic), which may be amalgamated here after Lightfoot 1999:118 (Parthenios fr. 29, .v. for textual variants; cf. SH 641): ῷος οταμὸς τῆς Κ πρου. ῷος γ ρ δωνις νομά ετο, καὶ ἀπ’ α το οἱ Κ πρου βασιλε σαντες. ω λος δὲ Κεδρασε ς (v. infra n48) καὶ α τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς αυτο μ τρὸς κλ θῆναι τ ν γ ρ είαντος θυγατέρα ο μ ρναν ἀλλ’ ῷαν καλεῖσθαι ( l καλο σι). ιλέας δὲ πρῶτον βασιλέα ῷον, ο ς ντα καὶ Κεφάλου, ἀφ’ ο καὶ ρος τι νομάσθ ώ ον ἐ ο β ποταμῶν φερομένων, ε τ ράχου καὶ πλιέως, τὸν να το των αρθένιος ῷον κέκλ κεν δι τὸ πρὸς τ ν ῶ τετραμμέν ν χειν τ ν σιν, καθώς φ σιν αρθένιος Κωρυκίων σε μενος ἐ ρέων, ἀνατολικῶν ντων δ ναται δὲ ο τως καλεῖσθαι, καθ’ Κιλικία ῷα πάλαι νομά ετο. For Phileas, see Gisinger in RE 19 (1938), 2133 2136 (6). Parthenios fr. 29 Lightfoot. 500 Syro-Cilician Approaches and Adonis (to udge from what must be an allusion in Nonnos).36 Lightfoot’s conclusion that Parthenios was o ering a learned etymology for the Cypriot river is inherently plausible; but the parallels she assembles for underground rivers the Nile was thought to surface at Paphos, and it was foretold that the Pyramus, also in Cilicia, would one day come forth on the island show that poet was working with multiform folk-beliefs. This best explains why Paphian eus was invoked in an epigram (ca. 150 200 CE) commemorating the dedication of Pan and Hermes statues at the Corycian Cave itself, where the Aoios ees in its invisible channels. 37 These verses, despite their later date, are hardly dependent on Parthenios, but an independent sample of the traditions on which Parthenios himself drew. The epigram’s invocation of Paphian eus; the con unction of mountain and river in Cilicia and Cyprus alike; the naming of the Cypriot peak Aoios (or Aoion), Son of the Dawn’ or The Eastern One’, source of Cypriot kingship all of this recalls the Levantine and Anatolian association of mountain peaks with a storm god who functions as royal patron, whom the king serves as highpriest.38 Here we see the force of Aoios’ e uation with Adonis, a parallel manifestation of the same pattern notwithstanding the latter’s special connections to Byblos and Mount Lebanon, and the distinctive myths the Greeks developed about him.39 Within Anatolia itself, note for instance the image of the Hittite King Tudhaliya I (ca. 1245 1215) at the rock-sanctuary of a l kaya, shown bestriding a pair of peaks, probably indicating his association with the divine mountain from which he had taken his name ; in the procession of gods there, the Sun-god is dressed exactly like the monarch only the presence of the winged disk above his head distinguishes the deity from the king. 40 It may be relevant that Cypriot folk-tradition identi es a Baths of Aphrodite’ on the north side of the Akamas peninsula, where Anatolia rst comes into view when going north from Paphos. At this locus amoenus, it is said, the goddess met Adonis (much as in Nonnos).41 Stavros Papageorghiou recalls a conversation in the early 1970s between some villagers one may have been a douser who were discussing how to nd waters for irrigation. Some claimed that rivers from Turkey run under Cyprus and this would solve the water problem in the island 36 37 38 39 40 41 Nonnos ion sia a 13.456 460. For sources and discussion, including the Satrachus’ as it resurfaced in Catullus and probably Cinna (cf. p286n38 above), see Meineke 1843:279 282; Hicks 1891:240 242; Leigh 1994; Lightfoot 1999:181 185. Hicks 1891:240 242 no. 24.2 3: ἐν γαί ς βένθεσιν / θ’ ῶος (sic) ἀφενγέσι ε μασι φε γει. Cf. p465. For Adonis and Mount Kasios, see p465, 514. Beckman 2002b:18. For the spot, and ancient references to baths’ of the goddess, see ris:72 73. 501 Chapter Twenty-One permanently. 42 I do not know that this is said of the Baths of Aphrodite it may be but this need not be the ancient Setrakhos for the parallel to be signi cant. Still, it is worth emphasi ing that, while Nonnos does connect the Setrakhos with Paphos (whence modern scholars tentatively identify it with the Diarrhi os at Kouklia43), the poet’s Cypriot geography is otherwise uite loose; and in the present case he very possibly relied on Parthenios himself.44 For either poet, a vague Paphos’ may have su ced for such an Aphrodite-scene. And the Baths are comfortably within Paphian hori ons: remember that nearby Marion was traced back to Marieus, son of Kinyras.45 However Parthenios may have manipulated the material, it is certain that Aoios’ is an old name in the region, being attested in various dialect forms and with special connections to southern Anatolia and Cyprus. It is found as A as at Perga in Pamphylia, and perhaps Ao and Gauas in Cyprus.46 The identi cation with Adonis was made by the fth century; besides Phileas, we know that Panyassis (ca. 470) called Adonis in treating the tale of Assyrian’ Theias 47 and Smyrna (located at Byblos). A certain o los, probably from Cedasa south of Tyre,48 presumably had Panyassis in mind when he says that Aoios himself was so called from his own mother; for the daughter of Theias was named not Smyrna but Aoia. 49 The entry in Hesykhios for ao a, de ned as trees cut and dedicated to Aphrodite by the temple entrances, as Hegesandros ( ) reports, must also be relevant.50 Bearing in mind the arti cial, Hellenocentric nature of 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Communication, July 25 26, 2014. He continues: The whole thing excited my fantasy I still remember a dream I saw when I was sixteen entering a kind of a cave wandering in an underground world by car where rivers were running everywhere. My dad who was driving told me that all these rivers come from Turkey. The conversation took place in Psimolophou, near Nicosia. HC:7 8. Cf. Lightfoot 1999:183. Stephanos of By antium s.v. άριον. Hesykhios s.v. βώβας δωνις πὸ εργαίων. For Gauas, cf. p467n58. See further Meineke 1843:281 282 (comparing α ας and Aeolic α ως, Boeotian ἄας); R 1 (1894), 2656 2657 s.v. Ao (D mmler); Lightfoot 1999:184. Hesykhios s.v. οί ν: τὸν δωνιν, αν ασις (fr. 25 Kinkel, Matthews fr. 22c EGF, PEG, to be connected with fr. 22ab EGF fr. 27 PEG Apollodoros i rar 3.14.4). For the probable Byblian setting, cf. p467. For this emendation of Κεδρασε ς (n33 above), see RE 10A (1972), 714 715 (13); FGH 758 F 7. See n33. The reading καλε σθαι, , makes this part of o los’ own comments, and lets us restrict Theias to Byblos, where all other sources place him (see p466 468). The variant καλοῦσι ( a d a gloss by the etymologist himself, but it is then unclear ust who called Smyrna this; the Cypriots presumably (Meineke 1843:279), but this raises problems for Theias. Cinna may have alluded to Smyrna as Aoia: te matutinus flentem cons e it ous et flentem aulo idit ost es erus idem (Servius Auctus on ergil Geor ics 1.288 Cinna fr. 6 Courtney FLP). Hesykhios s.v. ἀοῖα; cf. FGH 758 F 9. 502 Syro-Cilician Approaches Adonis himself,51 and the Greek etymology of Aoios, it seems likely that Aoios arose during the EIA Aegean diaspora as a Grecophone term for various gods of the Baal type, and/or the kings in whose image Baal was created. Aoios’ most fre uent connections are with Cilicia. The area as a whole is said to have been called Aoia (probably poetic),52 and Hesykhios tells us that the Cilicians were called Aoioi either from a river which owed through the area (the Aoios, obviously) or from Aoios the son of Kephalos. 53 This dual entry brings us full circle to the scholiast’s Kephalid Aoios, and encourages us to view hero and river as largely the same (like the Adonis river at Byblos). There is an obvious parallel between the Cilician river’s resurgence on Cyprus (Parthenios) and the hero’s own crossing to the island (clearly implied by the scholiast’s location of his birth in Asia’, on the one hand, and the strong Cypriot connections asserted by Phileas on the other). This deduction is con rmed by a precious, though meager, notice preserved in Isidore of Seville (ca. 600 CE), who mentions an Aeos (sic) son of Typhon as founder Paphos.54 (Boccaccio brought this passage to the attention of King Hugo I of Cyprus, and noted the con ict with Pygmalion Paphos in Ovid.55) The lucky mention of Typhon guarantees that a ilician Aoios is in view, and connects him precisely to the Corycian Cave. The monster’s fathering’ of a river is paralleled by a Syrian version of the Typhon myth, locali ed at Antioch: the monster’s slaughter by eus engendered a river, probably the Orontes.56 Phileas is likely to have presented some such Cypriot immigration scenario; for while the geographer clearly treated Aoios’ insular associations in some detail, Anatolian matters dominate his other fragments (nearly half).57 An immigrant Aoios also seems to have induced textual corruption in one MS of the Dionysian scholia.58 Given all this material, it is remarkable that the scholion credits not Aoios, but Paphos, with the passage to Cyprus and the city foundation there. Paphos appears to have displaced his brother, who was nevertheless kept in the family. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 See p314. See n33. Hesykhios s.v. οι ίλικες ἀπ ου τοῦ ε άλου τοῦ παραρέοντος ποταμοῦ ( Meineke 1843:281). Isidore ri ines 15.1.48: Aeos honis lius Pa hum, with an obvious emendation (Lightfoot 1999:184). Boccaccio Genealo of the Pa an Gods 4.23. Eustathios on Homer Iliad 2.780 785: noted by Lightfoot 1999:182. Phileas fr. 7 12 Gisinger (see n34). See a crit to GGM 2:450 (reading of I, in which Κεραστὶν α τ ν καλουμέν ν is followed by εἰς ν ἰὸς (sic) υἱὸς ἰγυπτίου κ σεν. This corruption was doubtless stimulated by Aoios in line 35; but its speci c form (εἰς ἥν) implies some de nite idea about the deeds of ἰ ς’; emendation to ῷος is again easy, but note the form’s potential relevance to Isidore, whose Aeos should go back ultimately to a (the same ) corrupt Greek text. 503 Chapter Twenty-One Solar Gods, Sandokos, and the Syrian Descent Kinyras’ second Kephalid genealogy is a much more elaborate construction found in ps.-Apollodoros, who duly placed it among his Athenian legends though otherwise the material is startlingly unorthodox: The son of Herse and Hermes was Kephalos, whom Eos fell in love with and abducted. Sleeping with him in Syria, she gave birth to a son, Tithonos, whose son was Phaethon. is son was Astynoos, and Astynoos’ son was Sandokos. Sandokos went out from Syria into Cilicia and founded the city of Kelenderis, and marrying Pharnake59 the daughter of Megassares, the king of Hyria, he begot Kinyras. Kinyras, arriving with a host, founded Paphos in Cyprus, and marrying there Metharme, daughter of Pygmalion king of the Cypriots, begot Oxyporos and Adonis, and besides these his daughters Orsedike and Laogore and Braisia. But these, sleeping with foreign men through the anger of Aphrodite, ended their lives in Egypt. And Adonis, while still a youth, was, through the anger of Artemis, wounded by a boar and died while hunting.60 Preliminarily we may notice Kinyras’ three daughters and their Egyptian grooms, whom I shall propose below to identify with Hyon and his brothers in the rst text above. For now we shall concentrate, as before, on the elements of Kinyras’ descent from Kephalos. Ps.-Apollodoros’ genealogy can be seen in part as an expansion of what the scholiast gave, without implying any immediate te tual dependence. While they diverge in whom they make founder of Paphos (Paphos and Kinyras, 59 60 Muncker corrected R’s αινάκ to αρνάκ from uda s.v. καταγ ρ σαι (Κιν ρας δέ, ἀπ γονος αρνάκ ς, βασιλε ς Κυπρίων); this also permits emendation of Hesykhios s.v. Κιν ρας ( αρνά ) and A endi Pro er iorum 4.68 ( άρμ ). See Roscher e . s.v. Pharnake (H fer); RE 19 (1938) s.v. Pharnake (Kroll). The elaborate dynastic inferences of Engel 1841 2:123 were thereby negated. Apollodoros i rar 3.14.3 (Wagner): ρσ ς δὲ καὶ ρμο Κέφαλος, ο ἐρασθεῖσα ς ἥρπασε καὶ μιγεῖσα ἐν υρί παῖδα ἐγένν σε ιθων ν, ο παῖς ἐγένετο αέθων, το του δὲ στ νοος, το δὲ άνδοκος, ς ἐκ υρίας ἐλθ ν εἰς Κιλικίαν, π λιν κτισε Κελένδεριν, καὶ γ μας αρνάκ ν (Muncker su ra : αινάκ ν R) τ ν εγασσάρου το ριέων (Hercher infra : το υρίων R) βασιλέως ἐγένν σε Κιν ραν. ο τος ἐν Κ πρῳ, παραγεν μενος σ ν λαῷ, κτισε άφον, γ μας δὲ ἐκεῖ εθάρμ ν, κ ρ ν υγμαλίωνος Κυπρίων βασιλέως, πορον ἐγένν σε καὶ δωνιν, πρὸς δὲ το τοις θυγατέρας ρσεδίκ ν καὶ αογ ρ ν καὶ ραισίαν. α ται δὲ δι μῆνιν φροδίτ ς ἀλλοτρίοις ἀνδράσι συνευνα μεναι τὸν βίον ἐν ἰγ πτῳ μετ λλα αν. δωνις δὲ τι παῖς ν ρτέμιδος χ λῳ πλ γεὶς ἐν θ ρ πὸ συὸς ἀπέθανεν. The variants άνδακος, Kελλένδεριν, εγεσσάρου, ανάκ ν, and τῶν υρίων βασιλέα, which Wagner reported in his a crit , lost any probative value after Diller 1935, re ning Wagner 1894: III, showed that all extant MSS depend on R (Par. 2722). 504 Syro-Cilician Approaches respectively), this di erence is relatively insigni cant for contemplating structural sympathies between the lineages, since the scholion was itself internally divided on the issue (so to speak), with Paphos evidently displacing Aoios as founder. Indeed, it is Aoios who provides the more obvious thematic link to ps.-Apollodoros, the rst part of whose genealogy is dominated by gures with solar associations (Kephalos, Tithonos, Phaethon). At the same time, their obviously purposeful concatenation makes one wonder how best to approach the lineage as a whole, in segments, or as individual links. Let us examine each element in turn. Hermes, who replaces’ Pandion at the head of the line, is not certainly paralleled as an ancestor of Kinyras. But a fairly likely vestige has been supposed at the end of the ermes of Eratosthenes (ca. 285 194), the last two columns of which have left the merest mutilated scraps in a papyrus of ca. 25 BCE 25 CE.61 Fortunately, a few scholiastic comments between the column margins reveal bits of sub ect matter. Cyprus and Paphos (the city) were de nitely mentioned, as was the legend that Aphrodite’s sanctuary was never rained upon; and there is a possible allusion to Adonis-cakes.62 This is an unexpected conclusion for a work about Hermes, but Parsons noted that the range of such a poem is unpredictable, speculating that Eratosthenes traced the god’s descendants down to Kinyras and the building of Aphrodite’s temple. The suggestion is certainly attractive, as no other link is known between Hermes and Paphos. Even if this is right, of course, the poet may not have followed the precise genealogy found in ps.-Apollodoros. The mythographer continues with the traditional abduction motif that we missed in the scholion. But now we are awash in mythographic method; the three uasi-doublets Kephalos, Tithonos, and Phaethon are arrayed practically like the lists of comparable gures seen in Hyginus.63 One expects Phaethon to be the son of Kephalos and Eos, as Hesiod has it; instead Tithonos, himself normally a target of Eos’ a ections, has intruded.64 Thus, Phaethon, who in Hesiod’s vision was abducted by Aphrodite to serve in her temple, now takes the place of Memnon, king of Aithiopia. We need not pursue these multiform myths in further detail: clearly some mythographer has chained together gures associated with the Sun and/or Dawn, and so the semi-mythical East. Like Aoios, each of these gures might aptly be called He of the Dawn’. And as Aoios re ects aspects of Levantine kingship, so the goddess-abduction theme 61 62 63 64 Pa 3000 (ed. P. J. Parsons); SH 397. Intercolumnar lines 1 3, 6 8, 13 17, with Parson’s notes ad loc.; SH 397 with notes. For this mythographic device, see Cameron 2004:238 249. Hesiod heo on 986 991 (Eos and Kephalos, Aphrodite and Phaethon); Euripides i ol tos 454 455 (Eos and Kephalos). For Kephalos, see further sources in Gant 1993 1:36, 238. 505 Chapter Twenty-One has recently been read as (at least partially) an inter retatio Graeca of a recurring element of ANE royal ideology the exaltation of the king’s soul into the sky annually during his life and permanently after his death in order to con oin with a celestial goddess in a hier s mos 65 an der Slui s and P. James have also emphasi ed ps.-Apollodoros’ Syro-Cilician milieu in their persuasive comparison of the more familiar Phaethon myth his disastrous outing on the chariot of his father, the Sun with the Hurro-Hittite on of il er.66 Kinyras’ solar ancestors here have been connected with Herodotos’ statement that Cyprus was home not only to Greeks and Phoenicians, but a third group presumably re ecting the pre-Greek island who were from Aithiopia. 67 Note too that one version of the Kinyras-Myrrha myth was motivated not by Aphrodite, but by an angered Sun.68 Astynoos, who follows Phaethon, is entirely obscure.69 That his name mind of the city’ or protecting the city’ (if one reads Ast n m os) has no obvious solar associations may suggest that we have entered a new segment of construction. But the link is perhaps intelligible if the solar gures do re ect ideals of ANE kingship and hence governance. Recall the traditional association of Justice with the all-seeing Sun, an idea famously illustrated by Hammurabi’s receipt of his kingship symbols from Shamash on the stele recording his laws.70 This is one of several indications that the honori c My Sun’ or My Sun God’, attested 65 66 67 68 69 70 See van der Slui s 2008, focusing on Phaethon and Aphrodite ( uotation, 244). James and van der Slui s 2012; see above p103. This interpretation can coexist with the I-E aspects of Phaethon exposed by Nagy 1973. Herodotos 7.90: οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ αλαμῖνος καὶ θ νέων, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ ρκαδί ς, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Κ θνου, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ οινίκ ς, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ ἰθιοπί ς, ς α τοὶ Κ πριοι λέγουσι. It is not certain how far all of these assertions should be attributed to Cypriot tradition, despite the historian’s appeal to the Cypriots themselves. The Athenian link at least was a relatively recent ction (see p340 341). These Cypro-Aithiopians were linked with ps.-Apollodoros already by Heyne 1803:324; Movers 1841 1856 1:251. A di erent approach is taken by Petit 1998 (cf. Petit 1999, 115 116), who looks to Amathous’ fth-century political alignment with Persia, and myths that connect Perseus to Aithiopia’ and make him an eponym of Persia. Personally I suspect that the whole idea originates with a fth-century logographic interpretation of Homer d sse 4.83 84, where Menelaos’ wanderings took him to Κ προν οινίκ ν τε καὶ ἰγυπτίους ἐπαλ θείς, / ἰθίοπάς θ’ ἱκ μ ν καὶ ιδονίους καὶ ρεμβο ς. Cypro-Aithiopians would be generated by correlating the three countries of the rst verse with the three peoples of the second. A likely culprit is Hellanikos, on whom Herodotos sometimes drew (Franklin 2012:7n20, 20 22) and who composed a ria a (FGH 4 F 57, 756 F 1); this would explain why he located the much-debated Eremboi in Egypt (4 F 154a). See p288. Heyne 1803:324 left him in silence. The curious speculations of Engel 1841 2:133 ( .v.) were not taken up by Stoll in Roscher e . s.v., who merely noted the passage. CS 2 no. 131 ( I am Hammurabi, king of ustice, to whom the god Shamash has granted the truth, trans. Roth); also 107A; RIME 4 3.6.2, 3.6.12, etc. See Beckman 2003:18. Cf. EFH:20 for comparison with Greek Helios. 506 Syro-Cilician Approaches for Hittite kings as early as the fteenth century well before the famous usage of the Amarna Age pharaohs grew from ideas current in Mesopotamia during the early second and even late third millennium.71 Note that a handful of balang-gods, bearing udicial names like Judge of Sky and Earth’, are attested as servants of Utu (the Sumerian counterpart of Shamash).72 Remember too the lyre-playing god that stood next to the throne of Helios’ at Hierapolis.73 Returning now to ps.-Apollodoros, Sandokos and his deeds the foundation of Kelenderis, marriage to Pharnake daughter of Megassares must constitute an organic unit. This is shown both by the general obscurity of all the gures involved, and their geographical associations. These begin from the vague East implied by Eos and her descendants and ade uately embraced by Syria’,74 from which Sandokos sets out for Cilicia.75 This tra ectory strongly supports Hercher’s emendation, whereby Megassares becomes king not of the Syrians but the Hyrians. 76 Hyria, not far from Kelenderis in Rough Cilicia, is thought by many to be the site of Ura, an important port under the Hittite Empire that traded extensively with Ugarit (it was eventually reincorporated as Seleucia Tracheia ca. 300).77 Megassares is obscure.78 Pharnake has been variously seen as a Persian intrusion’ (given names like Pharnakes, Pharnos, Pharnaba os, etc.), and/or a Seleucid one (the fortress on the Orontes, which Seleukos refounded as 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Beckman 2003. See p21 and Heimpel, Balang-gods, 53 III 153 158. See p495. Compare the varying locations connected with Memnon (Egypt, Syria, Susa). For Kelenderis, see RE 11 (1922), 138 (2) (Ruge). Brown 1965:205n3 suggested a connection between Sandokos and the Baal rntr who is mentioned in the Karatepe inscriptions as having been settled in A atiwatas’ new foundation (KAI 26 A.II.19 20, III.2 3, C.I .20; rntr as Kelenderis is still supported by DDUPP:83). The corresponding Luwian text gives the thundergod Tarhun as (see Hawkins 2000 ad loc.). Early editors (e.g. van Meurs 1675 2:107; Westermann 1843), looking to descriptions of Kinyras as King of Assyria’ (Hyginus Fa ulae 58 etc.), read here γ μας αρνάκ ν τ ν εγασσάρου τὸν υρίων βασιλέα ἐγένν σε Κιν ραν el sim. Hercher 1851:573 argued that the obscure Megassares called for further uali cation, and his proposal accords well with the archetypal reading of R (το υρίων βασιλέως). Because P (containing υρέων, to which Hercher appealed) is now an invalid textual witness (see n60), one might e ually entertain σα ρων for υρίων (cf. e.g. Strabo 14.5.1), yielding a similar geographical connection. See Jasink 2001:603 605; Jasink forthcoming. For the sources relating to trade with Ugarit, see Beal 1992:66n6 and 7 (but identifying Ura with Kelenderis). Movers 1841 1856 1:77, 240 241 suggested a connection with Magos, father of Misor and Sydyk in Philo of Byblos (see below), and thence a Semitic etymology as priest of re’; approved by Rochette 1848:216 217n3. Many aspects of Movers’ interpretation of the larger passage are now outdated; I cannot udge this particular as yet. 507 Chapter Twenty-One Apamaea, was formerly called Pharnake).79 But for neither idea does the passage give much purchase. As to Sandokos himself, there are two schools of thought. Already in 1877 E. Meyer connected him with the Sandas (Sandes, Sandon, Sandan) whom a handful of classical sources treat as a hero or god associated especially with Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Lydia; he is shown on terracotta reliefs and coins from Hellenistic and Roman Tarsus, and is found as a theophoric element in many PNs in these regions.80 Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century CE) knew a tradition that Tarsus was founded not by Perseus, but by Sandan a wealthy noble, setting out from Aethio 81 Some would read Aithio ia here, a kind of parallel for Sandokos leaving Syria. But this emendation is hardly certain, and would seem to con ict with Sandas’ probable Cilician/Luwian origin.82 While Sandas is not lacking further Syro-Phoenician associations, these are evidently secondary.83 This is indicated rst by Stephanos of By antium’s entry on Adana, the ancient royal seat of the House of Mopsos/Hiyawa in Cilicia.84 Here Sandes’ is a son of Gaia and Ouranos thus a Titan, brother to an eponymous Adanos and two further Cilician gures, Ostasos and Olymbros, along with the more familiar Kronos, Rhea, and Iapetos.85 This portrayal of Sandas as an Elder God’ was dramatically con rmed by PNs in documents of the OA colony at Kanesh (ca. 1900),86 and fourteenth/thirteenth-century Luwo-Hittite and Hurro-Hititte texts.87 The most informative of the latter corroborates Sandas’ Cilician associations. This is the arpiya ritual, named after a divination-priest (l A. U) of Kummanni probably in later Cappadocia, but once capital of Ki uwatna. The ritual, calling on Sandas repeatedly, was to be performed If the year (is) bad, 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Movers 1841 1856 2/2:237 and n85; Tuplin 1996:75 and n179. For the site, see RE 1 (1894), 2663 2664 (Ben inger). For this interpretation of Sandokos, see Movers 1841 1856 1:240; Meyer 1877:737; H fer in Roscher e ., s.v. Sandas (p324); G erstad 1948, 429. For an up-to-date bibliography and survey of the known and possible iconography of Sandas, see LIMC s.v. Sandas (Augé); also NP s.v. Sandon. Most of the classical sources were collected by H fer in Roscher e . s.v. Sandas. Ammianus Marcellinus 14.8.3: arsus hanc condidisse Perseus memoratur uel certe e Aethio l Aechio rofectus andan uidam nomine uir o ulentus et no ilis See Roscher e . s.v, Sandas:320 (B), and below n93. Even if the emendation is on the right lines, one could still think of an Anatolian location, cf. onaras e icon s.v. θιόπιον χ ρίον υδίας Classical sources give some evidence of cult presence in Syria/Phoenicia, and he may have had Kubaba, the state god of Karkemish, as a consort in the Ki uwatnan period. Some have held that he features as a theophoric element in some Persian PNs: see Roscher e . s.v. Sandas p329. Kubaba: NP s.v. Sandon:954 (Kammenhuber 1990:191 is agnostic for BA). See p251 253. Stephanos of By antium s.v. δανα στι δ δανος ῆς κα ρανοῦ πα ς, κα στασος κα άνδης κα ρόνος κα έα κα απετ ς κα λυμ ρος Kammenhuber 1990:191. Sources in Kammenhuber 1990:191 193. 508 Syro-Cilician Approaches (and) there is constant dying in the land. 88 He is invoked as Divine anta , King or Sun of Heaven, and represented logographically as Marduk (dAMAR. UD).89 The ritual includes an invocation of the dei ed ancestors and the god Ea to partake in o erings; a choir of virgin boys to sing in Luwian; and a uasibilingual Luwian hymn to be con ured by the Lord of the House (probably a priest).90 The reason for the identi cation of anta and Marduk, and his description as Sun of Heaven’, though not entirely clear,91 support his interpretation as a war god and pantheon-head.92 That he was e ually connected with the agrarian cycle is suggested both by the context of the arpiya ritual, and an annual burning-man’ ceremony attested down into Roman times, which was also a basis for the general identi cation of Sandas with Herakles from the Hellenistic period onwards.93 The competing interpretation of Sandokos, going back to J. P. Brown in 1965, was recently revived and strengthened by James and van der Slui s.94 Brown proposed to derive Sandokos from Sem. d ( righteous’) on the strength of the Sydyk who appears among the culture-heroes of Philo of Byblos, who renders him in Greek as Just’ (d aion).95 Sydyk’s twin, not noted by Brown, is Misor, which should mean Fair’.96 At that time it was debated whether Philo’s Justice Brothers went back to true Canaanite/Phoenician deities, or were abstractions of a later age. But in 1968 the pair was discovered as d r in an Ugaritic text, evidently a prayer for blessing from a long list of gods, nearly all grouped in twos.97 This con rmed the theophoric character of the element d in PNs, of which there are Amorite, Ugaritic, Biblical, and Phoenician examples, including 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 The text is KUB 9.31. See Schwart 1938, whose composite, continuous lineation I follow (the uoted prescription is lines 102 103); more recent bibliography cited by Kammenhuber 1990:192. His name is spelled out as d a an ta a LUGAL-u at 84; Sun of Heaven’ at 63 and 92; dAMAR.UD at 34, 36, and 55. Lines 64, 71 74, 82 83, 91 93, 95. Kammenhuber 1990:192. Schwart 1938:349; NP s.v. Sandon. Pyre-festival at Tarsus: Dio Chrysostomus 33.47 (under name of Herakles); at Hierapolis (unnamed): Lucian n the rian Goddess 49, cf. OSG ad loc. An agrarian function has often been supported by the perhaps seventh-century rock relief at Ivri (on the Taurus), showing a god with grain and grapes (NP s.v. Sandon); but the identity of this deity is disputed: LIMC s.v. Sandas (p. 664). Brown 1965:205n3; James and van der Slui s 2012:247. The passage is Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (13): ισ ρ καὶ υδ κ, τουτέστιν ε λυτον καὶ δίκαιον. For Philo’s problematic de nition of ισώρ as ε λυτον ( a d , Baumgarten 1981:175 ( circuitous at best ); DDUPP:113 ( Philon se méprenne sur le sens précis ). RS 24.271 KTU/CAT 1.123 ( irolleaud 1968:584 586 no. 10) RCU no. 47 ( A Prayer for WellBeing ): d m r are invoked in line 14 (vocali ed id u m aru by Pardee). 509 Chapter Twenty-One a fth-century king of Lapethos, on Cyprus, called d ml , Sydyk-is-king’.98 This last name points to the special associations of d and m r with Canaanite/ Phoenician royal ideology.99 Already a tenth-century Byblian inscription describes ahimilk as ust king’ (ml d ) and righteous king’ (ml r, ).100 Similar applications are found in Biblical contexts, typically in connection with the ustice of ahweh.101 Cognate ideas in Mesopotamia, going back to the OAkk. period, are connected with the pair Misharum and Kittum, who sometimes belong to the divine retinue of the sun-god Shamash; though d is replaced’ here by Kittum, d ’s own solar associations are seen in the expression Sun of Righteousness in the Hebrew prophet Malachi.102 Although no speci c attributes have yet materiali ed for d in Ugaritic texts, there are some relevant notices in classical sources deriving from the Syro-Phoenician sphere. Philo places his Sydyk and Misor later in the same stretch of culture-heroes that earlier included Khousor and the unnamed brother whom I would interpret as an evanescent Kinyras’.103 The two sections appear to be doublets in part, probably due to Philo’s harmoni ation of parallel regional variants. But evidently he did not understand Sydyk’s and Misor’s ancient attributes very well.104 Their pu ling discovery of salt has been variously explained (always looking to royal and uridical ideals).105 Misor’s son Taautos ( Thoth) is credited with inventing the alphabet, echoing Khousor’s l oi Sydyk’s children are unnamed but compared to the Dioskouroi and other Greek brother-sets; they invented ships and sailing (again recalling Khousor and his brother),106 while their own unnamed sons discovered the medicinal use of herbs and (again like Khousor) incantations (e ida ).107 Later, in speaking of Beirut, Philo adds that Sydyk was father, by one of the Kotharat goddesses (whom he calls Titanids’ or Artemids’), of Asklepios’ a Greek cal ue that also suggests medical and incantatory skills.108 et when Sydyk’s eight sons are 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 See examples in DDUPP:112 113; Liverani 1971:58, 63 (Amorite, Ugaritic). For d ml of Lapethos, Masson and S nycer 1972:98 99 (no. 111). See discussion and material in Liverani 1971:55 57; DDUPP:112 114. KAI 4.6 7; also 10.8 9 ( ehawmilk, Byblos, Persian era). See sources in Liverani 1971:66 70; Baumgarten 1981:175n193; DDUPP:113 and n348. For the correspondence of d r and Misharum/Kittum, see Liverani 1971:58 62; Baumgarten 1981:176 (noting Malachi 4:2, followed by James and van der Slui s 2012:247); DDUPP:113. See p445 452. Cf. Liverani 1971:70 71; Baumgarten 1981:177. Liverani 1971:71; Baumgarten 1981:176; DDUPP:114. Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2: πρῶτ ν τε πάντων ἀνθρώπων πλε σαι (11) and πρῶτοι πλοῖον ε ρον (14). Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (13). Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (25). For Asklepios’ incantations, Pindar P thian 3.47 53; cf. Watkins 1995:537 539 (from an Indo-European perspective). 510 Syro-Cilician Approaches united at the climax of Philo’s account, they are cited not for doctorly virtues, but wordcraft. The deeds of Kronos/El, Philo says, were recorded by the seven sons of Sydyk the Kabeiroi and the eighth son, their brother Asklepios, at the behest of Misor’s son Taautos.109 The commemoration and celebration of the world order through scribal arts are appropriately attributed to descendants of the Just-and-Righteous Brothers; but this e ually echoes the l oi of Khousor (and the exegetical activities of Khousarthis, his female counterpart).110 Broadly compatible material appears in a Photian epitome of Damaskios ( . ca. 515 540 CE), who, speaking of Beirut, con rmed that Sadykos’ was the father of the Dioskouroi/Kabeiroi, with Asklepios an eighth. But here we are given Asklepios’ Phoenician counterpart, Esmounos’ that is, Eshmoun, whose cult is best attested for Sidon.111 The glossing of Eshmoun as Asklepios implies that Sydyk/Sadykos could be understood as Apollo, and this is con rmed by Pausanias, who reports a uarrel he had with a Sidonian at the shrine of Asklepios in Achaea. This tiresome tourist maintained the superiority of Phoenician religious knowledge, and o ered an allegorical interpretation of Asklepios as air and his father Apollo as the sun.112 He was clearly translating Sadykos/Sydyk and Eshmoun into Greek terms, and in so doing provides important con rmation of d ’s ancient solar associations.113 Let us now consider the relative merits of Sandokos’ two paternity suits. Against the rima facie similarity of anta and Sandokos (especially given a PN like Sandokes, satrap of Cyme during erxes’ invasion), one may place the form Sadykos of Damaskios, and the Greek rendering of the Heb. priestly title ād ( d ) as addou and addou a oi (with dissimilation of dd to nd readily paralleled in Imperial Aramaic).114 Both anta and d en oy the BA anti uity of Kinnaru/Kinyras. Both have the solar associations that would explain Sandokos’ integration into the lineage of ps.-Apollodoros; but the credentials of d are rather stronger and clearer here. Astynoos/Astyno m os, evidently re ecting ideas of civic ustice, also seems more immediately relevant to d ; recall that Kinyras had daughters called Orsedike’ ( Upright Justice’), Laodike ( Justice for the People’), and possibly Eunoe ( Benevolence’).115 But anta as a Marduk-like city-god (Tarsus) might also support such ideas. While Sandas 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Philo of Byblos FGH 790 F 2 (38): τα τα δὲ (φ σί) πρῶτοι πάντων πεμν ματίσαντο οἱ πτ Sυδ κου (Mras: υδὲκ BO, δου A) παῖδες Κάβειροι καὶ γδοος α τῶν ἀδελφὸς σκλ πι ς. For Khousarthis, see p477. Damaskios ife of Isidore fr. 348 int en. Pausanias 7.23.7 8. See Baumgarten 1981:228 231. James and van der Slui s 2012:247 and n15 with K. Jongeling. Apollodoros i rar 3.9.1 (Laodike), 3.14.3 (Orsedike). Eunoe is a possible correction at Lykophron Ale andra 450: see p354n93. 511 Chapter Twenty-One seems a good match for Sandokos’ foundation of Kelenderis and alliance with Ura/Hyria, one wonders why the more traditional Tarsus was not mentioned instead. And Sandokos’ departure from ria for ilicia is certainly better suited to d The geographical tra ectory might be mapped, for instance, onto Ugarit’s relations with Ura/Hyria; or IA Phoenician penetration of Cilicia noting that d appears as a royal virtue of A atiwatas in the Phoenician texts at Karatepe (ca. 725 700), while an inscription from Cebel Ires Da i (ca. 650) even indicates that udicial records were written in Phoenician. 116 That both d and Kinnaru were divini ed at Ugarit also makes d the more promising archetype for Sandokos, while what little we know of Sadykos/Sydyk from Phoenicianderived sources is broadly suggestive of Kinyras/Kothar-like ualities. Finally, the Greco-Phoenician e uation of Sadykos and Apollo may well explain why, for Hesykhios, it was not Sandokos but Apollo who partnered with Pharnake to produce Kinyras.117 Weighing everything up, the case for deriving Sandokos from d does seem rather stronger than that for anta . But the evidence is hardly decisive. Whichever interpretation is followed assuming that one or the other is indeed correct Sandokos’ presence in the solar lineage is intelligible, and Kinyras is endowed with solid Syro-Cilician associations. Ps.-Apollodoros thus presents a Kinyras who is structurally e uivalent to both Aoios and Paphos a Cilician immigrant to Cyprus who then founds Paphos. The Egyptian Detour While the Dionysian scholiast and ps.-Apollodoros diverge on Kinyras’ precise Kephalid descent, their agreement on his union with Pygmalion’s family, and the son Oxyporos who is otherwise unparalleled, shows clearly that here at least the accounts depend upon the same uni ue tradition.118 Their names for Pygmalion’s daughter Thymarete and Metharme are obviously variants of a single gure, again known only from these passages. Whether either form is original we cannot say, though Thymarete more readily yields an appropriate etymology pleasing the heart’ (cf. th mar s, th mar st ) being likely in itself as a bride’s name, and a nice complement to Kinyras as a musical god/hero.119 116 117 118 119 For d at Karatepe, KAI 26 A.I.12 13. See further Lipi ski 2004:139 140 for the udicial use of Phoenician, and 109 144 passim for Phoenician cultural in uence in southern Anatolia generally. Hesykhios s.v. Κιν ρας π λλωνος καὶ αρνάκ ς παῖς, βασιλε ς Κυπρίων. The variant Oxyparos is to be re ected (see FGH 758 F 3a). For Oxyporos, cf. above p333. Note the gloss in Apollonios Sophistes omeric e icon s.v. θυμαρέα θυμάρεστον, καὶ θυμῆρες τὸ ἀρέσκον τ υχ . But an etymology of Metharme from Gk. ar- ( t, oin’ tune’) is perhaps not impossible, and this too could provide an appropriate musical nuance (cf. ρμ , μεθαρμογ , etc.). Finally, given the uxtaposition of Kinnaru and the Divine Censer at Ugarit, one might 512 Syro-Cilician Approaches Given the uni ueness of Oxyporos and Thymarete/Metharme, we are usti ed in asking whether the three further daughters in ps.-Apollodoros Orsedike, Laogore, and Braisia are e ually integral to this version of Kinyras’ family, or merely tacked on from a separate myth or myths. The latter would seem likely enough but that our Dionysian scholion is the only other source that implicates Kinyras in Egyptian a airs. One must consider, therefore, whether the two Cypro-Egyptian scenarios are mutually illuminating. I believe they are. When the scholion is taken by itself, there is no obvious connection between the coloni ation of Kerastis/Cyprus by Hyon and his brothers, on the one hand, and the Kephalid material that follows. That these two events are indeed related, however, emerges from an extract of Donatus’ fourth-century commentary on ergil, preserved in the collection attributed to Servius.120 After a more-or-less conventional version of Cinyras and Myrrha, Donatus/Servius launches into an unusual variation of the Adonis myth.121 This alter ordo fa ulae begins as follows: The brothers Epiuotasterius and on set out from Egypt for Cyprus and there found wives. From their union(s) Celes was born, who had a daughter Erinoma. This girl, since she was overly chaste and for this was cherished by Diana and Minerva, began to be hated by enus.122 So Thilo’s standard text of 1887. Some decades earlier, however, F. C. Movers had seen that this passage was akin to the Dionysian scholion, where the restoration Hyon’ was indicated by the on’ of Donatus/Servius; similarly, the divergent 120 121 122 wonder whether Thymarete’ conceals some connection with words like th mi ( burn incense’) and th miat rion ( censer’). The child Adonis might then correspond to the divini ed kings, who ad oin Kinnaru and Censer in the pantheon texts (see p5, 103, 121, 124, 283). Servius Auctus on ergil clo ues 10.18. For the relationship of Servius to Donatus, see Cameron 2004:188. For a detailed discussion, but from another angle, see Fontenrose 1981:170 172. Thilo’s text (for the whole episode) is: est etiam alter ordo huius fa ulae e Ae to iuotasterius et on fratres ad insulam rum rofecti sunt at ue i i sortiti u ores e uorum enere eles rocreatus est ui ha uit rinomam liam haec cum esset nimiae castitatis et hoc a iner a et iana dili eretur eneri esse coe it in isa uae cum uellae castitati insidiaretur in amorem eius in ulit Io em uem dolum ost uam Iuno animad ertit ut fraudem fraude su eraret etit a enere ut in amorem uellae Adonem inflammaret uem ostea uam nulla fraude sollicitare in eius amorem otuit o iectis ui usdam ne ulis i sum Adonem in enetrale ir inis erdu it ita udicitia uella er im et fraudem caruit sed hanc iana miserata circa isseum flu ium in a onem muta it Adonis ero u i co no it se amatam Io is itiasse metuens rofu it in montis asii sil as i i ue inmi tus a resti us ersa atur uem dolo ercurii monte deductum cum a er uem fa ulae artem lo uuntur ehementer ur eret et a Adone inceretur re ente fulmen Iu iter iecit et Adonem morti dedit sed cum enus illusum si i et mortem amati Adonis sae e uereretur ercurius miseratus ima inem Adonis ut i ere crederetur ad suos reduci fecit Iuno autem a Io e etiit ut Adonis in lucis atriis ae um de eret tum iana uellae rinomae formam ris tinam reddidit uae tamen e Adone aleum lium rocrea it et cum iro ermansit 513 Chapter Twenty-One Celes’ (Servius) and Keltes’ (scholion) indicated an original Kettes’.123 This is clearly an eponymous founder for Kition.124 The corrupt Epiuotasterius’ must conceal two separate gures.125 Movers, reading Epivius, Asterius, and Hyon, saw these brothers as representing the island’s Egyptian, Phoenician, and Greek cultural in uences, respectively.126 This explanation for Hyon, at least, is attractive: though a Greek father’ of Phoenician Kition may seem arring, it would be paralleled by Javan and his son Kittim in the Table of Nations.127 And his marriage to a daughter of Kinyras would then present an ethnic structure akin to the weddings of Teukros and Elatos.128 But Hyon’s Egyptian origin in the tale complicates any such Aegean interpretation. The curious fact that Donatus/Servius speci es but a single dau hter for Kettes Erinoma suddenly clari es the scholiast’s ápais: Kettes is not childless’ (so Movers), but without male heir’.129 The relevance of this to the scholiast’s Kephalos Paphos Kinyras comes from the se uel in Donatus/Servius. O ended by Erinoma’s chastity, enus makes Jupiter fall in love with her, while Juno seeks revenge by convincing enus (strangely enough) to have Adonis smitten by the girl too. Adonis rapes Erinoma, whom the pitying Diana then transforms into a peacock; eeing the wrath of Jupiter, the young hunter crosses over not to Mount Lebanon as one might expect, but the wooded Mount Kasios in Syria a most interesting epichoric variant, as this had been sacred to Ugaritian Baal and Hurrian Teshup (as Saphon and Ha i, respectively). Mercury sends a boar that lures Adonis into the open, and Jupiter’s thunderbolt does the rest. In a baro ue catastrophe, the laments of enus and blandishments of Juno 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Movers 1841 1856 2/2:204 and n3; a crit to GGM 2:450. A di erent eponym is found in Eustathios on Homer Iliad 10.409: π λις Κίτιον, κλ θεῖσα ο τω, φασίν, ἀπὸ Κιτίου γυναικ ς τινος. For -tt-, cf. the legendary Cypriot princess Kittia (Pausanias of Damascus FHG 4:469 fr. 4; HC:32; and above p440n107), and Kittim son of Javan in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:3 4); further oscillations noted by Movers 1841 1856 2/2:204n3. Movers 1841 1856 2/2:204n3 and GGM 2:450 suggest i ios et Asterius et on; the third term of Thilo’s hialtes Asterius chion vel Aethion must be ignored. Note that an Asterias or Asteria was the child of Teukros and Kinyras’ daughter Eue/Eune/Eunoe: see p354n93. Movers 1841 1856 2/2:204 205 (connecting Asterius with Astarte). Gen. 10:3 4. Hyon’ would therefore be, e ectively, Ionians’, the standard ANE term for Greek’ ( νες ά ονες; see e.g. Brinkman 1989). While υ for ι is not problematic in a Hellenistic or later source, one would wonder why the more obvious ων was not exploited. Still, Movers may be right that Hyon’ was drawn from a collateral NE form (though not necessarily Heb. Javan’); cf. e.g. Hiyawa for Ahhiyawa at Karatepe (see p251 252). But note too that a Hyon’ is found as a variant for Hyas in Hyginus Fa ulae 248, a list of Adonis-like gures who died of boar wounds: Roscher e . s.v. (Crusius). See p350 359, 365 366. One might think here of Karageorghis’ view that Kition was abandoned ca. 1000 850, except that Smith 2009 has now shown continuous habitation. But one could still look to the interruption of relations with Egypt in the EIA, as re ected for instance in the ale of Wen Amun For the abundance of Egyptian faience vessels at LBA Kition, see Smith 2009:9 with references. 514 Syro-Cilician Approaches persuade Jupiter to revive Adonis, while Diana returns Erinoma to human form. The ba ed couple, reunited as in a New Comedy, reign together on Cyprus and have a son named Taleus’, perhaps another corrupt eponym ( Idalion Tamassos ). Leaving aside the arti cial and excessive recombinations of traditional mythemes, the tale’s ultimate resolution brings together the lines of Hyon and Kinyras an alliance that can explain the seemingly abrupt transition from one house to the other in the Dionysian scholion. And with this, we return full circle to the Cypro-Egyptian weddings in ps.-Apollodoros. For the uni ue Thymarete/ Metharme and Oxyporos make it seem inevitable that the three daughters of Kinyras who end their lives in Egypt are the very Cypriot brides whom the Egyptian brothers win in the cognate account of Donatus/Servius. It is striking that brides and brothers alike were all individually named. If this connection is right, it would follow that Kinyras was already established on the island when the Egyptians arrived. True, ps.-Apollodoros says that Kinyras’ daughters ended up in Egypt, whereas the action of Donatus/Servius seems to unfold mainly on Cyprus and in Syria. But the marriages of the Egyptian brothers themselves are barely addressed, apart from the daughter Erinoma; and the river where she lives as a peacock isseum flu ium was indeed probably in Egypt.130 Admittedly, the synchronism of generations would be slightly awkward, with Adonis the great-uncle of Erinoma (Hyon daughter of Kinyras Kettes Erinoma). But this is hardly insurmountable given the many far-fetched relationships and developments otherwise involved not to mention Kinyras’ ripe old age (160 years in Anakreon).131 I believe therefore that our three passages preserve traces of a single original account, independently epitomi ed and variously recombined with other material (for all three di er substantially in how they handle the most famous element the death of Adonis).132 I would even propose a speci c source: the olonies of the tians by the Hellenistic historian Istros (ca. 250 200), an associate of Kallimakhos and himself probably from Paphos.133 That this work followed Egyptian ventures to Cyprus speci cally is guaranteed by one of our few notices, which shows that Istros told how the island got its historical name: 130 131 132 133 A Kisseus was one of Aigyptos’ sons by the naiad Kaliadne ( Apollodoros i rar 2.1.5), Aigyptos itself being a Homeric name for the Nile ( d sse 4.477, 581, 14.258, 17.427; cf. Arrian Ana asis of Ale ander 5.6.5). So Anakreon: see p329. Mythological constructions were often loosely combined in the Hellenistic handbook tradition, and thence by Donatus/Servius and other scholiasts: see generally Cameron 2004. For his Paphian origin, asserted by his contemporary the biographer Hermippos and the most plausible of those proposed, see uda s.v. στρος; OCD s.v. Ister. 515 Chapter Twenty-One Cyprus was named after Kypros the daughter of Kinyras, or the daughter of Byblos and Aphrodite, as Philostephanos says in his On Islands and Istros in his olonies of the tians 134 The parallel syntax shows that Philostephanos o ered one explanation, Istros another; and that it was Istros who made Kypros the daughter of Byblos and Aphrodite. This too ts the hypothesis, as Kypros is not one of Kinyras’ children in either the scholion or ps.-Apollodoros. If we are on the right track, several further inferences become possible. First, Hyon and his brothers would have come before the account of Kypros’, since at the time of their colonial venture the island was called Kerastis/Kerastia. Whether this was ever more than a nickname or poetic epithet is doubtful; but it invited considerable Hellenistic speculation.135 That Istros progressed from Kerastis/Kerastia down to Cyprus’ would also explain why Dionysios’ mention of ros triggered the scholiastic notice about Kerastis/Kerastia although the train of thought is not carried through, at least in the scholion’s present form. We must also assume that Kypros, daughter of Byblos and Aphrodite, somehow came to the island, perhaps through dynastic marriage; in any case, this must be added to the traditions linking Byblos and Cyprus (Chapter 19). This suggests, alongside Kettes/ Kition, that Istros presented the island’s Phoenician element as overlaid on an older Egyptian stratum. One should recall that Adonis and Osiris were eventually identi ed at both Amathous and Byblos,136 and that one mythographic stream traced Phoenician gures like Agenor back to Egypt.137 Possibly, Istros was encouraged to develop this angle as a re ection of the Ptolemaic political circumstances under which he wrote.138 134 135 136 137 138 Constantine Porphyrogenitos n the hemes 1.15 Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 11 Istros FGH 334 F 45: Κ προς ἐκλ θ δὲ ἀπὸ Κ πρου τῆς θυγατρὸς Κιν ρου, τῆς βλου καὶ φροδίτ ς, ς ιλοστέφανος ἐν τῷ ερὶ ν σων καὶ στρος ἐν ποικίαις ἰγυπτίων ἱστ ρ σαν; also found in Herodian e rosodia catholica 204.4 Lent ; Stephanos of By antium s.v. Κ προς. Note also Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 912 for an attempt to explain Byblos as some general. Lykophron (Ale andra 447) implies that Cyprus was so called before the Tro an War and Greek immigration. According to a scholion here, enagoras (FGH 240 F 26) referred Κεραστία to the island’s many ἐ οχαί headlands (HC:13) or mountain peaks. Androkles ( Menandros of Ephesus Cf. p337n3) is also cited for the theory that horned-men once inhabited the island (FGH 751 F 1). This idea clearly informs Ovid’s Cerastae, transformed into bulls for sacri cing human guests on the altar of eus at Amathous ( etamor hoses 10.220 237). Modern scholars have suggested a connection with the horned-god statuettes from Enkomi, or bull-masked priest gurines from Amathous itself ( ris:80). Cyprus as Kerastia is also mentioned by Eustathios on Lykophron Ale andra 447; Pliny atural istor 5.31.35; Stephanos of By antium and t molo icum a num s.v. Κ προς, φ κεια. See further Engel 1841 1:18 20. See above, p315 316. Parthenios fr. 42 and Lucian n the rian Goddess 7, with Lightfoot’s comments on both; Stephanos of By antium s.v. μαθο ς (cf. p316n214 above) and βλος. Apollodoros i rar 2.1.4. Cf. Engel 1841 1:7. 516 Syro-Cilician Approaches THEIOS AOIDOS: The Lyre-Player Group of Seals We have now surveyed the principal ancient sources that connect Kinyras with Syria and/or Cilicia (for Theodontius/Boccaccio, see Appendix F). All the material, more and less traditional, has come to us through at least one pair of mythographic hands, from the fth century onwards. Sometimes regional variants were stitched loosely together in rough cultural chronography (the Kephalid descents, Pygmalion); or they were elaborated as in a mythological romance (the Egyptian Detour). The cumulative e ect should convince us that, outside of Cyprus, Kinyras’ lived parallel lives in both Syria and Cilicia. This is not surprising given the con uence of several factors: Kinnaru of Ugarit and probably other regional Syrian cognates; the Syro-Hurrian adstrate in Cilicia/ Ki uwatna; the persistence of Hittite royal ideology in the Neo-Hittite states; and Phoenician in uence in IA Cilicia. It also corroborates the suspicion that Kinnaru and other such Syro-Cilician Kinyrases’ were, like their Cypriot cousin, actors in popular mythology.139 Although we have not been able to penetrate very far beneath these sources, archaeology provides a considerably deeper foundation. While analy ing Cypriot lyre-morphology I noted two MBA seals, from Tarsus (Cilicia) and perhaps Mardin (southeastern Turkey), showing an early combination of round-base and ig ag arms that complicates interpretation of similar Cypriot instruments as merely Aegean’.140 We may now consider the actual sub ect matter of the seals. In both, the lyrist is among animals; as with the Megiddo ug, any Orphic interpretation141 must yield to third-millennium Syro-Levantine parallels (of course, one may still derive Orpheus himself from the same milieu).142 The seal from Mardin ( ) is of particular interest for our sub ect (Figure 45 4.5e). Its top register is a row of birds streaming out in front of the lyrist, as though pro ected from his instrument and even echoing its shape. As Li Castro and Scardina have perceived, not only does the musician himself have birdlike features, but the stream of birds, as it comes around the cylinder seal, feeds back into his head from behind.143 This creates an Escher-like metamorphosis, an in nite musical ékstasis, or epiphany, through lyric performance. 139 140 141 142 143 See p7, 113, 131, 380 381, 444. The seals are 1) Adana Archaeology Museum 35.999 (Tarsus): Porada 1956:400, g. 35; cf. 235, 394; 2) British Museum 134306 (probably from Mardin): Rimmer 1969:28 and pl. IIIa; Collon 1987:43 no. 149. Both seals well discussed/illustrated by Li Castro and Scardina 2011:208 211, g. 11 12. Goldman 1935:537 538; Porada 1956:204. See p71 72, 159 161 . Li Castro and Scardina 2011:209 (with 210, g. 11): a row of standing birds that suddenly changes into the head of the sitting creature the head and neck of a bird coming out from beyond the 517 Chapter Twenty-One Figure 45 Lyrist and bird-metamorphosis. Modern impression of cylinder seal, Mardin (?), ca. 1800. London, BM 134306. Drawn from Li Castro and Scardina 2011, fig. 11. Jumping forward a millennium, we come to the well-known Lyre-Player Group of Seals, which collectively o er, I believe, the clearest representation of a Divine Lyre in its several aspects. After establishing Cilicia as the seals’ most probable point-of-origin this has not been universally recogni ed we shall examine their nd contexts and functions, and nally the iconographic system of the prominent specimens with lyre-players. These are inextricably allied to the remainder of the Group through further shared motifs, to be considered as needed. The Group was rst identi ed by C. Blinkenberg in 1931, who described fourteen specimens from Lindos (Rhodes) and another thirty-one from various collections; he rather acutely detected a blend of Cypriot and late Hittite’ elements, and made several observations still generally accepted: the seals were the product of a single workshop operating over a limited period in the eighth century.144 E. Porada named the Group in 1956 when discussing two examples from H. Goldman’s excavations of EIA Tarsus, along with fty-two parallels, including further specimens from Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Greece.145 The seals’ repertoire of motifs is very wide, but among the gural examples lyre-players, in 144 145 yoke and recalling the outline of the instrument’s upper arm. Blinkenberg 1931 1 col. 161 168 ( une branche de l’art hittite tardif ui a subi des in uence chypriotes, 168), 172 173, 2 pl. 18 no. 521 534 and A L. Blinkenberg’s basic propositions (1 col. 165) have been followed by Buchner and Boardman 1966:58; Boardman 1990:10; Ri o 2007:40. Porada 1956. 518 Syro-Cilician Approaches various type-scenes, predominate (14.5 percent of the current total). Porada, specifying a later eighth-century date, de ned the style more closely, appreciating its assured economy of means, with the alternation of hatched and plain areas produc ing a pleasant variation and a noticeable vertical and hori ontal accent in the composition. 146 She argued for an origin on Rhodes, then apparently central to the distribution, and producing the greatest single concentration. She supported this with the valuable observation still largely unappreciated that the round-based lyres of the seals could be morphologically Aegean.147 Having committed herself to the Rhodian hypothesis, Porada acknowledged in a postscript ve further examples from Cilicia that had come to her attention, and suggested that these were made locally under Rhodian in uence.148 The picture expanded considerably with G. Buchner’s excavations of Pithekoussai on Ischia (Italy), the site of an early Euboean colony (founded ca. 775). The necropolis initially produced thirty-eight examples in twentynine tombs, the closed contexts verifying Porada’s later eighth-century dating (ca. 740 720). The new specimens were published in 1966 by Buchner and J. Boardman, with further parallels bringing the total corpus to 162, and Italy and Etruria now well represented.149 The inland distribution of some seals in Syria argued against a Greek source, while the closest iconographic and stylistic parallels were in the Neo-Hittite sphere; this, along with elements of N-A in uence, indicated an origin in North Syria or Cilicia, with the latter especially favored by clear sympathies in the Karatepe reliefs.150 The large numbers from Pithekoussai were explicable via Greek, and especially Euboean, trading ventures to the region (Tarsus, Al-Mina), otherwise well documented.151 In 1990, Boardman augmented the collection with fty-eight further specimens and now promoted a North Syrian over Cilician origin from the distribution as newly understood.152 But the balance shifted decisively in 2001 when H. Poncy and others published thirty- ve new examples from the Adana museum, so that Cilicia now rivaled Ischia as the single most productive region. The publishers also pointed out that the dark red and greenish serpentine commonly used for the seals is abundant in the Cilician plain.153 When this is combined with Buchner’s and 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Porada 1956:186. Porada 1956:200 204. The idea was mentioned but triviali ed by Buchner and Boardman 1966:50. Porada 1956:206n66. Buchner and Boardman 1966. The Pithekoussai examples were fully published in Buchner and Ridgway 1993, who added three new examples (lacking lyre-players). Cf. Boardman in Muscarella 1981:166 ( probably Cilicia ). Buchner and Boardman 1966:60 62. Euboean routes: Boardman 1980. Boardman 1990, especially 10 11. Cf. also Buchner and Boardman 1966:42. 519 Chapter Twenty-One Boardman’s iconographic analysis, and the fact that the only known sphragistic use is documented at Tarsus,154 the seals’ Cilician origin is now beyond reproach. Their dating would t with the prosperous reign of Urikki of ue/Hiyawa,155 prior to the Cilician revolt following the death of Sargon in 705 the culmination of which in Sennacherib’s destruction of Tarsus (696) would explain the seals’ sudden disappearance. The Cilician setting can also account, as North Syria will not so well, for their Aegean-style lyres, given the Aegean background of Urikki’s House of Mopsos’ and the Half-Achaeans’ ( a haio ) of Cilicia; the Karatepe reliefs also show such an instrument, purposefully uxtaposed with one of Syro-Anatolian design.156 In 2009, M. A. Ri o, unaware of the new Cilician seals, published thirty examples from the sanctuary of Athena at Ialysos (Rhodes), adding an Appendix of thirty-three further parallels not known to Boardman.157 Embracing (casual) observations by I. Winter, Ri o emphasi ed the seals’ Phoenician sympathies these had never been denied158 and rightly noted that their distribution in Italy, Etruria, and Greece adhered to patterns of Phoenician trade.159 All of this caused her to revert to Porada’s Rhodian hypothesis, modi ed to include a Phoenician workshop on the island. But this cannot be maintained against the new Cilician seals. First, these match the Rhodian specimens in simple numbers. Second, as P. Scardina rightly notes in a balanced reassessment, Phoenician stylistic elements are perfectly intelligible in Cilicia, which en oyed a substantial Phoenician presence and in uence at this time.160 This will e ually account for the seals’ western distribution, including Rhodes itself; the island’s steady commerce with Cilicia is re ected in the contemporary ceramic record and traditions of Rhodian foundation’ at Cilician Soloi and probably Tarsus itself.161 A few further seals have since come to light,162 and some fty more from Pithekoussai await publication.163 More will surely appear. But the current 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Porada 1956:186; Buchner and Boardman 1966:61; Boardman 1990:10; Scardina 2010:69. Poncy et al. 2001:11. See above, p252 253. For this point, Franklin 2006a:45; Franklin forthcoming (as from 2009); Scardina 2010:70. Ri o 2007, following the preliminary description of Martelli 1988. Porada 1956:195 196; Buchner and Boardman 1966:60; Boardman 1990:11. Ri o 2007:40, following Winter 1995:267n39. Scardina 2010:70; so already Boardman 1990:11. Cf. above, p199n67, 202n90, 252n50. Soloi: Strabo 14.5.8. Bing 1971:103 104 plausibly argued for Lindians at Tarsus on the basis of Eusebios’ account (Schoene 1967 1:35) of Sennacherib building a temple of Athenians’ (i.e. of Athena) there soon after its capture/destruction in 696, and the importance of Athena’s cult at Lindos. SAM no. 23a c, f; Ri o 2008 2009; Cerchiai and Nava 2008 2009 (but see n183 below). Buchner and Boardman 1966:62 Postscript; Ri o 2007:71 72. 520 Syro-Cilician Approaches corpus of 345 separate images (some seals are four-sided) presents a su ciently representative sample for con dent analysis. We saw that the primary function of seals as a form of identi cation is attested for the Group by an impression from Tarsus. As Boardman pointed out, however, these were very much a ba aar product, re uiring perhaps ten minutes each to make.164 Therefore, not much evidence for sphragistic use is to be expected from elite contexts. Probably from the start, these seals also served an amuletic function, as commonly in the ANE from earliest times.165 This helps explain what may otherwise seem a dramatic contextual shift in Cyprus, Greece, and Italy. In the rst two areas, our seals are usually found as votive o erings in coastal sanctuaries.166 This distribution naturally coincides with the routes by which the seals themselves were carried; perhaps some were dedicated for safe voyages, again an apotropaic function.167 The Italian and Etrurian nds show that the seals were indeed worn, since silver mountings are sometimes found.168 Many specimens come from tombs, especially on Ischia where they normally appear in graves of the young. This context especially has suggested an amuletic use.169 That is probable enough, though we may e ually suspect a fad at work given the narrow period of manufacture, the downmarket buyership, and Pithekoussai’s position in the Euboean trade network; as Boardman noted, the entire collection could t in a single sack.170 The seals’ attractive designs were clearly popular, and this will have fueled production.171 Note that, as with the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, the seals’ round-based lyres will have presented a familiar-yet-exotic aspect to Greek customers.172 Turning to the actual imagery, Porada proposed that, in accord with ANE ideas, their designs were meant to secure for the owner the protection of the deities whose symbolic animals or monsters, whose worship or ritual or whose very image appears in the seal designs ; in particular the images of birds and lions especially one with a goddess standing on a lion suggested some form of the Syrian Goddess’.173 Buchner and Boardman, observing the random distribution 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Buchner and Boardman 1966:58; Boardman 1990:10 ( uotation). Porada 1956:198. See generally Collon 1987:113, 119; CANE 3:1600 1601 (Pittman). Boardman 1990:10. Ri o 2007:39 41. Buchner and Boardman 1966:42 43; Boardman 1990:10. Buchner and Boardman 1966:22 23; Boardman 1990:9 10. Boardman 1990:10. Porada 1956:198; Buchner and Boardman 1966:11. See p272. Porada 1956:198, noting especially B1 44 (her g. 12). But while the individual elements of this seal can mostly be paralleled by others in the Group, its overall style is uite di erent, and it may well come from a di erent workshop. 521 Chapter Twenty-One of seal-motifs in the Ischia burials, concluded that amuletic properties adhered to the seals per se (by virtue of their stone).174 Doubtless the large repertoire of motifs was in part commercially motivated (something for everybody). But this need not invalidate Porada’s sensible suggestion (even apart from the possibility that the seals were repurposed at Pithekoussai). As variable as the seals’ designs are, the great ma ority adheres to a single underlying iconographic system. Thus, any one specimen could potentially invoke the meaning’ of the whole. The Group is characteri ed by a tendency towards abbreviation of more complex scenes from which one or a few elements might be extracted for a given seal; and of the elements themselves, which can appear in shorthand form, making room for other details.175 The latter pattern is most conspicuous with the Sacred Tree, which in its fullest form includes volutes and palmette foliage, and can be anked by detached palmettes. This provides the interpretive key for the free- oating palmettes and volutes that are otherwise common.176 When all such forms are taken together, the Sacred Tree emerges as the Group’s primary motif (in 45 percent of the corpus).177 Appearing variously within its orbit are sphinxes or gryphons, uadrupeds (deer and goats), birds (the seals’ second most common element at 43 percent), worshippers both human and divine, besides winged sun-disks and the occasional ankh.178 That the Tree stands for a goddess, as often in ANE art, is con rmed by one example where the Tree’s position between worshippers is taken by the goddess herself.179 The iconography is certainly eclectic, and Boardman was reluctant to assign it much concrete religious meaning.180 But as D. Collon reminds us of ANE seals generally, what we too often tend to regard as a hapha ard collection of lling motifs had the purpose of involving as many deities and bene cent powers as possible on behalf of the seal owner. 181 The Lyre-Player Group’s dynamic range recalls the Cypro-Phoenician bowls if one viewed them with a periscope. Indeed the bowls are a vital parallel. For their thematic material is e ually wideranging, with scenes of daily life and the decorative treatment of elements from several traditions; but as we saw, this mélange does not negate the religious 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 Buchner and Boardman 1966:22. Buchner and Boardman 1966:58; Boardman 1990:8. Buchner and Boardman 1966:56. Thus corroborating the analysis of Buchner and Boardman 1966:57. Human gures: Buchner and Boardman 1966 nos. 90, 160; two winged gures anking the Sacred Tree as in N-A reliefs: no. 147. Buchner and Boardman 1966 no. 41c: lowest register of a three-tier seal; the middle is occupied by enthroned lyrist, table, and frame-drummer (my Type IIIc). Boardman 1990:10 ( an amalgam of borrowed and native religious motifs without any very speci c signi cance ). Collon 1987:119, cf. 170. 522 Syro-Cilician Approaches connotations of the fre uent musical cult-scene, which persisted throughout the bowls’ lifecycle on Cyprus, part of their home territory (Chapter 11). The seals that feature lyre-players assume a rather similar backdrop. I have analy ed this subset into several Types, which I rank in order of the apparent importance of the Lyre-Player himself (see Table 2 and Figure 46). I say apparent’, and now use a singular, capitali ed Lyre-Player’, because all Types, I propose, participate in a single iconographic subsystem that may be deduced from them collectively, with each Type taking its meaning from the others. Type Motif Exemplars182 I Standing Winged Lyrist, Sacred Tree 2 IIa Standing Lyrist, Sacred Tree, Bird 3 IIb Standing Lyrist, Bird 12 IIc Standing Lyrist, Sphinx/Gryphon 3 IId Standing Lyrist, Bird, Devotee ( ) 1 IIIa Enthroned Lyrist, Sacred Tree 5 IIIb Enthroned Lyrist, Drinking 2 IIIc Enthroned Lyrist, Table, Female Drummer 3 IIId Enthroned Lyrist, Female Drummer 8 IIIe Enthroned Lyrist, Fish 1 IIIf Enthroned Lyrist, Devotee ( ) 1 I a Standing Lyrist, Sacred Tree, Female Drummer 1 I b Dancing Lyrist, Female Drummer, Ankh 1 I c Standing Lyrist, Piper, Drummer Trio 5 a Seated Figure, Standing Lyrist, Two Devotees 1 b Seated Figure, Trio, Devotees 5 c Seated Figure, Lyrist and Piper, Devotees 1 Table 2. Typology of Lyrists in the Lyre-Player Group of Seals. 182 Numbers according to the following publications: A (Adana) Poncy et al. 2001. BB Buchner and Boardman 1966. B2 Boardman 1990. I (Ialysos) Ri o 2007. IAP Ri o 2007 Appendix. SAM (see Abbreviations), Bible Lands Museum, not including two catalogued in B2. Type I: A1; B2 164. IIa: BB 9; IAP 11, 23. IIb: A2, 6; BB 7 8, 45, 89, 137; B2 1205; IAP 7, 10; Ri o 2008 2009, g. 2; SAM 23f. IIc: BB 88, 126; B2 1135. IId: A5. IIIa: A7 8; BB 118; I 6; SAM 23a. IIIb: B2 163; I 5. IIIc: BB 41 (middle register), 125; SAM 23c. IIId: A3; BB 114, 139a; B2 113bis, 113ter; IAP 12, 14; SAM 23b. 523 Figure 46 The Lyre-Player Group of Seals (subset with Lyrist). Drawn variously from images in Boardman and Buchner 1966; Boardman 1990; Rizzo 2007; SAM. For individual references, see p523n182. Syro-Cilician Approaches What may be regarded as the full cult-scene is found only occasionally. In several variations (Types a c), it shows an enthroned gure attended by musicians and other devotees, sometimes with an o ering.183 This is clearly a form of the ritual ban uet so common in ANE art; and here as elsewhere one cannot distinguish between human and divine bene ciaries.184 The ambiguity is reinforced by the identical clothing of the seated gure and the winged gods in other specimens.185 As with the Cypro-Phoenician bowls, where lyrists predominate despite considerable variation in the ensembles’ makeup, the Lyrist in our seals is the only musical constant; he appears alone ( a), with a double-piper ( c), or with the standard Syro-Levantine trio of lyre, pipes, and frame-drum ( b). The same favoritism applies in Type I , but now the focus narrows to the cult-scene’s musical dimension. The full trio/orchestra can be shown (I c), or ust the Lyrist and frame-drummer (I a I b). The latter reminiscent of Hittite ritual texts calling for lyre and drum together186 leave room for an abbreviated Sacred Tree, and reveal the ultimate center of the celebration, thus explaining the apparent precedence of musical performance per se over the enthroned listener of Type . This conclusion is corroborated by Type III, which presents a startling shift. For the throne is now occupied by the Lyre-Player himself, who is thus drawn into the human-divine borderland this seat entails. The mutual coherence of Types III and I is shown by the pivotal and fre uent IIId, where the Lyrist again faces a female frame-drummer, but is now the clear focus of her performance a striking prediction of Pindar’s Cypriot choruses around Kinyras. That the seated Lyrist is one-and-the-same as the enthroned gure of Type ’s full cult-scenes is shown by the other variations in Type III, which implicate him in the ban uet. He drinks through a straw from a large vessel (IIIb), an ancient Mesopotamian motif relatively scarce by now, but seen on the roughly contemporary Hubbard amphora (Figure 26 5.5p).187 The feast- or o erings-table can appear between the Lyrist and the frame-drummer (IIIc), reiterating the connection of her 183 184 185 186 187 IIIe: B2 113 uater. IIIf: B2 165. I a: I 3. I b: I 4. I c: A4, 11; BB 103, 161; I 2. a: B2 120ter. b: BB 162; B2 62 uater, 120bis, 167 ( see n183 above); IAP 1. c: BB 115. The fullest certain scenes are B2 62 uater, 120bis, and IAP 1. Boardman 1990:8 regarded the Seyrig seal (B2 167) as most complete; but this seal’s attribution to the Group is rightly uestioned by Scardina 2010:68 and n20, along with the recent nd from Monte etrano (Salerno) another complex lyre-and-drinking rite (Cerchiai and Nava 2008 2009, g. 8b), but with none of the de ning stylistic feature of the Lyre-Player Group. Of course these further seals are still of great interest as representing parallel workshops within closely related traditions. Porada 1956:198; Buchner and Boardman 1966. Buchner and Boardman 1966:44, 57. See p95. This comparison was made by Boardman 1990:8 9. 525 Chapter Twenty-One performance with the larger rite, while maintaining the Lyre-Player’s twofold role as both singer and song-recipient. A pu ling variant shows the Lyrist with a sh (IIIe, image unavailable); I have noted its potential relevance to Kinyras the Mariner.188 In a nal permutation, the enthroned Lyrist adores the Sacred Tree (IIIa): whatever honors he himself receives are passed on through his own performance to this higher power. The same connection is illustrated by the lower register of seal BB 41c (Type IIIc), an explicit scene of goddess worship.189 This dual focus is precisely what we saw in the rst Kourion stand an enthroned musician who mediates between his celebrants and a Sacred Tree standing for a Goddess.190 With Type II we return to the standing Lyrist of Type I . But now the exalted status granted by Type III is maintained through the Lyre-Player appearing by himself and along with winged familiars. Most common (IIb) is a bird, that ancient companion of lyre scenes and indeed lyre-morphology in the ANE and Aegean, typically suggesting divine inspiration and epiphany through music.191 This idea is not invalidated for our seals by the bird’s appearance in other groupings; that the bird itself stands for divinity is shown by specimens where it takes the place of goddess or Tree as the ob ect of adoration.192 This reading of the Lyrist-bird con unction is corroborated by the inclusion of a devotee in one variant (IId193) and the Sacred Tree in another (IIa). Similarly exalted tones are roused by the gryphon or sphinx who accompanies the musician in Type IIc. These creatures, we saw, had a deep history in Cyprus attending Sacred Trees and royal or divine gures; one was seen on the second Kourion stand with the two harpers standing and enthroned, face-to-face.194 The Lyre-Player, progressively assimilated to royal and divine registers in Types I , III, and II, achieves full apotheosis in Type I. This is represented by only two precious exemplars, unknown when the seals were rst studied.195 Again the Lyrist stands before the Sacred Tree, but now magni cently winged.196 He is a fully edged divinity in his own rite. The oscillation between seated and standing lyre-players had already suggested to Porada the possibility that in these scenes the lyre player is no 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 See p330. See n179 above. See p383 388. See p126, 178, 192, 247 . Anent these seals, Scardina 2010:69. For Mesopotamian lexical evidence connecting birds and instruments, including the balang, see now Mirelman forthcoming. Buchner and Boardman 1966:12 13, 152, etc. The published image was too small for inclusion in our Figure 46. See p388 391. One was rst published by Boardman in Muscarella 1981:166. Buchner and Boardman 1966:4, 48, 147. 526 Syro-Cilician Approaches ordinary mortal or even a priestly musician but the god Apollo. 197 Buchner and Boardman were more cautious about the seated musician: the other lyreplayers seem not to be divinities, and there is no lyre-player god, Greek or eastern, with both a bird and a sphinx as familiars. 198 Both statements were shaped by the search for the seals’ origin: Apollo’ would support Porada’s Rhodian hypothesis, but undermine the Cilician/North Syrian analysis. True, Buchner and Boardman include the uali cation Greek or eastern in their agnostic declaration. But what eastern lyre-player god’ could they have named at all with or without bird and sphinx For that was before Kinnaru had risen again from Ugarit. The Type I seals change the picture completely, as Boardman himself later recogni ed: The role of the lyre player, as recipient of attention or himself an attendant, is ambivalent We were reluctant to accord him divine status. Now, however he is found winged and the possibility of his divinity has to be entertained.199 But even this is surely too cautious. Boardman himself went on to compare the Cypriot cult-shrines we examined in Chapter 10, which he had previously connected with the Homeric expression divine singer (the os aoid s). Then too he had pu led over the identity of this eastern Lyre God, hoping his name might one day be discovered.200 There should now be little doubt that the seals’ winged Lyre-Player is closely akin to Kinnaru of Ugarit and Kinyras of Cyprus. By whatever name he was known to the artisan and his apprentices who cut the seals, these remarkable images provide a welcome and solid basis for the literary traditions of a Syro-Cilician Kinyras’. They give us our clearest representation of a Divine Lyre. That the instrument is never shown alone is consistent with the vital role of performance in summoning the divine. But the lyre itself is e ectively spotlighted as the common ground in all ve Types from the cultic musicians of I , through the royal lyrists of III, and the increasingly numinous II and I. At the climactic epiphany, the Divine Lyre stands before his Goddess, serving her in song embodying all cult performers and the lyrist-king himself. Here is the very essence of Kinyras. 197 198 199 200 Porada 1956:200. Buchner and Boardman 1966:50. Boardman 1990:7, 10. See p238 239. 527 APPENDICES Appendix A A Note on ‘Balang’ in the Gudea Cylinders T e alan as t e usual instrument of the gala’s song. But the description of U umgal-kalama in the Gudea Cylinders shows that, in the third millennium at least, a balang could also appear in the hands of the nar.1 The identity of the balang has long been controversial. But it is now uite certain that this word, of perhaps onomatopoeic origin, originally denoted a stringed instrument (before undergoing a notorious semantic shift to drum’ by or in the OB period, perhaps due to changes in performance practice).2 Crucial is the e uation of bala with innārum in early lexical texts from Ebla and Mesopotamia (ca. 2400).3 Gabbay has advanced new arguments for identifying the early balang as a kind of lyre on a triple basis of iconography, the expression GU4.BALA ( balang-bull’4), and the shape of the BALA sign itself, which he derives from the bull-lyre prominent in Sumerian art of the third millennium.5 But debate continues: Heimpel now counters with an attractive defense of the older curved-harp identi cation, again proceeding from iconography and 1 2 3 4 5 See p28; cf. Shehata 2006a:120 and n8; Gabbay 2014 11n31; PHG:103 on the expression nar.bala : According to my understanding, the tigi and the bala were the same type of instrument (at least originally), the di erence between them being their cultic context: the bala was associated with the repertoire of the gala, and the tigi (written with the signs BALA and NAR) with the repertoire of the nar. For several other Sumerian terms containing the element bala , without necessarily referring to the gala, see PHG:82n4. For comparable evidence from Ebla, see p65 67. The basic sources and issues may already be found in Hartmann 1960:52 67. See now Gabbay 2014, especially 2 5; PHG:67 68, 98 102, 153 154. Onomatopoeic origin: Sel 1997:195n153; Heimpel 1998b:2; Gabbay 2014 2n7; Heimpel, Balang-Gods, 4g. I stressed the evidence from Ebla in Franklin 2006a:43n8; see further p54, 65 67. The order of signs makes the translation balang-bull’ preferable to bull-balang’ (W. Heimpel, communication, October 10, 2013). Gabbay 2014 2, and PHG:92 98. Bull-headed lyres have often been identi ed by scholars as .m (see the review of Lawergren and Gurney 1987:40 43 and the problems raised there); but Gabbay notes that, while the Akkadian e uivalent samm is well-attested in the rst millennium, bull-lyres have all but disappeared ( 2n9). Bull-lyres: MgB 2/2:28 35, 38 41, 44 45, 50 51, 60 61, 64 67, all with gures. 531 Appendix A sign-evolution.6 Of course we must beware of pro ecting modern organological distinctions onto ancient perceptions; the morphological di erence between lyre’ and harp’, as de ned by von Hornbostel and Sachs, may have been less signi cant than performance functions.7 Conse uently, the analyses of this book do not stand or fall with one identi cation of balang or another. Of course, one may still uestion the meaning of balang in the Gudea Cylinders, which one might suppose are late enough to have used the word in its secondary sense. Thus, some would identify U umgal-kalama with the giant drum shown several times in the steles, an apparent prominence that would well t (the argument goes) the balang-god’s importance implied by his yearname.8 But S. Mirelman has now shown that the giant drum, both here and in the Ur-Nammu stele, is in fact the á-lá.9 This instrument, too, is featured in the cylinders, being played for instance in a group that accompanies the making of bricks.10 The relevant steles may therefore show the instrument as part of the building process, rather than the bestowal of gifts during the temple’s inauguration.11 Moreover, the giant drum’s visibility is counterbalanced by another stele-fragment from Lagash showing a typical bull-headed lyre (Figure 47).12 It is surmounted by a smaller bull a visual echo that seemingly anime l’ob et d’une sorte de vie. 13 Stylistic considerations indicate that this stele is rather 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Heimpel 2014; Balang-Gods, Section I. See further p3n14, 90 93, 391 392. Suter 2000:ST.9, (p. 350), 13 (p. 358), 54 (p. 386). The image is connected with the balang by Jean 1931:159; Black 1991:28 and n39; Suter 2000:193 and Civil 2008:100 follow Black in considering balang unambiguously a drum in the time of Gudea (98n138); but note that Black himself was at a loss to explain the lexical evidence from Ebla (see p54, 65 67). It might also be felt that the name Great Dragon of the Land’ is more appropriate to the sound of a giant drum than a lyre. et PHG:113 114 includes U umgal-kalama among those balang-gods who bear names that re ect properties of their master-god, since Ningirsu is often portrayed as a snake (u um). Mirelman 2014, arguing from the huge si e and weight indicated by textual sources. Moreover, as Mirelman notes in a postscript, the á-lá is often connected with the si-im (e.g. both are found in the balang-hall’ of Eninnu: Gudea Cylinders A 28.18); and since the latter’s identi cation as cymbals in Ur III and later texts is secured by their occurrence in pairs and being made of copper and bron e (Mirelman 2010), one may identify as á-lá and si-im, respectively, the giant drum and cymbals that are paired in the Ur-Nammu and Gudea steles (Gudea: Suter 2000:ST.54, cf. p191; Ur-Nammu stele: MgB 2/2:72 73 ( g. 54 55); Suter 2000, gures on pp. 245 259). Gudea Cylinders A 18.18. It appears also at A 28.18 (in the balang-hall’); B 15.20 (among the instruments governed by U umgal-kalama); B 19.1, accompanying U umgal-kalama when Gudea goes into Eninnu to sacri ce). For the former view, see Mirelman 2014, under Performance Contexts. a) Building rituals ; the latter is espoused by Suter 2000:190 195. de Sar ec 1884 1912 2, pl. 23 (discussed 1:219 220); MgB 2/2:66 67 ( g. 45); Suter 2000:ST.10 (p. 352). The uotation is from de Sar ec 1884 1912 1:220, whose observation avails even if the second bull represents a physical feature. Another such double-bull’ lyre is shown on a stamp-seal 532 Figure 47 Sumerian Bull-headed lyre with ‘emergent’ bull. Stele-fragment, Laga h, efore 2100. ar , Lou re 52. Drawn from MgB 2/2 fig. 5. Appendix A earlier than Gudea’s own building program.14 Nevertheless, there are signi cant sympathies with the iconography and poetics of the Gudea steles. An upper register shows a procession of gures carrying building and measuring tools, presumably on their way to a construction site.15 They are preceded by a ruler, whose role is thus comparable to that of Gudea as royal overseer. So here the bull-lyre has all the associations that have been thought to make the giant drum of the Gudea steles worthy of identi cation with U umgal-kalama. Note too the Hall of the Balang’(part of the temple of Ningirsu), which the Gudea Cylinders liken to the sound of a roaring bull’ an apt description if the balang was in fact the bull-lyre.16 All told, therefore, one is well usti ed in supposing that the balang-gods of Ningirsu were indeed stringed instruments.17 14 15 16 17 53 found at Falaika in the Persian Gulf, now in the Kuwait Museum: Barnett 1969:100 101 with g. 1 and pl. Ib; RlA 6:580 (Collon, Leier B). See Suter 2000:184 185, suggesting it might show a governor of Lagash during the period of Akkadian rule. Suter 2000:264. Gudea Cylinders A 28.17; George 1993:63 4; RlA 8:468 (Kilmer, Musik A I); Heimpel 1998b:4 and 15n8; Gabbay 2014 13n37. Another Chamber of the balang is found as a shrine of the god Gula in a cultic lament, later uali ed as Chamber of the Princely balang : George 1993:85 293, 708; cf. RlA 8:468 (Kilmer, Musik A I). See also Heimpel’s argument that U umgal-kalama was a lute: Balang-Gods, Section 1b. Appendix B Ptolemy Khennos as a Source for the Contest of Kinyras and Apollo T e ( ) by the early imperial wondermonger Ptolemy The uail’ Khennos is known mainly from a terse epitome by Photios, but was e ually available to Eustathios, who reproduces a do en episodes in fuller detail without naming his source (n.b.).1 That Eustathios could have seen further material not mentioned by Photios is made possible by T et es, who knew an episode absent from the epitome.2 In keeping with its title, the o el istor collected unorthodox mythvariants, especially tangential Homeric back-stories and parallel realities. While some of these were pure invention complete with bogus source citations,3 others were genuinely rooted in and/or inspired by epichoric traditions.4 Several episodes involving Apollo and Aphrodite including an androgynous Adonis beloved of both point clearly to Cyprus, where in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods these gods were the go-to Olympians for cal uing a wide variety of local gures.5 Ptolemy also reveled in etymologies including a wordplay on h ls, hal s, salt/sea’, as I have also proposed for Kinyras’ halcyondaughters and etymology-driven aetiology, for instance the ob ect-hero Korythos, inventor of the helmet ( r thos).6 And he had a decided interest in local music trivia: the invention of the obscure s inda s s (lute lyre ) by a legendary Skindapsos, another ob ect-hero; accounts of musical con icts and contests Apollo and Marsyas, the Pythian citharodic event, Odysseus winning 1 2 3 4 5 6 Photios i rar 146a40 153b29. See van der alk 1971 1987:CI 111 112; Chat is 1914 (with the versions of Photios and Eustathios in parallel); Cameron 2004:135. Ptolemy Khennos fr. 1 (Chat is 1914:46, cf. LI) John T et es hiliades 8.195, lines 368 380. For a clear case, see Cameron 2004:137 142. This view is often taken by Tomberg 1968, e.g. on the Adonis material (see next note) and on the piping Odysseus’ (193 194, with the further observations of Power 2012). Photios i rar 146b41 147a2, 151b5 7, 153a11 23, with comments of Tomberg 1968:194 195n144, 197n150, 150 151n5, respectively. Photios i rar 150a12 19 (goo ng on Homer d sse 11.134, Odysseus’ death ἐ λ ς), 147b34 36. See further Tomberg 1968:94 99. 535 Appendix B an aul s competition in Etruria (recently discussed by T. Power); and a whole section On who composed songs for which cities. 7 The contest of Kinyras and Apollo would t perfectly into this portfolio. Following the hypothesis we would then suppose that Eustathios eshed out the notice in the Homeric scholia by restoring further details from direct consultation of Ptolemy, notably the derivation from in ra of Kinyras and in resthai (in connection with the hero’s daughters mourning his death ). 7 Skindapsos: Photios i rar 152b20 25 (for the instrument, SIAG:185 186; AGM:60); Marsyas: 149a5 8; Pythian contest: 153a1 5; piping Odysseus: 152b32 36, with Power 2012; songs/cities: 148a410 411. 536 Appendix C Horace, Cinara, and the Syrian Musiciennes of Rome H orace alludes se eral times to a certain Cinara whom he loved in his youth, and her untimely death. She may of course be partly or largely poetic ction, like other lover-muses of Roman elegy. This role she most clearly ful ls at the start of Odes 4.1, when the poet, returning to lyric after a hiatus, pretends to have lost what power he had in the reign of good Cinara. 1 The name, most uncommon, has been connected with Gk. kínara ( artichoke’) and its aphrodisiac properties.2 Without excluding this as a possible secondary association, a musical interpretation is ineluctably urged by Cinara’s counterparts in the elegiac corpus. These are modeled on foreign courtesan-musicians, thus conveniently embodying romance, poetic inspiration, and neoteric exoticism in a single source. A lyric identity is implied for Catullus’ Lesbia, who evokes the tenth muse Sappho; while Tibullus’ Cynthia and Propertius’ Delia allude to the lyre-loving Apollo and Artemis. Horace himself elsewhere mentions a certain Chia, trained in plucking and a Thracian Chloe, expert on the cithara (who nevertheless pales beside Lydia, who made him happier than a Persian king).3 While Cinara lacks a straightforward geographical name, the re uired foreign association is vividly supplied by the Syrian lyre that she must incarnate. Compare the musiciennes called sam ai ( arched harps’, cf. Aram. a e ā, Akk. sammû) who entered Greco-Roman life in the Hellenistic period.4 Horace’s 1 2 3 4 Horace Odes 4.1.3 4 (bonae / sub regno Cinarae), cf. 4.13.21 23, Epistles 1.7.28, 1.14.33. See Johnson 2004:29; more generally Putnam 1986:33 42 for the loving-muse’ motif, but focusing on the invocation of enus. Or still more obscurely the tiny island of Kinaros in the Dodecanese: for both see Coletti 1996 1998 and Johnson 2004:229n88 with references. A paedagogus called Cinarus is epigraphically attested at the second-third century CE Rhegium: Buonocore 1989:65 66; Hutchinson 2006:78. One of Aeneas’ companions appears variously as Cinyrus, Ciniris, or Cunarus at ergil Aeneid 10.186: see Roscher Lex. s.v. Kinyros. Horace Odes 4.13.7 (doctae psallere Chiae); 3.9.9 10 (Thressa Chloe citharae sciens). AGM:75 77. 537 Appendix C interest in Syrian music-girls is otherwise attested by the ambubaiarum collegia ( colleges of pipers ) who head his appealing list of artistic low-lifes to whom the late piper Tigellius was so generous; that the ambubaiae certainly took their name from an ancient Semitic word for double-pipes (Akk. em u, Ebl. na-bubù-um) is a strong parallel for seeing Cinara’ as also embodying a Syrian instrument.5 Another Cinara is found in Propertius and mentioned by his Babylonian Horus in the context of poetic inspiration.6 Even if this is no more than an allusion to Horace, it con rms both the generic nature of Cinara’ herself, and the proposed eastern interpretation. Recall the kinyrístriai who were said to be resident in the temple of the Babylonian Hera.7 Such musiciennes must have come to Rome especially after Pompey’s annexation of Syria in 64 BCE. Juvenal, a century after Horace, looks back on the ood of Syrian music-girls who prostituted themselves around the Circus, playing the very instruments that are illustrated in the ensembles ( colleges’) of ninth/ eighth-century Syrian and Cypro-Phoenician art (Figures 29, 31): double-pipes, frame-drums, and hori ontal strings (obliquas / chordas) an unambiguous allusion to Syro-Levantine playing techni ue.8 One should recall Isaiah’s inn rplaying harlot’ of Tyre, the lyre-of-lust’ (kinar šiha) in Mandaean tradition, and so on.9 Another Syro-Levantine lyre known in Roman life at this time was the nablium ( little nábla’), which Ovid advised would-be courtesans to take up.10 Thus, while the biography’ of Cinara remains obscure, a Syrian lyric identity accords perfectly with the poetic conventions and cultural realities of Horace’s time. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ambubaiae: Horace Satires 1.2.1; cf. Suetonius Nero 27; Petronius Satyricon 74.13. For the Akk. and Ebl. forms, see p55n44, 201n145. A Mandaean legend features a group of six am i, maidens raised as a piping ensemble in the palace of Hirmi Shah: Drower 1937:394 396. Propertius 4.1.99 102. Cf. Hutchinson 2006 ad loc. See p216. Juvenal Satires 3.62 65: iam ridem rus in i erim deflu it rontes / et linguam et mores et cum tibicine chordas / obliquas nec non gentilia tympana secum / vexit et ad circum iussas prostare puellas ( The Syrian Orontes has long since descended the Tiber / And with it hauled its language and customs and its / Strings Aslant, with the piper, its native drums too / And girls compelled to sell themselves around the Circus ). Isaiah 23:15 16; cf. p60, 302. Ovid Art of Love 3.315 316. 538 Appendix D Kinyrízein: The View from Stoudios I a e ar ued t at meant rst and foremost play the kinýra’.1 This is corroborated by the word’s third and latest attestation in a passage of Theodoros, Abbot of the monastery of Stoudios (Constantinople) in the rst years of the ninth century. Tired of seeing his monks giving themselves to worldly pleasures about the place, Theodoros exhorts them to ascetic devotion, calling for continuous adherence to the community program: Let us forsake our pleasures (thel mata) . . . Let me not nd anyone chatting at random, or smiling, or playing the kinýra (kinyrízonta), or singing chants (troparízonta) . . . For there is a proper time for every action. Is it time for chatting Chat. Time for silence Be silent. Time for Psalmsinging ( salm id as) Sing your Psalms (psálate).2 One might try to construe kinyrízonta here as untimely complaining’, by contrast with the chatting and smiling that immediately precede. et a musical meaning is e ually supported by the ad acent troparízonta, which refers to the singing of tropária, hymnic prayers often inserted after Psalm-verses, and forming part of Matins and espers by the fth century.3 Moreover, kinyrízonta and troparízonta would neatly correspond, rhetorically, to the exhortation psálate. But what exactly is implied by the antithesis In medieval Christian usage, psállein regularly means simply to sing psalms’ of the Davidic canon. In earlier centuries, however, it also described private’ religious compositions. C. H. Cosgrove has recently shown that dinner parties and symposia, key loci of private performance in the Greco-Roman world, 1 2 3 See p206 210, 316 318. Theodoros of Stoudios Great atechism 91 (651.3 19 Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1904): καταλεί ωμεν πάντα τ θελ ματα μῶν καὶ μ ε ροιμί τινα ς τυχε λαλο ντα, προσγελῶντα, κινυρί οντα, τροπαρί οντα καιρὸς γ ρ τῷ παντὶ πράγματι. καιρὸς λαλι ς; λαλ σατε. καιρὸς σιγῆς; σιγ σατε. αλμῳδίας; άλατε. HBMH:171 179. Cf. PGL s.v. τροπάρι(ο)ν: any metrical composition sung in church services. 539 Appendix D continued for early Christians as a venue for the musical expression of religious feelings.4 The validity of such performances was grudgingly conceded by Clement of Alexandria and other church fathers,5 who otherwise campaigned against the use of instruments in the liturgy itself these being associated with popular spectacles and festivals patroni ed by pagan deities.6 Their concessions, in accommodating lyre-music speci cally, perpetuate ancient ideas about the instrument’s salubrious properties (versus the unsettling aulós).7 This early Christian lyric’ nds its semantic diapason in psállein itself, which literally refers to plucking a stringed instrument with the ngers a techni ue sometimes speci ed for the inn r/kinýra, versus the plectrum usually used for the kithára.8 The same con unction of instrument and techni ue is also assumed in Gk. salt rion (Lat. salterium), which often translates Heb. inn r (when kinýra itself is not used).9 It is no accident, therefore, that the well-known Christian hymn with musical notation, from the late third century, is in the Hypolydian tónos one of the basic citharodic keys and spans the typically lyric’ range of an octave.10 Such private’ compositions, whose free texts opened the door to heretical sentiments, were condemned for liturgical use by the Council of Laodicea (360 CE), which allowed only hymns based on the canonical psalms; that this edict was only partially successful is indicated by the renewed strictures of the Council of Braga (563 CE).11 While the general trend was to exclude instruments from the liturgy (except for the organ),12 private devotional poetry must have continued. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cosgrove 2006:260 265, 282. See especially Clement of Alexandria Tutor 2.4.43: τος μ ν κ μος ε χάριστος, κ ν πρ ς κιθάραν ἐθελήσ ς λύραν δειν τε κα άλλειν, μ μος ο κ στιν, with a literal (not allegorical) reading of this and other passages well defended by Cosgrove 2006:260; cf. John Chrysostomus osition of Psalm 41 (PG 55:158, 15 17). See e.g. Clement of Alexandria Tutor 3.11.80, Exhortation 2.15.3, 2.24.1, 12.119.2 120.2; cf. HBMH:94 97. Cosgrove 2006:260 261. In the L , psállein and cognates almost always re ect some form of Heb. mr ( sing/play’) in contexts clearly involving stringed instruments (Botterweck and Ringgren 1997 2006:97). Both plucking and picking are attested for the inn r, with the di erence probably relating to performance contexts. When David soothes Saul, plucking is in order (1 Samuel 16:23; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 6.166: άλλειν ἐπ κινύρ ), cf. 6.168. When he transports the Ark, the greater force of a pick was desirable (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.85: ἐν κινύρ κροτ ῦντος), cf. 7.306 (τύπτεται πλήκτρ , contrasted with the νά λα(ς , which το ς δακτύλοις κρούεται); David has a plectrum in the Ga a synagogue mosaic: see p193 194. See e.g. Augustine Confessions 3.8.32, it of God 15.17.35, etc.; and further below, n14. Note also Augustine’s comparison of cithara and salterium in ommentar on Psalm ermon 1.4 5 (with a typically allegorical spin), which shows that he did not fully understand the Biblical inn r. AGM:324 326; P hlmann and West 2001 no. 59; Hagel 2009:318. HBMH 147. uasten 1930:166 172, 244, et passim; McKinnon 1968. 540 Kinyrízein: The View from Stoudios It seems counterintuitive to re ect as pure allegory the opening verses of the ninth hymn by Synesios, bishop of Ptolemais (ca. 370 413), with its invocation of a clear-sounding lyre’ (l eia h rmin ), several fond and well-informed allusions to the history of lyric, and its Anacreontic meter so suitable for sympotic music-making.13 Augustine (354 430) describes how, upon his mother’s death, Euodius snatched up a salterium and began to sing a psalm, to which we, the whole house, gave the responses. The incipit of Psalm 101 follows; but psalterium here must refer to an instrument, not a psalm-book or Psalter (the word can mean both), for these were surely known by heart.14 That the context is not liturgical but domestic strengthens the argument, since the aforementioned sources for Christian lyric’ all relate to devotional music outside of the church itself. And given that Euodius’ performance was at the bedside of the deceased, one must recall Eustathios’ de nition of in resthai as singing over the dead when they were laid out, using the kinýra. 15 With all this in mind we may return to ninth-century Stoudios, a ma or center of hymnography at that time.16 Given the correspondence of salt rion to kinýra/ inn r, Theodoros’ kinyrízein may simply be synonymous with psállein, sing Psalms’. But a more literal lyric reading seems e ually possible. The abbot’s exhortation let us abandon our pleasurable urges (thel mata) stands at the climax of a sermon against the works of shamefulness, which distract one’s mind from godly pursuits. These include, preeminently, such popular entertainments as theaters, recitals, horse-racing shows, pantomimes, double-pipe concerts, music generally, and instrumental performances. 17 While Theodoros is obviously reprising early debates over the proper function of music in Christian life, clearly this was not a dead issue in his own time. The ongoing impingement of secular music on the monastic world is further seen in illuminated manuscripts that represented Old Testament musical scenes, 13 14 15 16 17 Synesios mns 9.1 15. Cf. HBMH:150 152. Augustine Confessions 9.12.25: salterium arri uit euodius et cantare coe it salmum cui res ondeamus omnis domus misericordiam et iudicium canta o ti i domine Augustine’s famous sympathetic discussion of liturgical singing (Confessions 10.33) permits no de nite conclusion about instrumental accompaniment. See p188. Hymnography at Stoudios: HBMH:229 234; Lemerle 1986:140. According to the second ife Theodoros’ monks included top calligraphers and sacred-psalmists, composers of kontákia and songs, rst-rate poets and readers, melodists and cultivators of singing (σο τατοι καλλιγρά οι κα ερο άλται, κονδακάριοί τε κα σματογρά οι, ποιηταί τε κα ἀναγν σται πρ τιστοι, μελισταί τε κα ἀοιδοπόλοι, PG 99:273C). Note also the detailed evaluation of Theodoros’ musical program’ and its theological rationale in the rst Life, PG 99:167B C. Theodoros of Stoudios Great atechism 91 (648.12 16): τ τῆς αἰσχ ν ς ργα, θέατρα, ἀκο σματα, θεάματα ἱπποδρομικά, ρχ στικά, α λ τικά, μουσικά, ργανικά, κτλ.; 651.3 4: καταλεί ωμεν πάντα τ θελ ματα μῶν. 541 Appendix D especially those associated with David and his temple musicians, in presentday musical terms.18 Even when the illuminations present historical fantasies,19 contemporary secular music clearly provided raw ingredients. The contrast drawn by Theodoros in our rst passage is therefore, at the least, between canonical psalms performed in due season, and singing them and other liturgical chants between times for self-grati cation.20 But I consider it more probable that kinyrízonta refers uite literally to the use of instruments, not of course in the liturgy itself, but in o -hours; and that, while the o ending monks’ sub ects were no doubt mainly devotional, some more secular strains, against which Theodoros rails, occasionally crept in. The full force of the contrast between kinyrízonta and psálate would then be sing only canonical psalms, only at the proper time and get rid of that lyre This reading of kinyrízonta obviously re uires the word kinýra itself to have remained current, kept alive perhaps by its Biblical connotations. The idea needs some defense given that lyres became generally obsolete during the transition from anti uity to the Middle Ages, when various kinds of lute (and later bowed lutes’) came to dominate.21 This was the culmination of a long-drawn process in the Greco-Roman world. While lutes were known in Mesopotamia from the third millennium, and in the Levant from at least the second, it was only in the Hellenistic period that they really entered the Greek sphere.22 Conversely, Greek lyre-morphology and terminology moved eastwards.23 Both trends follow from the demographic revolutions occasioned by Alexander and his successors. This was also the era in which Greek art-music had become increasingly complex and chromatic, driven by developments in the aulós.24 While lyres reacted with additional strings, lutes o ered ready and pipe-like advantages, notably facility 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 This is well argued by Currie forthcoming. McKinnon 1968. A similar polemic against the vulgari ation of sacred song is found in Isidore of Pelusium Epistles 1.90 (PG 78:244D 245A, fth century). Lute’ here refers generically to instruments with a neck/ ngerboard. For the general obsolescence of Greco-Roman lyres by the sixth century, cf. MGG 5:1036 (Lawergren). ANE/Egyptian evidence: Eichmann 1988; RlA 6:515 517 (Collon, Leier B); MGG 5:942 951 (Eichmann). Greco-Roman: Higgins and Winnington-Ingram 1965, especially 68 69; SIAG:185 186; AGM:79 80. For Hellenistic morphological in uence in the NE, see p180 181, 194. Apollo ithar id s as a cal ue, p210 211, 462, 495 496. Kithára is used in the second third century CE Syriac des of olomon (6.1, 14.8, 26.3); even if these come from Greek originals (Fran mann 1991:3 with references), it would remain signi cant that this word resisted translation. An undated Nabataean inscription from Jebel Ethlib (Mada’in Saleh, Saudi Arabia) may identify a certain a du as a kitharista’ (CIS 2 268; reading disputed by Jaussen and Savignac 1909 1920 1:217 218). The ninthcentury ( ) Syrian rhetorician Anton of Tagrit also uses the Greek word in his musical discussion: Rhetoric 5.10 (trans. Watt 1986:45.30 48.22). See now Hagel 2009. 542 Kinyrízein: The View from Stoudios of modulation and sustainable tones (through tremolo).25 The lute’s progress can be traced iconographically. In late anti uity, one sometimes nds lutes’ played in an upright, lyre-like position.26 The body-shapes of several Coptic’ and other lutes, from the third to ninth centuries CE, are also distinctly lyrelike.27 In By antine iconography, King David gradually came to be represented as a lute- or ddle-player.28 The eventual triumph of the lute class can be seen in widespread semantic shifts, with Gk. lýra,29 kithára,30 bárbitos,31 and Heb. inn r all eventually coming to denote lutes and/or ddles. Similarly, several Medieval Arabic sources compare the innāra to other types of lute, not lyre.32 This evidence makes it perfectly likely that kinýra could still be current in ninth-century Constantinople. Even then, however, the word need not have referred exclusively to a form of lute or a lyre-lute hybrid: a ninth century illuminated manuscript from Constantinople perhaps Stoudios itself shows David holding what is essentially a rectangular lyre (Figure 48).33 There are many 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Note that Nikomakhos anual of armonics 4 (MSG 243.15 17) includes h ndourous ( l ando rous, i.e. the ando ra) among instruments that are midway between winds and strings (μέσα δ α τ ν κα ο ον κοινά); cf. Higgins and Winnington-Ingram 1965:65 66. See e.g. MgB 2/5:130 133 no. 75 78 (sarcophagus-reliefs from Italy). Coptic lutes: see Eichmann 1994, pl. 23 et passim; MGG 5:951 g. 7 (Eichmann). Several seeming lyre-lute hybrids are found in illustrated manuscripts of the ninth century (e.g. Utrecht Psalter, ca. 830; San Paolo Bible, ca. 875; ivian Bible, ca. 846), although how far they re ect musical realities (of their own or an earlier period) and/or a true fossili ation of lyre-morphology, is debated: Behn 1954:155 with pl. 91; Eichmann 1994:111 112; Bur ik 1995:223 224 g. 50 52, 241 250 and g. 61 63 et passim. For an excellent and well-illustrated survey, see Currie forthcoming; further material in Maliaras 2007. That lýra had made the transition by the ninth century is shown by the Arab historian Al-Mas d (died ca. 956) who, citing a brief account of By antine musical instruments by the Persian Ibn urd bih (died ca. 912), describes it as having ve strings, and e uates it with the rabâb (SOM 2:536, 538; Farmer 1928:512). Kithára of course eventually produced guitar’ the meaning it bears in modern Greek seemingly by way of Ar. ārah, which in a tenth-century source is called a By antine instrument and e uated with the un r: see Eichmann 1994:111 113, discussing the word’s still obscure history in Arabic; also SOM 1:272; Hickmann 1970:67; Shiloah 1995:81. Persian ar a , also a kind of lute, must derive from Gk. bárbitos, perhaps by way of the Ghassanid kingdom of the By antine era as Farmer suggested: SOM 1:86, 155 (cf. 129), 2:107 108; MgB 3/2:24, 26 et passim; Shiloah 1995:7. See SOM 2:161, where the fre uent confusion of later Medieval authorities suggests the word’s obsolescence in general Arabic usage by the eleventh or twelfth century (it does not appear in the Arabian Nights: SOM 1:85). Ibn urd bih (died ca. 912) may also have mentioned a Nabataean innāra and compared it to other lutes; but the form in the text is corrupt (Farmer 1928:512, 515 516; cf. MgB 3/2:24). The Indian kinnarî is also of the lute-type: AOM:224 (Bake). Chludov Psalter, Moscow, State Historical Museum MS D.129, fol. 5v: see Currie forthcoming:3 and pl. 2. Corrigan 1992:124 134, discusses the provenance of the Chludov Psalter, reviewing the case for Stoudios; for this important scriptorium and the problems of identifying its manuscripts, Lemerle 1986:141 145. 543 Appendix D Figure 48 David and his musicians. Chludov Psalter, ninth century, Moscow, State Historical Museum, MS D.129, fol. 5v. Drawn from Currie forthcoming pl. 2. further examples.34 If some contemporaries would have called these salt rion remember that salt rion itself often translates the inn r of scripture; and its evolution from earlier lyres is clear.35 Nor should such psalteries’ be dismissed as complete historical fantasies; they are clearly cognate with the instruments still known in much of the Middle East, which go under variations of Ar. ān n (This word is derived, ironically, from Gk. an n, which originally designated the lute-like monochord used by harmonic theorists from the fourth century BCE onwards.36) One way or another, Theodoros’ kinyrízonta is amenable to the musical reading the parallel passages make us expect. 34 35 36 Maliaras 2007, g. 1, 3, 9, 23 24, 26, etc.; Currie forthcoming:4 and pl. 4. See for instance MgB 2/5:102 103 no. 57. Compare also the evidence for the epigóneion: AGM:78. See now generally Creese 2010. 544 Appendix E The ‘Lost Site’ of Kinyreia P lin t e Elder, in his list of fteen Cypriot cities, states that there was once also Cinyria, Mareum, and Idalium. 1 A Kinýreion was also mentioned in the Bassarika attributed to Dionysios the Periegete (second century CE) in a passage listing the Cypriots who supported Dionysos’ con uest of India, which included those sc. who held Kinýreion and lofty Krapáseia. 2 On the basis of this pairing P. Chuvin seeks to locate Kinýreion/Kinýreia on the Karpass (the long peninsula stretching towards Syria).3 A similar association is found in the late epicist Nonnos ( . ca. 400 CE), whose Dionysiaka alludes to the poem ust discussed in the same context.4 Here the foundation of Kinýreia is explicitly attributed to Kinyras and is mentioned ust before the site of Ourania mentioned by Diodoros Siculus as being on the Karpass.5 1 2 3 4 5 Pliny Natural History 5.35.130: fuere et Cinyria, Mareum, Idalium. Pliny’s source is not clear. He has ust cited Timosthenes, Isidorus, Philonides, enagoras, and Astynomus variously for the island’s si e and its alternative names. But his stated authorities for this book (enumerated in book 1) include Eratosthenes: see below. Dionysios the Periegete fr. 2 Heitsch ( Stephanos of By antium s.v. αρπασία): δ π σοι ιν ρειον δ α πειν ν ραπ σειαν sc. χον . Stephanos collects and discusses several versions of the word. Chuvin 1991:96 (followed by DGAC:355). To support this he would connect the myth that Kinyras crossed to Cyprus from Cilicia and married Metharme, daughter of Pygmalion ( Apollod. Library 3.14.3: see p504), to a fragment of Hellanikos’ Kypriaka, which records Pygmalion as the founder of Karpasia (FGH 4 F 57 Stephanos of By antium s.v. αρπασία πόλις ύπρου, ν υγμαλί ν κτισεν, ς λλάνικος ἐν το ς υπριακο ς). The Karpass would indeed be a natural landing from Cilicia (cf. p553). But note that ps.-Apollodoros speci cally has Kinyras go rst to Paphos, and then marry the daughter of Pygmalion. This is shown by the distinctive form ραπάσεια at 13.455; compare also 13.444 ο τ χον λάταο πέδον with Dionysios the Periegete fr. 1 Heitsch: ο τ χον λάταο θεοῦ δος πόλλ νος, and the mention of Tembros and Erythrai. Cf. Chuvin 1991:96. Nonnos Dionysiaka 13.451 452: ο τε πόλιν ινύρειαν ἐπ νυμον ε σέτι πέτρην [v.l. πάτρην / ἀρχεγόνου ινύραο ( Those who sc. held the city Kinyreia the still eponymous fatherland or rock of / Ancient-born Kinyras ). For Ourania, see Diodoros Siculus 20.47.2 (Demetrios Poliorketes sei es it and marches upon Salamis); cf. Chuvin 1991:96. But note that Nonnos goes on to name Paphos immediately after Krapáseia, which undermines his location of Kinýreion/a by 545 Appendix E But these delicate attempts to locate Kinýreia/on may be unnecessary. Pliny, our oldest authority, apparently had no inkling where his Cinyria was. Therefore his source did not say. For all we know, ps.-Dionysios, knowing no more than Pliny, merely oined it with Krapáseia for the sake of alliteration. Nonnos, following ps.-Dionysios, probably has no independent value; he may have oined Kinýreia and Ourania purely because of Kinyras’ associations with Aphrodite. The answer may well lie in a di erent direction. Cinyria’ could simply have been an obsolete or poetic designation for an existing city: Pliny himself has ust cited several Greek authorities for former’ names of Cyprus, some of which are clearly poetic or popular wordplays for instance Amathusia and Cryptos ( hidden’). An easy guess, given the tradition recorded by Theopompos,6 is that Amathous had once been known as Kinýreia, perhaps in popular or poetic usage. This fact was then recorded by some Hellenistic geographer in an ambiguous context so that Pliny, nding no extant Cypriot city of the name, and knowing that the kingdoms had been terminated by Ptolemy, assumed that Cinyria’, like Marion, had been destroyed.7 A likely source is Eratosthenes, known to be one of Pliny’s authorities for the book in uestion, and to have written a work on Amathousian lore.8 C. Baurain has even hypothesi ed that Kinýreia was once an o cial name for Amathous. This depends upon an emendation and rereading of the Esarhaddon prism inscription,9 whereby the otherwise unidenti ed site of nu-ri-ja can be e ectively restored as Kinýreia.10 This, he argues, would be best e uated with Amathous a ma or city at the time, yet not otherwise mentioned in the text’s list of kings and kingdoms. The name will have fallen from use, Baurain suggests, 6 7 8 9 10 geographical association. Kypris:75 points out that the variant πέτρην could aptly describe the dramatic acropolis of Amathous. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103: see p346 348. For Marion, see p416. For the con uest and absorption of Idalion by Kition in the second half of the fth century, see HC:125; Maier 1985:34. Eratosthenes’ Amathousia: Hesykhios, Suda, s.v. οίκου (or ύκου) κριθοπομπία (FGH 241 F 25). Or could Kinýreion simply refer to a Kinyras-shrine, such as one should assume for Palaipaphos (see p419) ARAB 2:266 690. Baurain 1981b. This re uires accepting a se uence of (simple) scribal errors: rst, that the preceding sign, read as the determinative URU ( city’), has displaced KUR ( land’), which appears twice elsewhere in this inscription (applied to the Elamites and Gutians: Borger 1956:58, Episode 19 ); second, since KUR can also have the phonetic value of kìn, (one must suppose) that a second such sign was lost by haplography. The original text would therefore be KUR KUR, i.e. Kìn>nu-ri-ja. Each step of this reconstruction is straightforward, but some may doubt the cumulative e ect. 546 The ‘Lost Site’ of Kinyreia through some process of synoecism or refoundation, when Amathous’ was promoted. The hypothesis is certainly seductive.11 One should note here the report of tienne de Lusignan that Amathous was forti ed by Semiramis after her husband Ninos, king of the Assyrians, con uered the island.12 Much of what we know about Semiramis comes from a fragment of Ktesias ( . ca. 400), who was attached to the Persian court. According to Diodoros’ summary, Semiramis made use of Cypriot shipwrights.13 From this it is a fair and ready inference that the island was among Ninos’ wide-ranging con uests. But the forti cation of Amathous is not in any ancient source I have found, and does not seem the sort of thing Lusignan would have invented himself. It is, however, something Ktesias could well have mentioned especially given his diplomatic mission from Artaxerxes to Euagoras I, ust before the struggle in which Amathous held aloof from the Salaminian king’s party.14 Could it refer to an actual Assyrian garrison presence on the island not of course in the legendary past of Ninos, but during the N-A period to which his exploits are best referred 15 In any event, how a Ktesian detail could have come down to Lusignan is not clear (see Appendix G). Finally, one may note that Lusignan, though he confessed ignorance about the location of Cinaria’ in the horo ra a, connects it with a village called Gendinar in the escri tion.16 He was presumably motivated by the names’ similarity. Where Gendinar was located, however, is not clear. No other source mentions it, and it has been considered one of several lost or unidenti able villages mentioned by Medieval or early modern sources.17 But it is uite possible that Lusignan has simply given a divergent rendering of a known toponym, or that the intended form was incorrectly typeset. The closest match would seem 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Baurain’s idea is reprised in Aupert and Hellmann 1984:12 and n7, 115, 117; Jasink 2010:154 155 ( cannot be discarded ); cf. Iacovou 2006b:48; Papantonio 2012:281. It is re ected by Masson 1992:29; treated skeptically by DGAC:355. Lipi ski 2004:62, 75 argues that nu-ri-ja is Marion, explicable as represented to the Assyrians by Phoenician intermediaries; but cf. Masson 1992:29. The uestion is complicated by the identi cation of artihadast, which many would e uate not with Kition but Amathous: see Smith 2008:273, 276 277 (for whom Kition itself is absent from the inscription as not being independent in Assyrian eyes). horo ra a p. 9 ( 12): sc. Amathous f edi cata dalli Asiiri , uando era soggetta alla Monarchi degli Assirii (cf. escri tion pp. 20a, 91). The legend is repeated by Kyprianos, archbishop of Cyprus, in his στορία χρονολογικ τῆς νήσου ύπρου (1788). These passages are collected in Aupert and Hellmann 1984:49, 51 53. Ktesias FGH 688 F 1b Diodoros Siculus 2.16.6. Ktesias FGH 688 F 30 Photios Library 72b20 42; cf. HC:130 and above p352. Cf. Reyes 1994:55 (skeptical). horo ra a p. 17 ( 43), escri tion p. 33a. See further p560 and n2. Grivaud 1998:252 (taking over a typographical error in Lusignan, so that Cinarie’ appears as Cinavie’). 547 Appendix E to be the fortress Kantara which as it happens is in the Karpass (it was rendered Candara by other early French authors).18 18 Grivaud 1998:87. 548 Appendix F Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? O ne furt er and uite eculiar Cilician connection for Kinyras is found in Boccaccio’s Genealogy of the Pagan Gods. This massive and impressive synthesis, many years in the making (ca. 1350 1375), was undertaken at the behest of King Hugo I of Cyprus (abdicated 1358). The work remained generally in uential for centuries,1 though its original Cypriot commission probably enhanced its impact on the island’s rst ancient histories, by Florio Bustron and tienne de Lusignan in the sixteenth century (see Appendix G). The relevant section derives at second- or thirdhand via Boccaccio’s mentor Paul of Perugia, and probably a certain Barlaam, Paul’s own consultant on Greek matters2 from Theodontius, a mysterious mythographer whom Boccaccio cites some 200 times for the debris of a curious and very mixed tradition. 3 Here I shall identify the problems raised by Theodontius’ Cilician genealogy of Cynara(s)’ and o er several suggestions about its genesis. The essential material is as follows: Theodontius says that Cilix occupied territories not very far away, naming the region after himself, leaving behind two sons there, namely Lampsacius and Pygmalion Lampsacius, as Theodontius say and Paul after him, was the son of Cilix and succeeded him as king. Other than this I could not nd anything about him When Pygmalion was young he was driven by the glory of his ancestors, whom he heard had advanced westward and occupied even the shores of Africa; so he 1 2 3 Pade 1997:149; Solomon 2011:x xiii. Boccaccio gives a forthright description of his sources at Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 15.6. For Paul’s own work, and his relationship with Boccaccio, see with further references Pade 1997:150 153; Carlucci 2009:401 403. But note that Theodontius was probably still available in some form after Boccaccio: Pade 1997:160 162. The Theodontius fragments were collected by Landi 1930; for a balanced recent assessment, see Pade 1997. uotation: Se nec 1953:222. 549 Appendix F assembled a Cilician army, mustered the Phoenicians, prepared a eet, and brought his forces to your Cyprus, most serene king Of course, as Ovid testi es, etc.4 From here Boccaccio pivots into a euhemeri ing summary of Ovid’s Pygmalion and the statue, their son (sic) Paphos, and Cinyras, Myrrha, and Adonis. It is clear that Boccaccio was still following Theodontius in linking Cilix to Pygmalion and his descendants, since he reverts brie y to Pygmalion and Paul when discussing Paphos: Paphos, as Theodontius says, was the son of Pygmalion by an ivory mother. When he succeeded Pygmalion as king, he named the island of Cyprus Paphos after himself. But Paul says that he constructed only a city named after himself. He wanted this city to be sacred to enus, and after constructing a temple and an altar there, he sacri ced to her for a long time with only incense.5 Now Kilix/Cilix, son of Phoenician Agenor and brother of Kadmos, is well attested from Herodotos onwards as the eponymous settler of Cilicia.6 But Lampsacius, whose name should make him eponymous founder of Lampsacus in the Troad, is otherwise unknown. Nor is there any ancient parallel for Pygmalion as son of Cilix. Where did these ideas come from M. Pade has recently con rmed the general view that Theodontius was active between the seventh and eleventh centuries; while she would still entertain an eighth or ninth century floruit during the Campanian Renaissance’, she inclines to a rather later date.7 Our understanding of Theodontius’ sources is fairly limited. He is thought to have known Hesiod, Pausanias, ps.-Apollodoros, Hyginus, ps.-Lactantius Placidus, the D-scholia to the Iliad, and the scholia to Pindar and Apollonius of Rhodes.8 This dossier is su cient to explain Boccaccio’s reference to certain Greek codices in which Theodontius found material, without positing further, lost sources.9 Boccaccio also tells us outright that Theodontius used the ergilian commentary of Servius (the augmented 4 5 6 7 8 9 Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.47 49 (trans. after Solomon). Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.50 (trans. Solomon). Solomon 2013:242 and 442n24 thus errs in suggesting that it was Boccaccio himself who incorporated the Ovidian se uence, with Theodontius’ Cilix Pygmalion merely a useful launching point. For sources and variants, see Edwards 1979:23 29. Pade 1997, re ning Landi 1930:18 20; Se nec 1953:220 222. Pade 1997:155. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 13.1. 550 Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? version of the seventh or eighth century, Servius Auctus).10 One diagnostic passage shows that Theodontius exercised fairly free reign with this material, making deductions from and creatively combining discontiguous elements.11 Some of Boccaccio’s cosmogonic scheme, including perhaps the notorious Demogorgon, came via Theodontius from Pronapides’, a probably late anti ue or early By antine work published under the name of Homer’s legendary teacher.12 Theodontius is probably also Boccaccio’s source for four of his ve fragments’ of the Atthidographer Philokhoros (ca. 340 263/2).13 One is a mere paraphrase of St. Jerome’s translation of Eusebios’ hronicle,14 but Theodontius is once named as an intermediate source, and this is probably true of the remainder. Nevertheless, it is uite certain that Philokhoros himself had not been directly available for many centuries, and . Costa has recently argued that here too, in many cases, Theodontius creatively manipulated citations of Philokhoros that are otherwise still known.15 None of this inspires much con dence in the older idea that Theodontius preserved strands of ancient tradition now otherwise unrepresented. Let us next consider the relevant material on internal evidence. Lampsacius is certainly ba ing. Boccaccio noted that he could discover nothing else about him, and probably Paul had extracted everything he found in the Theodontian passage. If he truly is the eponymous gure his name suggests, why was Cilicia tied to Lampsacus of all possible places If this were somehow to re ect fthcentury Athenian strategic interests in both regions, one might then think again of Philokhoros, two of whose alleged fragments do treat Anatolian matters in mythological terms; but as these come, one each, from Boccaccio and Natale Conti, they are doubtful parallels.16 Or is Lampsacius a single vestige of a more systematic treatment of Anatolia via further unparalleled sons of Cilix This is surely multiplying complications beyond necessity. And Lampsacius is most 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 But note the possible complication that Theodontius himself may be cited in Servius Auctus on ergil Aeneid 1.28: heodotius ui Iliacas res erscri sit. Costa 2004:118 accepts this testimony as a terminus ante uem, though he would date the compilation of Servius Auctus somewhat later than usual (see e.g. OCD s.v.), i.e. the ninth or tenth century. See Pade 1997:153 154, cf. 160. Pade 1997:158 159. Optimistic assessments by Landi 1930 and Lenchantin 1932; Jacoby included them doubtfully in FGH; gravely undermined by Costa 2004. Pade 1997:156 158. Costa 2004:117 132. The same is true, Costa argues (133 147), of the Philokhoros fragments’ in the Mythologiae of Natale Conti (1568), also reluctantly included by Jacoby. Philokhoros FGH 328 F 226 (Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 4.20), war between Rhodians and Lycians and metamorphosis into frogs. Costa 2004:126 127 points out that the episode cannot be con dently linked to any known title of Philokhoros; but this ob ection is hardly conclusive. F 228 (from Natale Conti) concerned the sons of Phineus, who was variously brother or uncle of Kilix/Cilix: Edwards 1979:26 27. 551 Appendix F suspicious for lacking the essential uality of an eponymous hero. For rather than migrate from Cilicia to found Lampsacus, he remains in Cilicia and inherits his father’s throne We must seriously consider, therefore, whether the form Lampsacius’ has been correctly transmitted. That this is a corruption of Sandokos ( SANDOCUS SANDACUS LAMPSACIUS), who we saw was indeed a king of Cilicia, seems not especially likely on paleographic grounds.17 Rather more attractive, I suggest, is a corruption of Sampsuchus or Sampsachus. Some such form may have been devised by Theodontius as the putative true’ name for Amaracus, the perfumer who was metamorphosed into mar oram Gk. am ra os, which was originally known, according to Servius who tells the tale, as s m sou hon.18 That Servius describes Amaracus as a royal prince’ (re ius uer) without naming his father would naturally create a genealogical opportunity for inventive mythographers; Pomponius Sabinus, we saw, called him a son of Kinyras not implausibly, but evidently without ancient authority.19 Theodontius, a creative genealogist who was prepared to manipulate Servian material (see above), could well have came up with his own solution. Cilix may seem an odd choice of father, but he has another culture-hero son in Pyrodes who, Pliny says, discovered starting res with int.20 The error of LAMPSACIUS, paleographically simple,21 would then be due to Boccaccio himself. Boccaccio confessed that it had been many years since as a youth (iu enculus) he had taken his Theodontius material from Paul with more greed than comprehension ; moreover, his notes were no longer always legible.22 This hypothesis would also explain why Amaracus is otherwise absent from Boccaccio, who elsewhere relied on Theodontius for Servian material.23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ps.-Apollodoros, to whom Theodontius perhaps had access (Pade 1997:155), makes Sandokos a migrant to Cilicia from Syria, and not a son of Cilix. The textual variant nda os is found, but only as a late corruption: see p504n60. Servius Auctus on ergil Aeneid 1.693 (sam sucum uam nunc etiam amaracum dicunt). See further above, p331 332. By way of illustration, Thilo’s a crit. to Servius records these textual variants: sam sucum, samsucum, sam suchum, and samsacum. See p332. Pliny atural istor 7.198: i nem e silice P rodes ilicis lius Many medieval bookhands would permit confusion of l’ for (elongated) s,’ and (open) a’ for u’: Thompson 1893 Chapter III. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 15.6: e illo multa a idus otius uam intelli ens sum si et otissime ea uae su nomine heodontii a osita sunt This clear account of his reliance on Paul makes it fairly certain that the reference to illegibility (Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 10.7: uaedam alia referat sc. heodontius litteris a lituris deletis le isse non otui) applies to his own (or Paul’s) notes, and need not imply that Boccaccio himself had seen Theodontius at rst hand, as sometimes thought: see Pade 1997:151. For some other conse uences of Boccaccio’s youthful haste, see Carlucci 2009:309 405. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.14 and 10.11 with Pade 1997:154 and 164n45. 552 Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? Several potential ob ections may be met. First, while it is not clear that Theodontius himself oined Pyrodes to Lampsacius’ and Pygmalion as sons of Cilix Boccaccio cites only Pliny here Theodontius’ engagement with Pliny is elsewhere indicated.24 Note especially that Boccaccio added Pyrodes in a revision to the section that rst cites Theodontius for Lampsacius and Pygmalion.25 Second, Boccaccio found no trace of the original Amaracus story attached to Lampsacius’; but Paul may have seen a passage in which Theodontius simply noted the genealogical connection he proposed, while recounting the actual tale elsewhere. Third, while the metamorphosis of Amaracus would seem incompatible with an accession to the throne, this could have been managed with the euhemerism to which Theodontius was prone. Finally, ancient sources o er no special connection between am ra os/s m sou hon and Cilicia; the best varieties of the plant, according to Pliny, were found in Mytiline and especially Cyprus.26 But this may not have bothered a Theodontius, more concerned with tying up loose ends. The foregoing scenario has the further attraction of avoiding an otherwise unknown tradition to which Theodontius somehow had access. But of course this is not inconceivable, especially given the great variety of mythographic handbooks, now all but lost, that circulated until late in the Roman period.27 And if one believes that Lampsacius’ has indeed been correctly transmitted, he is surely too geographically speci c and abstruse not to be an ancient relic. The uestion remains open. Turning to Pygmalion and his progeny, the simplest explanation is that Theodontius expatiated on the se uence he found in Ovid. But several issues must be noted. First, the link between Pygmalion and Cilix. A Cilician crossing for Pygmalion has been inferred from a fragment of Hellanikos’ ria a, who 28 credits him with founding Karpasia, ust opposite Cilicia. This mi ht imply a father Kilix/Cilix. Ovid himself did not integrate Pygmalion into any genealogical system; his tale is free- oating within the song of Orpheus. Is this because Ovid himself found no father for him in the handbooks he often consulted Or was he simply concerned here, as often, to uxtapose thematically similar material, since the tales of Pygmalion and Kinyras shared a Cypriot setting and 24 25 26 27 28 Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.54 (Pliny cited), Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 3.19 (Theodontius and Pliny). Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.47. See Solomon 2011:784n16, with explanation of textual history at 775 777. Pliny atural istor 13.10, 21.163. See generally Cameron 2004. Hellanikos FGH 4 F 57 Stephanos of By antium s.v. αρπασία a , 113n356, 545n3. 553 Appendix F centered on abnormal erotic passions 29 Ovid’s treatment, in either case, will have encouraged later scholars to divine Pygmalion’s ancestry. Such attempts will certainly have been made long before Theodontius. As it happens, the uestion Who was Pygmalion is found in a satirical epigram by Philip of Thessalonica ( rst century CE), where it typi es the pedantic pursuits of thorngatherers’.30 Even so, Theodontius may still have devised his own solution in support of his own grand design, which gave Boccaccio his infrastructure for the early history of Egypt, the Levant, Cilicia, and Cyprus; this included, it should be noted, an account of a second Pygmalion’, brother of Dido.31 While Theodontius’ direct dependence on Ovid is probably betrayed by his making Paphos the son of Pygmalion re ecting Ovidian textual corruption one must recall that the more general tradition did in fact make Paphos male.32 The idea that Paphos gave his/her name to the whole island re ects Roman-era administrative usage, and is already found in Ovid himself.33 The idea that Paphos practiced only incense o erings, however, seems to go against Ovid, who has Pygmalion already o ering blood-sacri ce to enus.34 Perhaps Theodontius took the idea from Tacitus’ description of the Paphian sanctuary’s bloodless altar, drawing a contrast with the extispicy of the Kinyradai.35 If the sanctuary was founded by Paphos, as Theodontius held, the customs of Ovid’s Pygmalion could be disregarded. One nal issue must be contemplated. If Theodontius did indeed have recourse to some ancient source, no longer extant, which gave Kinyras a Cilician genealogy akin to those considered in Chapter 21, could he have found there the form Cynaras’ that is, in n ras whence it passed into Boccaccio, Florio Bustron, and tienne de Lusignan (see Appendix G) In principle, it is perfectly possible that, while Kinyras himself was alive in the popular imagination of anti uity, a parallel dialectal form like in n ras maintained some currency in North Syria and/or Cilicia.36 But this derives little support from Theodontius himself. Apart from the source-critical issues already raised, there was considerable orthographical uidity in the medieval treatment of classical names. Almost every conceivable variation Cyniras, Cynras, Ciniras, Cinera, Cynera, 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 For this compositional principle in the etamor hoses, see Cameron 2004:285. Gree Antholo 11.347.4: τίνος ν ρωτε ς καὶ τίς υγμαλίων. Cameron 2004:305 and n6 understands the latter phrase as Who is Pygmalion sc. the son of ’ Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 2.2 59 passim ( second Pygmalion’ at 59). See p499. Ovid etamor hoses 10.295: illa Pa hon enuit de ua v.l. uo tenet insula nomen A male Paphos in such a role is certainly attested in the third century CE: see p499 500. Ovid etamor hoses 10.270 273. See p413 414. See p198 199. 554 Theodontius: Another Cilician Kinyras? Cynara, and Cinaras is found in the manuscript tradition of Ovid.37 A revealing parallel is the form Phyllara’ that is, Philyra, mother of the centaur Kheiron which Boccaccio gives when again drawing on Theodontius. Because Kheiron invented irrigation, according to Theodontius, he was called the son of Philyra.’ This presupposes an etymology of the traditional Gk. Phill r d s ( son of Philyra’) as h l dros ( water-loving’).38 In other words, though Philyra has come to us as Phyllara, the whole discussion depends upon the original Gk. form a uite exact parallel to Cinyras/Cynaras. To conclude, Theodontius’ Cilician Kinyras must be treated with great reserve. He is probably a mere artifact of the mythographer’s secondary elaboration of Ovid. Still, not every detail in his account, so far as we can reconstruct it from Boccaccio, can be so easily explained. It remains possible, if unlikely, that some elements notably Lampsacius’ and the link between Cilix and Pygmalion did drift across Theodontius’ transom from the ancient mythographic tradition. 37 38 See the a crit of Magnus’ 1914 edition. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods 8.8 (Ph llare dictus est lius, uasi Ph llidros) with Pade 1997:155 156. 555 Appendix G Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ M ore t an once I have cited the sixteenth-century Franco-Cypriot historian tienne de Lusignan, arguing for some independent, traditional authority behind several of his uni ue notices.1 These included metallurgical and ceramic inventions attributed to his Cinaras’,2 with associated topographic details; an anonymous brother, whom I connected with some form of Kothar/ Khousor; Agapenor’s displacement of the Paphian dynasty to Kourion rather than the Amathous of Theopompos; and the idea that Amathous was fortied by the legendary Assyrian king Ninos.3 We must now examine Lusignan’s credentials more closely for how ancient material may indeed have come to him whether through oral tradition, a written source now lost, or some combination. But we cannot give all his uni ue notices e ual weight, since some are readily explained as deductions and concoctions from extant authorities and historiographical rst principles. tienne, born 1527/1528, was a descendant of the royal house established on Cyprus by Guy de Lusignan in 1192, following Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem in 1187. Growing up during the time of enetian control (1489 1571), he was bilingual in Italian and Greek, perhaps reac uiring’ French only later in life. A Dominican friar and, from 1564 1568, vicar of Limassol, near ancient Amathous and Kourion, Lusignan sailed for Italy ust before the Ottoman invasion of June 1570 clearly with good reason. His rst decade of exile was consumed in ransoming family and producing two universal histories of his homeland.4 The 1 2 3 4 For convenience I use the French form that appeared with his Description. In fact he was christened Jac ues, and assumed the name tienne/Stephanos upon entering the Dominican order. He is Estienne’ in the Italian horo ra a. For this and the following details of his life, see G. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:iii xiv, rendering obsolete the remarks of HC 3:1147. Lusignan normally uses Cinara’ ( horo ra a) or Cinare’ (Description). Cinaras’, though found in but a single passage of the Description (p. 224a), can hardly be a typographical error: it reveals the historian’s mind at work, and I have adopted it to help di erentiate Lusignan from his predecessors (see below). See p325 326, 360 362, 452 453, and 547. For both texts, Papadopoulos 2004. 557 Appendix G horo ra a et re e historia uni ersale was completed 1570 1573, but Lusignan must have begun his researches some years earlier on the island itself. This treatise, with its detailed discussion of recent centuries and physical resources, was intended to rouse western interest in reclaiming the island. But it also presented the most comprehensive account of Cypriot prehistory since anti uity itself.5 Unfortunately the work was marred by numerous typesetting errors, many of which also escaped Lusignan’s errata, where he lamented the adverse conditions in which he labored.6 Five years of further e ort led to the more lucid and expansive escri tion de tout l isle de re (sic, 1580). But this revision gave a much reduced account of anti uity, with, for example, details about Cinaras hacked out as if no one would be interested A thorough source-analysis of both works is needed. The present discussion of Cinaras and his family may serve as a preliminary case study. This material constitutes a single module in a complex archaeology that tried to harmoni e Biblical authority,7 the chronology of Eusebios/Jerome, and a variety of discordant classical sources. The resulting confusion of periods, peoples, and events is uaintly garbled to say the least.8 Other absurdities arose from textual problems and/or a poor grasp of paleography.9 Lusignan names Jerome, ergil, Strabo, Pliny, Horace, Ovid, Justin, and Plutarch as sources for the horo ra a; Aristotle, Pausanias, and Diogenes Laertios were added for the Description. Most of his statements, however, lack explicit attribution, so as not to bore my readers. 10 Some data lacking from his acknowledged authorities can be plausibly traced to less glamorous works. Stephanos of By antium and Herodian, for instance, are the only extant sources for a Koureus, son of Kinyras, who reappears in Lusignan as Curio’ or Curion’ (see further below).11 et these same works contain relevant material not found 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 For ancient analogs, see p337 and n3. horo ra a pp. 123a 124 ( 610 611). The rst Cypriot settler is Cethin/Kittim eponym of Kition in the Table of Nations. See horo ra a p. 2 ( 1), p. 10 ( 15), cf. p. 28a ( 157), p. 35 ( 180), Description pp. 1 1a, p. 39a. uotation: HC 3:1147. As an illustration, Lusignan envisioned a 140-year period of early Argive (sic ) dominance, beginning in 1572 with the island’s capture by Crassus’ (presumably the Krias(s)os of Apollodoros i rar 2.1.2 and Eusebios’ hronicle 1:177 Schoene ) from the Assyrians who had con uered it in the time of Nino’ (Ninos). See horo ra a p. 12a ( 22), p. 27 ( 47), pp. 19a 20 ( 67, Pygmalion), p. 35a ( 180); Description pp. 37a 38. For instance Agrippa’ for probably Argiope/Agriope (see p325 and n24) unless this is a typesetting error. horo ra a p. 91 ( 608), per non generare fastidio alli animi delli Lettori. Herodian, Lent Gramm Gr. 3.1 pp. 200.2 and 358.19; Stephanos of By antium s.v. Κο ριον; horo ra a p. 17 ( 43), p. 19a ( 66), p. 20a ( 71); Description p. 38a. That Lusignan knew Courio from Stephanos is likely since he also has the story of Calcenore’ (Khalkanor) at Idalion ( horo ra a p. 16a 42 ), for which Stephanos is the only authority I know (for the episode, see p339). 558 Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ in Lusignan, raising uestions about the nature of his engagement.12 The historian’s appetite was clearly voracious, and he seems likely to have incorporated everything he found. But one may doubt the completeness of the manuscripts or editions from which he worked, in an age with few indices. Boccaccio’s Genealo of the Pa an Gods, produced under the patronage of Hugo I of Cyprus two centuries earlier and well served in Lusignan’s time by Bandini’s comprehensive index13 provided Lusignan with an authoritative foundation for his historical construction. That Boccaccio’s Cypriot material en oyed uasio cial status is indicated by Florio Bustron’s istoria de i ro, which appeared a decade or two before Lusignan’s own work (ca. 1565).14 In his opening essay on anti uity, Bustron took over the uni ue dynastic se uence of Cilix Pygmalion (emigrating from Cilicia) Paphos Cinara that Boccaccio had himself adopted from the mysterious Theodontius (who expanded Ovid: see Appendix F).15 Bustron kept the eccentric spelling Cinara’ against the Cinyras/Kinyras of all classical sources,16 and maintained the distinction between an Assyrian and Cypriot Cinara’.17 He also reproduced, verbatim, Boccaccio’s statement that of this Cypriot Cinara we have nothing beyond one crime (the famous incest with Mirra’).18 When Boccaccio’s and Bustron’s confession of ignorance is set against Lusignan’s own relatively detailed treatment of Cinaras and his line, it becomes clear that the younger historian saw here an opportunity to esh out the island’s historical record.19 et he wished to supplement his predecessors, not supplant them, for he too maintained the Theodontian se uence Cilix 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Lusignan has no knowledge of Marieus, another son of Kinyras according to Stephanos s.v. άριον. While he might have taken Curio from Herodian (200.2 and 358.19), he does not cite Herodian’s testimony that Kinyras’ mother was μαθοῦς (242.34; cf. Stephanos s.v.). Similarly, Stephanos cites Hellanikos (FGH 4 F 57) for the idea that Pygmalion founded Καρπασία (s.v.), whereas Lusignan confesses that he has no knowledge about this ancient site ( horo ra a p. 12 20 ), nor is he aware of the further material about Cinaria’ (i.e. Κιν ρειον) in Stephanos’ entry (for which see p547n3). Solomon 2011:ix x. For Bustron’s prominent public career, and the date and character of this work, see Grivaud’s introduction, pp. vii xii. The name appears in Bustron p. 12 as hedosio (A) or heodotio (Paris). Mas Latrie saw here a corruption of olomeo, since Bustron had ust stated that he would follow Ptolemy’s geographical se uence. But Boccaccio and Theodontio’ are among the authorities listed in Bustron’s preface (p. 7). Bustron p. 12. Boccaccio Genealo of the Pa an Gods 2.51; Bustron p. 14. The idea derives from ps.-Lactantius Placidus: see p281n7. Boccaccio Genealo of the Pa an Gods 2.269 ( hoc autem nara rio reter scelus unum non ha emus); Bustron p. 14 ( Di uesto Cinara ciprio non havemo altro che una sola scelerate a’). Lusignan’s insular focus explains why he does not mention an Assyrian Cinaras. 559 Appendix G Pygmalion Paphos Cinara(s).20 Lusignan even took pains, in discussing the lost site of Kinyreia/Cinyreia mentioned by Pliny whom he names as his source to change it to Cinaria’.21 He must have regarded the Theodontian spelling Cinara(s)’ as an authoritative anti uarian detail. Theodontius and Boccaccio exerted a second decisive in uence on Lusignan’s elaboration of Cinaras and his line. Theodontius had promoted the Tro an War as an important historical boundary in a euhemeristic criti ue of pagan religion, otherwise familiar from Church Fathers and many medieval authors. So too Boccaccio, by way of apology for his fascination with ancient mythology, reminded Hugo of this foolishness of the ancients by which they fancied themselves the o spring of divine blood Nor was Cyprus, worthy splendor of our king, immune from this malignancy It raged during the era of the heroes lasting even until the ruin of proud Ilium, for we remember reading that during the Tro an War certain sons of divinities fell.22 This idea reappears in Lusignan’s god-kings’ or god-men’ (Re ei and dei huomini), a line of preternaturally beautiful rulers whom the people were virtually forced to revere and adore, until their reign was interrupted by the intrusion of Agapenore’ and other veterans from Troy.23 Lusignan clung to this construction in both his works, despite problems raised by inconsistent traditions that he nevertheless wished to integrate. A key problem was how to rationali e Adonis as successor to Cinaras’ throne a not unreasonable idea asserted by Boccaccio and Bustron24 with 20 21 22 23 24 See horo ra a pp. 19a 21 ( 67 76) and p. 35a ( 180). An erroneous translation of the latter passage in SHC 10:48 has Lampsacio take Pygmalion’s place in emigrating to Cyprus and founding the royal line: ca eat lector. Cinaria appears in his list of Cypriot cities at horo ra a p. 6 ( 4); cf. p. 17 ( 43), Cinaria era citt fabricata da Cinara non sappiamo il luogo, dove l’habbia fabricata: se di uella sia pi vestigio, che fusse citt Plinio la testi cata. At p. 20a ( 72) the name is given as Cinerea’; is the second e a relic of the Greek spelling Kinýreia (see p454), or ust a typographical error tienne is otherwise consistent in rendering Greek as Italian i: e.g. Cipro/ ύπρος, Ciro/Κ ρος, Cirenaica/ Κυρ να κ , etc. Genealo of the Pa an Gods, Preface 1.4 5, 10 (trans. after Solomon). horo ra a p. 28a ( 157): Re Dei li popoli erano uasi costretti di riverire adorare essi semidei, etc. Boccaccio Genealo of the Pa an Gods 2.55: There was therefore an Adonis, King of Cyprus and husband of enus, who I think was taken from enus by a boar or some other death, because in imitation of her tears the ancients had a n annual custom of lamenting the death of Adonis. Cf. horo ra a p. 20a ( 69 70, 73), Description p. 39. This idea was not without ancient parallels (for Servius Auctus on ergil clo ues 10.18, see p513 515), although Lusignan’s assertion that Mirra’ was pardoned and returned to Cyprus with Adonis is uni ue. 560 Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ Curio(n), another son unearthed by Lusignan himself.25 One still senses his frustration with the dilemma. Observe rst how he structures his introductory list of famous Cypriots through the use of divine determinatives’: We will talk about the gentiles rst, namely: the god Pygmalion, the god Pa o, the god Cinara, the goddess Mirra, the god Adonis, the goddess enus, the god of love Cupid ,26 Curio, Amaruco, Cinara 27 The startling appearance of a god Cinaras’ here uickens one’s pulse with hopes of die-hard Cypriot folklore. Not impossible, perhaps. But a more prosaic explanation imposes itself: all of Lusignan’s gods’ come from the se uence of tales in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (whence Theodontius, Boccaccio, and Bustron). Pygmalion was well suited to lead these self-styled god-men’ because of his ivory statueturned- ueen ( Eburne’).28 Adonis too nds a natural place as the partner of enus/Aphrodite a favorite target of Christian polemicists, who treated her as a beautiful woman or even prostitute divini ed by Kinyras.29 Cupid too, of course, was well known as a god. The pointedly non-divine status of Curio and Amaruco (both sons of Cinaras), and a second, younger Cinaras (son of Curio) de nitely segregates these gures. That this relates precisely to Agapenor’s expulsion of the royal line from Paphos is shown by Lusignan’s continuous account, later in the horo ra a, of those who have dominated Cyprus. Here the historian, after discussing Pygmalion and Pa o, states that Cinara followed next in the kingdom; and other of their descendants; and they held royal power for around 300 and some years. 30 Probably this three-century interval covers not Cinaras’ own descendants,31 but the entire dynasty from Pygmalion down to a generation or two after the Tro an War.32 In any case Lusignan, with no mention of Adonis, immediately goes on 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 See p350n74, 361, 558n11 . The text reads il Dio d’Amore Curio. Cupid is obviously missing, cf. Lusignan’s discussion at pp. 20a 21 ( 74 75). This makes Curio the rst gure not uali ed as Dio. horo ra a p. 19a ( 66). See horo ra a p. 19a 20 ( 67). According to Clement of Alexandria, Pygmalion’s statue was of Aphrodite herself (Exhortation 4.57.3, citing Philostephanos FHG 3:30 fr. 13). Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 3.45; Arnobius A ainst the Pa ans 6.6. Cf. horo ra a p. 20a ( 74) and above p222n15, 474. horo ra a p. 35a ( 180): Seguit poi nel Regno Cinara, altri loro descendenti, tennero uel regno in circa 300. tanti anni. So the translation of SHC 10:48. The early chronology at horo ra a p. 35a ( 180) presents several con icting dates, whether Lusignan’s own faulty calculations, typesetting errors, or both. The archaic con uest by Crassus’ and the Argives is dated to 1572 BCE, and lasted ca. 140 years, i.e. to ca. 1432. Pygmalion’s date of 1459 must therefore be his birth, his Cypriot con uest imagined at the age of ca. 28. Since Lusignan dates the Tro an War to 1166, and at Description p. 213a makes the interval between 561 Appendix G to Agapenore who banished from the kingdom the kings who had descended from the gods ; they moved to the city of Curias and reigned there and in other Cypriot cities. 33 That these exiles are Curio and Cinaras II is clear from Lusignan’s account elsewhere of their foundations.34 The conspicuous omission of Adonis here is of a piece with Lusignan’s statement, in the earlier entry dedicated to Curio, that this son of Cinaras succeeded to the kingdom of his father and founded Kourion to make himself a name. 35 These scattered passages, when reassembled like this, show clearly that Lusignan at one point envisioned a dynastic se uence Cinaras Curio Cinaras II. Clearly Lusignan was struggling with discordant source material, with traces still visible thanks to the adverse conditions of the horo ra a’s composition and publication. But he refused to abandon Curio and Cinaras II in the Description, and even attempted some further de nition. Amaruco, Curio, and Cinaras II were now all granted divine status, as one might reasonably expect for descendants of the god Cinaras’.36 But there is a vital geopolitical uali cation: Curio and Cinaras II were considered gods only in the cities that they had founded.37 This revision does nothing to clarify the relationship between Adonis and Curio. Rather it reinforces the idea that Greek immigration after Troy was a cultural watershed, while still allowing some continuity of pre-Greek identity outside of Paphos. There is obviously some arti ce here. Curio/Koureus was probably never more than a cardboard eponym that Lusignan mined from Herodian or Stephanos. The younger Cinaras, Curio’s heir, must also be concocted. But several usti cations were ready to hand. First, the distinction in Boccaccio/ Bustron between an Assyrian and Cypriot Cinyras could have suggested that 33 34 35 36 37 Pygmalion and Troy 336 years, it seems clear that the 300 years (and they held royal power ) must refer to the entire line of Pygmalion down to a generation or two beyond Troy, enough to accommodate Curio and Cinaras II (see below). et at Description 224a Cinaras II is dated to 1000 BCE, well past the Tro an War. Perhaps this re ects Cinyras’ 160-year lifespan in Pliny ( atural istor 7.48.154), near the passage about the Cypriot king’s discovery of copper (which Lusignan knew). In any event, the various data seem somewhat incoherent. horo ra a p. 35 36 ( 180). horo ra a p. 7 8 ( 9 10), p20a ( 71 72). horo ra a p. 20a ( 71): Curio successe nel Regno del padre, per farsi nominare fabric due citt i.e. Curi’ and Corinea’ . Compare also p. 8 ( 10), where Curio’s foundation is mentioned and he is called brother of the god Adonis, but there is no attempt to clarify the regnal situation. For Amaruco, see p331 332. Description p. 38a: Curion, ls du Roy Cinare, bastist deux villes Curi, Corinee, les habitans des uelle l’ont nombré au rang des Dieux. Cinare, ls de Curion, ui estoit ls de Cinare, succeda son pere aux villes de Curi Corinee, edi a d’abondant ceste autre, nomme (sic) de son nom Cinarie: des habitans des uelles il a esté aussi mis au rang des Dieux. 562 Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ this was a recurring, even dynastic name.38 Second, Ovid’s Cinyras must have seemed uite di erent from Pliny’s, who was a metallurgical inventor, and son not of Paphos but Agrippa’ (sic).39 Faced with this, Lusignan preserved the metallurgical Cinaras but wished to discard Pliny’s problematic paternity.40 This was necessary if Cinaras II were to continue the royal line, an idea that I believe was motivated by a desire to accommodate insular tradition. For it is this same Cinaras II whom Lusignan credits with further crafts not found in Pliny; he associates these arts with uite unexpectedly Tamassos and Lapethos, where, he says, they were still practiced.41 This appeal to present conditions strongly suggests that local craftsman maintained professional traditions about Kinyras. Of course the would have insisted that this was the Kinyras. Lusignan, I propose, harmoni ed his models’ Ovidian account with Cypriot tradition by creating Cinaras II, thus accommodating two seemingly di erent gures while side-stepping Pliny’s Agrippa’. Note too how Cinaras II, as the end of the royal line, maintains Kinyras’ traditional position as a kind of cultural terminus. If it seems incredible that Kinyras could have survived so long in Cypriot folklore, consider that fourteenth- and fteenth-century travelers were entertained with remarkable variants on the Tro an War cycle, whereby Paphos became the site of Helen’s abduction and the gathering of the expedition against Troy.42 Recall that Kinyras himself had featured in episodes of the Tro an cycle.43 Such memories are consistent with the long-lasting impact of pagan cult on the island’s Christian landscape. Many basilicas and churches were built on or near ancient sanctuaries.44 The Cypriot goddess was sometimes fused with Mary as the Panaghia Aphroditissa.45 Lusignan himself alludes to signs that reverence for the old goddess still lingered.46 Stones of the sanctuary at Old Paphos were still anointed in the name of the Panaghia, along with other fertility rituals, as late as the 1890s.47 Comparable are the island’s rag-bushes, often associated with wells or pools believed to have healing properties, that are adorned by women wishing for husbands or babies, and those who are ill and have sick children or 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 See p559n17. But note that the original was perhaps Kinyras’ mother (if Argiope/Agriope): see p325n24. horo ra a p. 20a ( 72): uesto Cinara alcuni dicono, che era igliuolo di Agrippa; ma di ual Agrippa non sappiamo. See p325 326. Ludolf of Suchen (after 1350): SHC 8:169; John Adorno (1470): SHC 8:173. For these passages, see p348 and n62. See p1, 343 345. ris:228. Fra er 1914 1:36; ris:228. Description pp. 92 92a: Mesme de nostre temps sa memoire n’est encore abolie, etc. Hogarth 1896:179 180; Fra er 1914 1.36. 563 Appendix G relatives.48 The best known is at Petra tou Romiou near Old Paphos, where the ancient goddess was given by the foam. These great rocks, in one medieval tradition, were interpreted as missiles against the Saracens, thrown by the legendary Digenes defending his ueen Ri hena , a ubi uitous gure of Cypriot folklore who inherited many features of the island’s goddess.49 But Aphrodite’s traditional birth endures at Chrysorogiatissa, whose monks have a legend that their sacred image of the irgin was carried to Paphos by the waves.50 I have argued that Lusignan’s displacement of the Paphian line to Kourion must also have a traditional basis, being essentially compatible with Theopompos’ report that the Amathousians were the remnants of Kinyras’ men, yet expressed in di erent terms.51 That Lusignan maintained the line Cinaras Curio Cinaras II in oth his works, against the dominant paradigm Cinaras Adonis established by his predecessors, suggests some deeper authority to which he felt beholden, notwithstanding his own active role in developing these gures. I conclude that Theopompos and Lusignan, despite their widely divergent dates, present parallel manifestations of regional Cypriot lore. This idea is strengthened by the mutual proximity of the places in uestion (Paphos, Amathous, Kourion). Lusignan, as vicar of Limassol, would have been ideally positioned to learn any such legends in the area.52 We should resist a strict distinction between ancient sources’ and oral tradition’. After all, the former were often originally based on the latter. And the testimony of ancient authors could itself feed back into oral tradition. An obvious locus for this is the island’s Orthodox clergy, the primary conservators of ancient literature. And where would texts touching Cyprus better survive than on the island itself In assessing this suggestion, and its relevance to Lusignan’s early research, one must bear in mind that fourteenth-century Cyprus saw a ma or e orescence of manuscript production. This movement is now di cult to appraise. Of the nine hundred or so manuscripts known to have been copied on the island, only a third still reside there. And there must have been many more. Some were donated by pilgrims to other monasteries of the Orthodox 48 49 50 51 52 The exact number of rag-bushes is naturally unknown. Durrell 1959:47 saw one in Keryneia that Turkish Cypriots hung with votives. Grinsell 1990 collected nine examples. Aupert 2000:37 adds the grotto of Ayia arvara (Amathous). ris:136, 10, 73, 228 229; cf. Karageorghis 1998:123. Hogarth 1896:179 180; Fra er 1914 1.36. Theopompos FGH 115 F 103. For this argument, see p360 362. Note that ca. 1564 he engaged in archaeological investigation of tombs at Kouklia and Limassol: Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:v. 564 Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ world, and so vanished. Many more were removed by humanist collectors of the fteenth century, with further losses under the Ottomans.53 Under these conditions, it is uite conceivable that Lusignan was exposed to ancient learning now lost, if only through discussion with his Orthodox peers.54 One is therefore struck by Lusignan’s terse statements about a certain enophon: Liminea i.e. Limenia was an inland city according to Strabo; and one must give credence to Strabo because he was a student of enophon, the philosopher and Cypriot historian.55 This Cypriot enophon appears again, in Lusignan’s list of famous Cypriots, as a philosopher and historian, though where he was from, and when he lived, we do not discover; however, he was from Cyprus. 56 By the Description, Lusignan had apparently learned a bit more: he now states that enophon was from Salamis, taught others beside Strabo, and wrote several works (still unnamed).57 Given enophon’s description as both a philosopher and teacher of Strabo, one must suspect some confusion here, by Lusignan or an informant, with the Peripatetic enarkhos, whose lectures Strabo says he attended.58 But this cannot be the whole story. Even if one supposes some textual corruption (I nd no such variant in the editions), the geographer clearly states that enarkhos was from Seleucia in Cilicia. Any attempt to override this with a Cypriot origin would therefore have re uired some external motivation.59 As it happens, another Cypriot enophon was known to the uda: enophon: Cypriot, an historian (historikós); sc. wrote ria a; and this too is a collection (historía) of erotic topics about Kinyras and Myrrha and Adonis.60 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 See the overview in Constantinides and Browning 1993:11 38. Cf. Grivaud in Papadopoulos 2004 2:vi: D’autres liens avec le monde orthodoxe peuvent tre avancés puis ue Jean, fr re a né d’ tienne, int gre le clergé régulier orthodoxe au couvent d’Antiphoniti et, au titre de hiéromoine, se présente l’élection pour le si ge épiscopal de Solia. horo ra a p. 17 ( 45, referring to Strabo 14.6.3): Liminea era citt , secondo Strabone mediteranea (sic); si deve dar fede Strabone, perche f discepolo di enofonte Filosofo, Historico Cipriotto; similarly Description p. 33a. horo ra a p. 19a ( 66), p. 22 ( 87), enofonte losofo historico: ma di che luogo, uando f non ritroviamo; per f di Cipro. Description p. 42a: enofon, Philsophe Historiographe Salaminien, a esté precepteur de Strabon Historiographe autres, a escrit uel ues oeuvres. Strabo 14.5.4. The same reservation would apply to enophon of Lampsacus, on whom Strabo drew. uda s.v. ενο ν ύπριος, στορικός υπριακά στι δ κα α τ ἐρ τικ ν ποθέσε ν στορία περί τε ινύραν κα ύρραν κα δ νιν ( FGH 755). 565 Appendix G This too refers to a further pair of enophons who also wrote er ti one the 61 familiar Ephesian novelist, another from Antioch. Because the three entries are so similar, it is often held that a single enophon gave rise to spurious doubles through his stories’ geographical settings.62 By this argument, enophon of Antioch would have the greatest claim to authenticity, the other two being explicable by the Cypriot context of Kinyras, Myrrha, and Adonis, and the extant hesian ale (a a l nia is less obviously connected with Antioch). One could then suppose that the bogus Cypriot enophon was adopted by Lusignan or some other patriot wishing to elaborate the island’s glorious past. But this hypothesis, though it seems reasonable enough in isolation, creates as many problems as it solves. First, I have found no clear sign that Lusignan used the uda otherwise. One would certainly expect him to have credited his elusive enophon with a work about Kinyras, had he seen notice of it. And what becomes of the claim about Strabo Are we to believe that Lusignan (or someone else) combined a stray dictionary entry with a careless or willful distortion of the geographer’s reference to enarkhos, without taking over any further biographical details Similarly, one might suggest that Lusignan’s characteri ation of enophon as a philosopher derives from combining the uda with one of the several enophons listed by Diogenes Laertios.63 But how then did Strabo enter the picture These attempts to explain away Lusignan’s Cypriot historian and philosopher start to seem rather strained. We should therefore entertain the possibility of a real Cypriot enophon who wrote about Kinyras, Myrrha, and Adonis tales that would certainly appeal to a native islander. Just what form this would have taken is unclear, although the uda’s terms historikós and historía would be consistent with a mythological romance.64 Might this not be Diogenes Laertios’ fth enophon, described as having busied himself with mythological wonders 65 The context of Kinyras 61 62 63 64 65 uda s.v. ενο ν, ντιοχεύς, στορικός α υλ νιακά στι δ ἐρ τικά n ενο ν, έσιος, στορικός εσιακά στι δ ἐρ τικ ι λία ι περ ροκόμου κα νθίας κα ερ τῆς πόλε ς εσί ν κα λλα Rohde 1914:371 372; Lavagnini 1950:145 147; Kudlien, RE 18/2 1967 :2058. Diogenes Laertios 2.59. See the overview of Cameron 2004:90 93 for στορία a covering historical, geographical, mythological, or even scienti c information ( uoting D. Russel), with a mythographic sense coming to predominate in early Imperial times. Cf. Lightfoot 1999:257 and 261: One would very much like to know how Myrrha’s sinful passion for her father was treated in the romance by enophon Did it alter the relationship so that it was no longer incestuous Did it rationali e it or mitigate it in some way Did it domesticate Myrrha in the same way the inus romance domesticates Semiramis If so, how did it deal with the metamorphosis and the birth of Adonis Diogenes Laertios 2.59: πέμπτος μυθ δη τερατείαν πεπραγματευμένος. For this enophon see Rohde 1914:371 372n1; RE 18/2 1967 2089 12 ). If he was a contemporary of Demetrios of Magnesia whom Rohde believed to be Diogenes’ source here (cf. 2.57) he would been the right age to teach Strabo. But others see Diogenes’ fth enophon as the Lampsacene: cf. NP s.v. 566 Étienne de Lusignan and ‘the God Cinaras’ and Adonis would also give a good home to a free- oating report in Athenaios: the Phoenicians, as enophon says, used to use gíngras-like double-pipes, a span in length, making a high, wailing sound. 66 This instrument is nowhere mentioned by the Athenian enophon, nor the Ephesian; accordingly editors have challenged the text. Could some of Lusignan’s uni ue Kinyras material derive from enophon, if not directly the historian knew little about him but via some earlier interaction of written and oral tradition Local lore might well have preserved the name of a famous Cypriot historian’, philosopher, and perhaps teacher of Strabo. 66 enphon 8 . A further Cypriot enophon was high-priest (arkhiereús) and strat s of the island ca. 168 163 or after 124 BCE: SEG 20:200; NP s.v. enophon 7 . But this would be too early for Strabo. Athenaios 174f: γιγγραίνοισι γ ρ ο οίνικες, ς ησιν ενο ν, ἐχρ ντο α λο ς σπιθαμιαίοις τ μέγεθος, κα γοερ ν θεγγομένοις and nn n d n , n , , As Barker (GMW 1:262n11) notes, γιγγραίνοισι is a poetic form. 567 Balang-Gods Wolfgang Heimpel Introduction1 I n is 1997 essa The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp: Towards an Understanding of the Problems of Dei cation in Third Millennium Mesopotamia, Gebhard Sel found that the items in his title and other cultic ob ects’ were dei ed by providing them with a name, animating them with the magic of the mouth-washing ritual, and assigning them a cult place and o erings, with the result that their divine nature was the same as those of the images of the gods. I treat here only the harp, actually a type of harp that I call the Balangharp. My initial interest in the topic were the names and functions of the Balangharp servant-gods that are found in large numbers in the god-list An:Anum (the rst line and the modern title of a seven-tablet bilingual list of gods) and my belief that the balang instrument was indeed a harp, and not a drum as widely claimed. Pursuing these two interests and becoming aware of the great variety of uses of the word balang, I attempt in the following to de ne them and see how they relate to each other. The problem of dei cation that interested Sel is treated in further detail. References to entries of the Catalogue are underscored. 1 I could not have done much without the bibliographical help of John Carnahan and copies of searchable scans of needed books from Jay Chrisostomo. I thank them both for it. I also thank Uri Gabbay for letting me use his Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods (PHG) years before it was published. He also made numerous observations on an earlier version of this study. Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk ar-Rawi have graciously allowed me to uote from their unpublished transliteration of an OB text of Uru’amma-irabi. Balang-Gods 1 Balang Instruments 1a Neither drum Nor lyre A pictograph of the archaic texts shows a bow dissected with three or four straight lines, a simple but unmistakable representation of a harp (see Section 1d). The pictograph was replaced in the cuneiform stage of script of the Early Dynastic period (ED) by sign BALA . That the cuneiform sign was in fact a replacement of the pictograph of a harp is shown by comparing the archaic and ED versions of the same list of words, where the sign BALA takes the place of the harp pictograph.2 An image of a harp that would have been represented by the cuneiform sign was not found, which allowed the possibility that it was a harp no more. Before the publication of the archaic word lists, Cohen argued that the word bala , which is written with the sign BALA and here rendered phonetically as balang designates a drum.3 He noted that the balang instrument had a hoop (kippatu 52) ust like the drum alû. Indeed, pictorial representations of ancient Mesopotamian harps make it highly unlikely that they were tted with a hoop. Cohen noted further that texts called er2- em3-ma tears of the shem’, an instrument that is indeed a drum formed the last part of compositions called balang: It seems rather unlikely that a composition composed for the drum would then be chanted to a harp. es, but the tears of the shem drum were performed after the much longer part that was performed with the Balangharp. Cohen also uoted a ritual that instructs the lamenter (gala) to take the hand’ of a kettledrum (lilis), bring it before the gods, and perform a balang composition. That was a good argument at the time. Gabbay (PHG:98 102) has now treated the relationship between balang and lilis and found that the latter supplanted the former as an ob ect of royal dedications to gods and as the central instrument in performing balang compositions. He also noted a case where the lilis kettledrum built and dedicated by an OB king is identi ed in writing as kettledrum’ (li-li-sa-am) or bron e balang’ (BALA . ABAR, 44). Indeed, a bron e balang’ appears already in a text from the Ur III period (35) and may be a kettledrum. As argued below, the lute as a cultic instrument could also be called a balang. That may also be the case of the kettledrum called the bron e balang’. As regards the balang instrument that is no kettledrum, Gabbay found the rst and so far single textual proof that it was indeed a chordophone, an unpublished OB text containing the phrase to slice the strings of the adviser 2 3 Archaic 2 and ED 4a. Cooper 2006:41n6. Cohen 1974:31. 573 Wolfgang Heimpel (PHG:96 with n140). Balang-gods, a category of servant-gods discussed below, were called adviser of the god they served, so the strings of the adviser would be the strings of the instrument of the balang servant-god. In the god-list An:Anum (53), the title of balang servant-gods was written with the logogram GUD.BALA , where GUD is the logogram for the bull. ED pictorial representations and nds of the remains of lyres show that their resonator was formed to resemble a bull e.g. Figure 4, Figure 47 JCF . Bull lyres are depicted typically in scenes of feasting; in the words of Michalowski, they were an iconic symbol of elite entertainment in ban uet scenes, and in similar representations of status-a rming conviviality. 4 Gabbay points to the picture of an OAkk. cylinder seal that shows the cult scene of a lyre-player before the seated image of the goddess Ishtar in her warlike aspect with weapons emerging from behind her shoulders.5 Boehmer interprets the scene as a musical performance meant to soothe the warlike Ishtar.6 Gabbay builds on this interpretation, describing the scene as a musical performance that is intended to soothe Inanna’s raging heart, which is the exact role of the performance of Emesal prayers in their musical context, and thus it is not unlikely that the scene may belong to the world of the gala i.e. lamenter . Boehmer’s interpretation is debatable. Several OAkk. representations of Ishtar with weapons emerging from behind her shoulders are the common o ering scenes. The famous seal of Adda (Boehmer no. 377) shows Ishtar standing as morning-star over the mountainland and above the sun-god emerging from below the hori on. This leads me to interpret the representation on the seal Boehmer no. 385 as a musical performance before the morning-star Ishtar. That performance would belong to the world of the temple-singer who celebrates her appearance that announces the coming light of day. Gabbay (2010) adopts Boehmer’s interpretation and proposes to strengthen the connection of the scene with the world of the lamenter by associating the musician sitting behind the lyre-player with the image of a chief lamenter on a stone bowl from Assyrian Nimrud who stretches out two ob ects in his hands that Gabbay interprets as sistrum and drum. I see in the ob ect the stem and ower of a lotus plant. Lotus owers were a pictorial motif adopted from Egypt in Assyria at the time. They are held in the hands of persons elsewhere in Assyrian art (Bleibtreu 1980:116 120). The ob ect in the other hand of the chief lamenter can hardly be the percussion instrument on the knees of the sistrum player. Only two forward tips clearly separated by empty space are preserved. 4 5 6 Michalowski 2010a:219. Gabbay 2010:25 and g. 2 MgB 2/2:64 65 g. 42. Boehmer 1965 no. 385. 574 Balang-Gods I believe that the musician with sistrum and percussion instrument on his knees is a singer (nar) because these two instruments are held by a ackal in the famous animal ensemble that decorated one of the bull lyres found in the ED royal tombs of Ur. The head of a ackal served as pictograph of the Sumerian word for the singer (nar), about which more is said below in Section 3a. The lyres and other instruments deposited in the ED royal tombs were probably not connected to the mourning of the deceased (as suggested by Sel and Gabbay).7 While the balang instrument was put up and played for this purpose at burials (22), the ob ects buried in the royal graves of Ur themati e afterlife, not death. The precious lyre with the representation of an animal ensemble was surely a cherished possession in the lifetimes of the deceased and believed to keep entertaining in afterlife, so the lyres in burials are still examples of Michalowski’s characteri ation of items of elite entertainment. The remaining argument in favor of identifying the balang instrument with a lyre is an entry in an ED lexical text from Ebla in Syria where the sign BALA is translated with innār, the Akkadian and West Semitic word for the lyre (4d). The translation must be evaluated in connection with document 4c, an unprovenanced, but surely Mesopotamian, ED IIIa vocabulary containing a section listing six musical instruments. Two instruments were written with the sign BALA , one with a modi ed BALA sign, another with the logogram se uence AL.HUB2, the fth har-har, known also from later texts as a musical instrument, and the last ki2-na-ru12, the ED spelling of innār lyre. It appears that the sign BALA wrote two words designating two instruments, the modied BALA sign a third instrument, possibly tigi, modi ed di erently in later periods as NAR.BALA , BALA .NAR, and E2.BALA , and nally ki2-na-ru12, the lyre, as still another instrument. It is interesting that the word for lyre in 4c is written syllabically. Perhaps there existed no logogram for it. The reason for the e uation of BALA with innār in Ebla is unknown. The lyre in ED Northwestern Syria could have been an instrument used in cult. Or the balang instrument in Ebla was the lyre of a temple singer, and thus a cult instrument.8 However the e uation is understood, the following section shows that we have to reckon with instruments written with the balang sign that are not harps, and the lyre including the lyre on the seal Boehmer no. 385 could be one of them. 7 8 Sel 1997:170; Gabbay 2010:25. Cf. Franklin, p65 67. 575 Wolfgang Heimpel 1b Balang lute Kilmer and Collon (RlA 6:512 517, Laute) proposed that the instrument called voice-making/speaking wood in standard Sumerian d/ 9 d , mu-gu3-di in Emesal Sumerian, was a lute. It was a popular instrument according to pictorial representations of ribald entertainment (MgB 2/2 no. 81 84 and page 92). A lute was the instrument of the singer Urur as shown on his seal (MgB 2/2 no. 38). It was played before a god as shown on an OAkk. seal (MgB 2/2 no. 39). Great Dragon of the Homeland was a balang instrument (17b) that was called the famous lute (17a). As a person, the balang was the beloved singer of his master-god Ningirsu (17c). While walking in procession from the residence of Gudea, the governor of the province of Lagash, to the temple of Ningirsu that Gudea had ust renovated (17d), he would have played a lute, not the Balang-harp that needed setting up before playing it (see Section 1d below). 1c Ed Harps in pictorial representations Beginning with ED III, various harps are known from pictorial representations. All are bow harps. One type is small enough to be held with one hand and played by its player standing or walking. The upper end of the neck extends beyond the connection point of the outer string, the tip reaching more or less above the head of the male player (MgB 2/2 page 54 more and no. 32 35 less ); short upper ends may result from space limitation. In one case, a donkey plays the harp walking on his hind legs. Another follows him playing claves (MgB 2/2 no. 30).10 Another type is a harp the si e of an upright person. Two such harps are depicted on a three-tiered seal of the wife of an ED III ruler of Mari. The harp in the middle band appears to have a foot. They are played by women and 9 10 The lute is discussed from various angles in the papers of ICONEA 2011 see also Appendix D JCF ; Krispi n 2011, for instance, believes that the instrument gi -gu3-di must have had a wider meaning before (the second millennium), since the translation lute’ does not t the context of the Gudea passage (17a). It must have been a prestigious cultic instrument and not the foreign and increasingly popular folk music type lute. Compare the representation of a lute on an archaic seal in the Uruk style, which is the topic of the article of R. Dumbrill in the same publication. Gabbay rightly ob ects to Kilmer’s connection with the Arabic word for the lute as argument for the identi cation of the instrument. In my view, the association of the singer Urur with a lute on the OAkk. seal Boehmer 1965 no. 497 is an argument in favor of the identi cation, considering that the balang servant-god Great Dragon of the Homeland was a temple-singer. These instruments are often called clappers’. Rashid calls them Klangst be, that is claves, and identi ed them with sickle-shaped copper-blades from ED Kish (MgB 2/2:48 and no. 16). I believe that the small sickles’ in document 20c represent a smaller variety of the rather long ED claves. 576 Balang-Gods accompanied by women playing claves.11 A similar harp is depicted on a lapisla uli seal that was found in the grave of a ueen in the royal cemetery of Ur (MgB 2/2 no. 29). The upper end of that harp ends in a circular knob and from the lower end extends a slightly curved narrow engraved line that may be a foot as one might expect for an instrument of that si e. The harp was played by a woman. Opposite her stands a woman accompanying her with claves, or so it seems. It must have been di cult to engrave the hard stone, causing thin lines and shallow relief. A di erent harp is shown on an early OAkk. cylinder seal (MgB 2/2 no. 44). The upper end of the neck curves back, forming a wide bend. At its upper end, it ares out to form a at-topped knob. It is played by a woman in front of a god coming back from the hunt.12 1d The Ed Balang sign The archaic pictograph of the Sumerian word bala is the image of a bow harp. Stauder (RlA 4:115, Harfe) illustrates the then-known examples from the two archaic phases of script, Uruk I and III. The references for the archaic sign in Englund and Boehmer 1994 include three signs showing four strings.13 The least abstracted form shows that the upper end of the instrument’s neck was extended in a straight line above the upper connection point of the outermost string (MgB 2/2 no. 27 and 1). The earliest post-archaic form of the balang sign dates from an early phase of the succeeding ED period when the pictographic character of the archaic script gave way to more abstract forms as the drawing of lines, so ill- tted to the medium of moist clay, was more and more replaced by impressing wedges. A partly pictographic and cuneiform balang sign is found on a tablet from Ur (3). The sign shows the neck of the harp bending back sharply above the upper connecting point of the outer string and ending in a longish straight line.14 Written sources of the ED period become more numerous and with wider geographical spread in period ED IIIa. The balang sign of this period is complex and di ers radically from the earlier forms. The numerous variants of the sign are drawn by Deimel 1922:6 and uoted as LAK 41.15 They are the prototypes 11 12 13 14 15 Marcetteau 2010:67, with a drawing of the editor Beyer. See also the contribution of Collon in the same publication on pages 50 51. According to Braun-Hol inger not Ninurta/Ningirsu (RlA 9:522, Ninurta/Ningiru B 2); perhaps Pap-ule-gara. See the last line of a hymn to this god (Foster 1993 1:73). W6776, c; W6882, f; W5696, ao. Stauder pointed out a harp with four strings and seven plugs at their upper ends (see Hartmann 1960:22n1). The strings are intersected at a right angle by a central line, perhaps the lower arm of the player. Some examples are shown in photographs in Krispi n 2010. 577 Wolfgang Heimpel of the later fully cuneiform balang sign. The sign LAK 41 takes the place of the archaic balang sign in the ED version of the list of persons Lu2 A (2 and 4a). Parallel lines in the center of the sign suggest strings, but their proper attachment is not shown, and the overall form and details of the sign are not matched by any Mesopotamian pictorial representations of harps of any period. That a harp is represented at all is con rmed by a scene of a pla ue from Susa from the same time.16 It forms a clear match with the sign LAK 41 (Heimpel 2014). At the time, Susa had close ties with Mesopotamia. Such pla ues are well attested in the Diyala area where Elamite and Mesopotamian cultures meet. They were used to frame a peg protruding from the door amb that served as anchor for a rope attached to the door that was slung around it to keep the door closed ( ettler 1987). The pla ues show secular scenes, the principal gure probably being the master or mistress of an upscale house for which the pla ue was made. Other ob ects found together with the pla ue also demonstrate the cultural tie between Susa and Mesopotamia at the time (Marchesi and Marchetti 2011:82 83). Cuneiform was written there, too, including the ED version of the list Lu2 A.17 The Susa harp was a large instrument, its neck reaching from the bottom of the resonator to a point behind and slightly above the head of the seated player. At the bottom, the neck disappears inside the resonator. A foot is not visible, but can be expected for an instrument of that si e. The high and fairly thick resonator was fastened to the lower neck. It was probably a cylinder, not a box, because hoops were part of the Balang-harp (52); this answers one argument against identifying the balang instrument with a harp (Cohen 1974). The neck emerges from the resonator and continues for a little less distance than the resonator’s height and bends to a point under the left armpit of the player to form the bow that frames the strings. On the right shoulder of the player, it recurves, forming a wide semicircle, and ends behind and slightly above the player’s pate. At the upper end, the neck of the instrument ares and forms a at surface similar to the otherwise uite di erently shaped OAkk. harp MgB 2/2 no. 44. The general form of the ED IIIa balang sign is similar, though some details are not. The neck of the instrument of the sign gains in girth toward the bottom and forms the resonator. Close to the lower end is a hori ontal line that may mark the upper end of a stand. The wide recurved bow at the upper end of the neck of the Susa harp is clearly marked in the sign, but much smaller and tighter. The two groups of parallel straight lines may be the strings, with the 16 17 Pel el 1977 with earlier literature. MSL 11:9. 578 Balang-Gods lower group not reaching the other end of the bow and the upper group being the upper ends of strings beyond the point of fastening. The Susa harp was played by a seated man with the strings between neck and player. All other representations of harp playing from the early periods show that the neck was between player and strings. 1e Features of Balang-harps The harp shown on the Susa pla ue is a type that matches the balang instrument. Both were large. The Balang-harp was set up (gub) before being played (17e, 20c, 22, 47a), carried from place to place by harp carriers (bala -il2), and repositioned from its place in its home temple to various locations on a procession route including other cities (10). Bull hide (36 and 41), black he-goat hide (41), kid hide (46), or ust hide (48) was issued for Balang-harps, surely to cover their resonators. The recurved uppermost section of the neck of the Balang-harp would have been called the grapple-hook’ ( a), otherwise used in wrestling.18 The grapple-hook (23a3) and perhaps other parts of the neck were plated with silver (24) and gold (23g2, 42c), and the instrument as a whole was often called shining’ as a result.19 The grapple-hook is mentioned in the name or epithet of a balang servant-god of Ningirsu in An:Anum 102 (53): Dragon of the OutbackGrapple-hook of House Fifty’. The grapple-hook seems to have been so characteristic of the harp that the harp itself could be so called. The Ur III tablet PDT 1 456 records the expenditure of a silver ring as present for the son of a singer (nar) for having played a grapple-hook (mu ge ba in-tag-tag-a- e3).20 The harp also had an eye’, probably an opening in the resonator (23a3), and a mysterious tooth/teeth/nose/mouth (KA) of the left wood piece’ (42b). A single reference (35) attests a bron e balang, probably a kettledrum that was occasionally so called (see Section 1a). 1f Balang-harp The lack of Mesopotamian pictorial representations of the type of harp that corresponds to the ED IIIa balang sign and the similar Susa harp was probably 18 19 20 The Akkadian e uivalent of the Sumerian word a is umā u. The meaning grapple-hook’ was proposed by AHw, s.v. The plating of a ge ba shows that wrestling (match)’ cannot be the only meaning of the word (as claimed by Rollinger, RlA 13:6 16, Sport und Spiel). The ad ective ku3 is translated in Akkadian as ellu shining’ (42a, line 44), which is standard ualication of silver. Sel uses the conventional translation of ku3 as holy’. I owe this interpretation to U. Gabbay. 579 Wolfgang Heimpel caused by the use of this instrument in mortuary cult (22). Depicting it would have raised the specter of death. That was not the case in ED Susa where a similar kind of harp was used for elite entertainment, much like the bull lyre in contemporaneous Mesopotamia. While the general design of the large harp was identical in Susa and Mesopotamia, it clearly played di erent roles in Elamite and Mesopotamian cultures. 2 Balang Names and Balang-gods There are numerous attestations of positioning Balang-harps at cult places in ED IIIb administrative documents (9 14). The word balang was written without divine determinative and names of the instruments are not recorded in administrative documents. I found one harp-god name in such documents of the OAkk. period (15). Many names are found in texts of the Ur III period. They were written without the divine determinative in the province of Lagash, and with the determinative in sources outside of that province. The sign of the determinative is the pictograph of a single star. With few known exceptions, it precedes names of gods, so its presence or absence is important for the uestion of dei cation.21 2a Temple-servants, divine and Human, in the Ur III period Temple of Ningirsu in Girsu, the capital of the province of lagash The Babylonian temple mirrored an elite household. The divine master and mistress of a temple commanded a sta of servants who cared for their every need. An instructive source is the description of a temple renovation by Gudea, ruler of the province of Lagash of the third dynasty of Ur at the end of the third millennium BCE. It is written in Sumerian with the partly syllabic and logographic cuneiform writing of the time. Due to its length and good preservation, the text has been studied much and translated repeatedly. While problems of 21 The pictograph also writes the word god’ (di ir in Sumerian and il3 in Akkadian), and the syllable /an/. It is sometimes not clear which value applies. A salient example comes from an ED list of knives that includes sections where pairs with and without the single star appear. There is a copper bread knife’ and a copper bread knife’ preceded by the single star and so on. Sel 1997:170 171, following an idea of A. Westenhol , understands the single star as divine determinative. Englund and Nissen 1993:34 found in the archaic metal list also entries with the single star. They suggested that the utilitarian ob ects in the list were made of copper and the addition of the single star is short for an-na tin’. In my opinion, that is certainly also the case in the ED list uoted by Sel . The document would then gain importance for the early development of bron e in the time from archaic Uruk III to ED, and lose relevance for the topic of dei cation of cultic ob ects’. 580 Balang-Gods translation persist, it represents the best available textual source for the architecture and function of a city-god’s temple for this period. After completion of the renovation, Ningirsu, master of the temple, moved from temporary uarters into his newly made uarters. Moving the image of the god had to be done with the utmost care so it would not be upset.22 et, as Gudea describes it, Ningirsu arrived as a gust of wind and his wife Baba moved to her wing in his temple (she had her own separate temple nearby) owing stately like the Tigris river a drastic di erence from what actually happened ( fully mythological as Franklin calls it).23 The next day Gudea woke Ningirsu with a breakfast in the bedroom suite, and Ningirsu assumed his role as master of the household by reviewing, in the courtyard, the heads of the temple departments passing before him with their duties. The review of the temple-servants is described more as a fully actual review than a mythological process. Plough animals in the province of Lagash were also made to pass the reviewer in single le (Heimpel 1995:120). Most but not all names of the temple-servants are preceded in writing by the divine determinative. The divine determinative is found typically for the same gods whose image and house are attested in contemporaneous administrative documents. It is therefore signi cant that house and image are not attested for the servants whose names are written without the divine determinative. They are the second general, the butler of the bedroom suite, the deer-keeper, and the two balang servants. One might imagine that the two balang could have been a lute with a name and a Balang-harp with a name that were carried around; but this is hardly a solution for Lord Deer’. Whether goatherd (as Jacobsen interprets the di cult passage describing him and his duties) or deer-keeper, he was not an ob ect, and lacking the divine determinative in writing, and image or temple in administrative documents, he must have been the human temple-servant in charge of providing the dairy products for the meals of Ningirsu. The balang servants could thus have been the singer (nar) and lamenter (gala) of the temple who carried their instruments with them. The Balang-harp of the lamenter Fiercefaced King would actually have been carried by a harp carrier (4g, 10). The only case for a house of a harp-god is 23d3. The following table lists the servants and whether they are marked with ( ) or without (-) the divine determinative. In the occupation column, the rst identi cation is that of Jacobsen 1987, the second mine: 22 23 Accidents while moving images of gods happened and were considered ominous. One example: when Marduk in exiting or entering Esagila falls down and comes to rest on the ground, the dead will rise, end of rule (Sallaberger 2000:232). See p28. 581 Wolfgang Heimpel dd? Name Translation Occupation Ig-alima Bisondoor High Constable Chief Baili Shul-shaga - - outh of Heart Lugal-kurdub King Mountainland Drubber (Kurshunaburu) Mountainland Bird in Hand Lugal-sisa Straight King Shakkan-shengbar Kinda i En-signun Good Barber Lord - En-lulim Lord Deer - Ushumgal-kalama - Lugal-igi-hush Lamma-enkud-egu2-eden-na Dimgal Ab u Great Dragon of the Homeland Wroth-faced King24 Fierce-faced King The One Taking out the Plow Angel Tax-Collector of Steppe Bank Great Post of Groundwater Lugal King 7 twins of Baba Gishbare 24 Butler Sanitarian Marshal General ice Marshal Second General ice Regent Adviser Private Secretary Butler of Bedroom Suite alet de Chambre E uerry Goat Herd Deer Keeper Bard Balang-Singer Elegist Balang-Lamenter Handmaidens Farmer Fishery Supervisor Herald of Steppe Bank Guard of Holy City Jacobsen 1987:434n36: The wroth-faced king’ suggests that it would come into play when Ningirsu’s face was glowering, the god still full of the wrath of battle. 582 Balang-Gods 2b No servant-gods in a comprehensive list of Food and drink allocations to Gods of a Temple Records of the OB administration of the Ninurta temple Eshumesha in Nippur list recipients of food and drink allocations of the entire temple household as follows ( presence, - absence of divine determinative):25 (Standing) Ninurta (image) in larger house. (Sitting Ninurta images) in throne house and sedan-chair house. (Armed Ninurta image) in Igishugalama.26 (Images of 6 ma or gods) Nusku, Sin, Enki, Inana, Ishkur, Utu. (Images of the 12 minor gods) Nin-Girgilu, Nergal, Nintinuga, Damu, Ninshubura, Ninsun, Baba, Nin-Isina, Nin-Kirimasha ( Lady Kidnose ), Shulpae, Shu i’ana, Nin-Nibru. - 9 statues: the larger, breastkid (a statue depicting an o erer bringing a kid in his arms), (former king) Ishme-Dagan, the three of them, (former king) Sin-I isham, the four of them. (Images of 11 gods) Ningish ida, Ninsi’ana, Nanay, Kalkal, Martu, Pabilsag, Enanun, Ninshenshena, Lulal, Numushda, Ennugi. - Weapon Seven-headed club. - Main gate. The three balang-gods of Ninurta of Eshumesha that are listed in An:Anum (I 268 270) were not allocated food and drink. However, eleven human templeservants receiving food and drink from the temple (Sigrist 1984a:173) do include a chief lamenter (gala mah) and chief singer (nar-gal). They would have performed the duties of the balang servant-gods. 25 26 Sigrist 1984a:140. George 1993 no. 524. The weapon Fifty-headed Stick’ was stationed in Igishugalama and Ninurta determined destinies there (Heimpel 1996:21 22 with g. 3). The corresponding place in Gudea’s ground plan of the Eninnu of Ningirsu was the most protruding of the three gates of the east side of the temple. George’s proposal to identify it with the cella of Ninurta in his Nippur temple means that the gate led straight to the cella at the west side with the rising sun greeted by Ningirsu/Ninurta looking at the mountain land to check whether it was necessary to move out on a military expedition (one of his principal functions). 583 Wolfgang Heimpel 2c Balang-harp servant-gods in God-lists Servant-gods may already occur in the long ED IIIa god-lists from Fara, so possibly dmuhaldim- i-Unug ( Good Cook of Uruk’) and others mentioned by Krebernik 1986:165. There are two candidates for a Balang-harp god name, d Ab2-er2- a4 ( Tear-crier Cow’), sharing the rst element with Ab2-he2-nun, the harp-goddess of Nin-KI.MAR (20); and dNin-er2(-ra) ( Lady of tears’).27 The OB forerunner of An:Anum TCL 15 10 lists the names of several servantgods, without identifying their occupations. According to their listing in An:Anum, the forerunner lists butlers (lines 72, 164, 185, 394), caretakers (53 54, 141 144), attendants (167), doorkeepers (101 102), and two balang-gods A-ru6 and Ur(sic)-a-ru6 (93 94), the balang-gods of Damgalnuna (wife of Enki) in An:Anum II 315 316. The earliest exemplars of An:Anum belong to the Kassite period, the rst phase of the Late period.28 It is the single best source for the number and variety of servant-gods, and especially balang servant-gods, of the ma or temple households of Babylonia. The master-gods are listed according to their rank in the Babylonian pantheon. Listed after each master-god are the names of family members and servant-gods. Renger, treating the servant-gods as an example of household sta , counted forty occupations (RlA 4:436 437, Hofstaat A). Some were particular to their master-gods. For example, only Enlil had a slaughterer, re ecting the large number of live meat-animals brought for slaughter to the supreme temple of the land. Only Inana had a troupe of ve translators, in line with her international character. Only the sun-god had a runner, who carried, at the speed of light and over far distances from the ever moving position of his master, numerous answers to oracle in uiries and legal matters. Other servantgods were employed by several master-gods. For example, both Enlil and Baba had a housekeeper (agrig), and many master-gods with large temples had butlers, caretakers, attendants, and door-keepers. Balang-harp servant-gods are by far the most numerous group of servantgods in An:Anum. This remarkable feature could result from the bias of an author or redactor who was a lamenter, as indicated by document 54. A master-god could have several balang servant-gods. The moon-god had eight; the sky-god An and war-god Ningirsu seven; the mother goddess, the weather-god, and the sun-god six; none had ve, two four, and one three. The 27 28 In both names, IGI.A is interpreted as e uivalent to A.IGI er2 tear’. IGI.A is logogram for uhhur2 foam,’ but Lady Foam’ and foam Cow’ seem unlikely. See Krebernik 1986:191 and 198. See eldhuis 2000:79 80 and Lambert in RlA 3:475 ( G tterlisten). 584 Balang-Gods remaining twenty-three balang-gods either came in pairs or as singles. These numbers do not mirror the hierarchy of the master-gods themselves, but rather the level of apprehension about a master-god’s tendency to be absent; divine absence threatened the well-being of the community, and called for Balangharp and lamenter to bring absent gods back for their and the community’s good.29 The moon- and sun-gods disappeared fre uently, and the heaven-god An seemed always distant. The plurality of harp-gods of one and the same master-god has a further aspect. Some names of harp-gods coincide with names of festivals, indicating that an individual balang-god went into action on a speci c occasion. The clearest examples are two of the seven harp-gods of An. One is named after the constellation One-Acre-Star whose appearance marks the beginning of the year (53 I 79). Another is named after the festival Sitting Gods’ when all the gods come together (53 I 75). At the Sitting Gods festival, the oratorio was performed whose lyrics are known from the balang composition Elum Gusun (CLAM 1: 272 318).30 The Balang-harp and balang-goddess Ninigi ibara participate in the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi in which Inana laments the death of her husband Dumu i (47a). A search for further links between Balang-harps and their corresponding servant-gods and particular oratorios should be fruitful, but has not been attempted here. A particular feature of balang instruments is their not-infre uent appearance in groups of seven (documents 9, 11, 37, and 43).31 Document 43 describes an attempt to pacify Enlil when his rage had already caused the destruction of the kingdom and the city of Akkad. One Balang-harp was not enough to pacify him. It was attempted with seven, the number whose magic made it more than seven times one.32 Against the background of ma or temples having several festivals with so many oratories and so many balang instruments, the motif of the seven balangs also meant that all festival activity was then pooled in the one great e ort to pacify Enlil. Document 9 lists allocations of oil to a large balang’, or chief balang’, in second position after an up-drum, and at the very end a group of seven balangs. Document 11 also mentions a group of seven balangs close to the end of a list of allocations of food. This group of balangs belongs to the temple of Nin-MAR.KI in the province of Lagash. The position of the groups of seven balangs in documents 9 and 11 indicates a low rank among the cultic 29 30 31 32 L hnert 2009:55 58. The operatic nature of the performance is described by iegler (FM 9:55 64) on the basis of an OB ritual of the performance of Uru’amma’irabi from Mari. See also Franklin, p41. See Franklin, p40 41. 585 Wolfgang Heimpel institutions of the temples of Nanshe and Nin-MAR.KI. The function of the seven-magic in these cases is unclear. Balang-gods were given the title GUD.BALA in An:Anum, a term translated as mumtalku the one with whom one takes counsel, con dant’ in KA 64 II 17. The same function was expressed in Sumerian with the title ad-gi4-gi4, literally sound repeating’, in conventional translation adviser’, or as we might say sounding board’. Gabbay (PHG:103 109) pointed out that the designation GUD.BALA is restricted to An:Anum, not attested as Sumerian word, and probably a logogram of ad-gi4-gi4 adviser’. He uotes in favor of his understanding An:Anum II 94 95: dad-gi4-gi4 U ( same pronunciation’, that is, adgigi), dMIN (that is, dad-gi4-gi4) GUD.BALA (written GUD.BALA ) U ( same pronunciation’). The gloss MIN indeed points to a pronunciation adgigi. Gabbay further provides an improved reading of An:Anum 17 18 where the balang-gods of Ninsun and Lugalbanda are listed as divine advisers’ (dad-gi4-gi4) rather than as GUD.BALA . Michalowski 2010a:221 222 notes that the sign BALA actually writes two words, bala and gud10, and interprets GUD.BALA as gudgud10 (see 4g). It is indeed tempting to read the sign BALA as bala when the instrument is meant and gud10 when it is the balang servant-god. et Ningirsu’s temple-servant Fierce-faced King in Gudea Cylinders B is said to be his balang’ (bala - a2-ni) where the spelling rules out a reading gud10. The use of the word bala to designate the lamenter may go back to the archaic period (1 and 2). The following table gives the numbers of balang-gods and other common types of servant-gods in An:Anum. With caretakers and attendants, the name of the temple rather than that of the master-god was preferred. 586 Balang-Gods Master-god Nanna Balang- Butler Caretaker Attendant gods # sukkal33 udug34 gub-ba 8 1 4 An 7 Ningirsu 7 Dingirmah 6 1 Ishkur Utu 6 6 535 1 5 1 Baba Enki Ninurta 4 4 3 0 2 1 Damgalnuna 2 2 Enlil Gibil Gula Inana 2 2 2 2 Lugalmarad Manungal Marduk Ningal 2 2 2 2 Ningublaga Ninshubura Nissaba Ashgi Damu Ishtaran Ninlil Ninkimar Ninsun Nusku Panigara 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 34 35 Door-keeper Temple i3-du8 3 1 5 1 Eninnu 3 4 Emah 1 2 Ebabbar 3 8 1 1 Eshumesha 0 1 1 3 9 2 2 Ekur 5 5 2 1 Egalmah 1 5 1 2 2 2 Esagila 1 1 1 1 Chief butler’ (sukkal-mah) after . For the translation caretaker’ see Heimpel 2009:138 139. KA 64, lines 12 18 of the last two columns of the reverse, lists ve names of secondary balang’ (bala us2, translated as BALA re-du-u2) of Utu. 587 Wolfgang Heimpel Master-god Sadarnuna Balang- Butler gods # sukkal 1 Tishpak 1 arpanitum Caretaker Attendant udug gub-ba Door-keeper Temple i3-du8 25 19 1 1 85 33 23 2d Gender of Balang-gods The names of balang-gods show that they were thought to be male or female. Balang-gods serving female master-gods have female names and balang-gods serving male master-gods have male names. Three exceptions are one female balang-god each of the male master-gods Enki, Utu, and Nanna. A fourth possible exception is Ninigi ibara, the balang servant-god of Inana. Gabbay (PHG:112) points out that BM 38593, a Late version of the balang composition Uru’amma’irabi, translates the name Nin-igi- i-bar-ra into Akkadian as whom (masculine su x) the Lady ( Inana) regarded well’ and further that this balang-god is called Inana’s husband (23f, but see Section 4a5, my husband’). The maleness of Ninigi ibara does t the short form Igi ibara, which was used for the harp-god in records from Ur III Umma and is attested as a masculine PN in the ED and Ur III periods.36 Gudea calls himself Igi ibara of Nanshe in Statue B II 10 1 (RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StB). et maleness is contradicted by 23h and 23i where the element nin of the full name Ninigi ibara is given in Emesal Sumerian as ga an lady’. Gender-revealing names are presented in the following tables: 36 CUSAS 23 5 (probably Umma ED IIIb), DP 624 I 5 6 (Girsu ED IIIb) and HLC 32 I 11 (Girsu Ur III). 588 Balang-Gods Masculine Names Master-god and Gender Documentation Fierce-faced King Ishbi-Erra Trustee of Enlil Ningirsu (m) Enlil (m) 18 40 Bull Calf of Sin Nanna (m) 53 III 51 Grand Dragon Nanna Nanna (m) 53 III 52 Judge of Heaven and Earth Utu (m) 53 III 154 Just Judge outh of His Mighty Rising Utu (m) Shamash (m) 53 III 156 53 KA 64 I 14 Good Man The One from Before Ningirsu (m) Ishtaran (m) 53 53 105 291 Feminine Names Master-god and Gender Documentation Lady Conversing Grandly with An Lady Occupying the Palace Lady Aruru Lady Prayer of An Baba (f) Gula (f) Dingirmah (f) arpanitum (f) 19 24 53 II 97 53 II 259 Festival Lady Eagle ueen Cow of His Risen Heart Lady Heaven’s Bolt Enki (f) Nin-KI.MAR (f) Shamash (m) Inana (f) 53 II 310 311 53 III 85 53 I 13 53 I 74 Cow Wealth Praise Great Lady Lady of Plenty Lady (ga- a-an) Aru Ninsun (f) Gula (f) Gula (f) Damgalnuna (m) 53 53 53 53 18 186 187 315 The advising function of balang-gods agrees with their gender distribution and the main characters of oratorios. A woman rather than a man is typically the better con dant to console, soothe, and commiserate a goddess, and a male adviser can better deal with the rage of a god. 3 Human Functionaries Exercising the duties of Balang-gods Gudea’s list of non-divine and divine temple-servants includes a description of their duties vis-à-vis their master. The Balang-harp servants advised, pacied, and entertained their masters. Who were the human temple-servants that 589 Wolfgang Heimpel performed the duties of the Balang-harp temple-servants and Balang-harp servant-gods 3a The singer The pictograph of a canine head in archaic texts identi es the singer (1). This is shown by the archaic ancestor of Lu2, the oldest version of a list of signs for words that designate persons and professions. The list includes this pictograph in register 105 (2). From later lexical texts we know that the cuneiform sign that developed from the canine head pictograph wrote thirteen words, among them fox, ackal’ (ka5-a); animal and common PN; false’ (lul); singer’ (nar); and one name of a god, Dunga the god of singers.37 This combination of meanings re ects the melodious howling of the ackal and the capacity of the fox to deceive.38 Singers serving in a divine household are attested in Ur III administrative documents.39 The balang temple-servant Great Dragon of the Homeland was a singer (17c). He played the lute, an exemplar built by Gudea to entertain Ningirsu. He also managed musical performances in the courtyard and in the bedroom suite. In the latter, he played, or oversaw play with, two more instruments, the hoe-setter( )’ (al- ar), and the Marian’ (miritum), possibly the Mari harp’ listed in an ED lexical text (4b). Great Dragon’s duty was further to make sure that oyous music was played in the courtyard (17c). At the musical performance for the inauguration of the renovated temple, he led the drums into the courtyard (17d). He also took care of the tigi instruments (17c). In addition to being a singer and lute-player, he acted as a kind of musical director.40 The lack of divine determinative indicates that Great Dragon of the Homeland was a human singer. He might have had his own normal PN, but in relationship to the master-god his professional name was Great Dragon of the Homeland’. 37 38 39 40 MSL 14:468 469 (lines 118 137) and Civil 2010:12 13 (lines 241 253). Gabbay 2010 and Collon in RlA 14:142 ( Trommel und Pauke) translate ackal’. AHw, CAD, and CDA only fox’. The ackal, who likes to live close to human settlement and would have been a more common presence not the fox (who prefers uninhabited areas) engages in melodious howling. The Arabic cognate also designates both canids (Lane 1980:338, a la : the fox, canis vulpes of Linn., but in the dialect of Egypt the ackal, canis aureus ). The best source is the administrative record from the province of Lagash published by Gelb 1975, which lists the singers and lamenters of the divine households of the province. Even the households of the servant-gods in Ningirsu’s temple, Igalima and Shulshagana, had a singer. See Franklin, p28. In the temple of Nanshe in Nina, a city in the territory of Lagash, the chief singer played a horn (20c). 590 Balang-Gods 3b lamenters In an archaic record of persons, the ackal-head pictograph, serving as sign of the word nar singer’, is followed by the pictograph of a roundharp (1). The same se uence is found in the archaic version of the list of persons Lu2 (2). In the ED IIIa version of that list, the pictograph of the roundharp is no longer found, nor is the sign of the Balang-harp. The place after the singer is taken by two pictographs, U and DUR2. The rst designates maleness in its various aspects. The rather abstract pictograph appears to depict an e aculating penis. The second pictograph writes the words for buttock, sitting, farting, excrement, and wet. The combined signs write the Sumerian word gala, lamenter’. Steinkeller 1992:37 proposed that the combination of meanings that characteri e the lamenter are penis and buttock, so that the proper rendering of the sign would be GI 3.DUR2 rather than the conventional U .KU. It is di cult to think of another meaningful combination of the two signs. The gala would accordingly have been someone who practiced anal intercourse.41 It was the lamenter whom the god of wisdom, Enki, created to extricate the goddess Inana after she was killed in an attempt to add the netherworld to her dominion. The lamenter entered the netherworld and succeeded to gain the trust of its ueen Ere kigal by commiserating with her su ering body and mind. In turn, she allowed him the choice of a gift, for which he selected the revival and return of Inana. Sexual activity could resume.42 In his visit to the netherworld, the lamenter proved he could manipulate its ueen. This would have enabled him to alleviate the destiny of the dead in the netherworld. When a body was interred, the lamenter set up the balang, elicited tears (22a). He would have elicited the tears of those present, commiserated with their sense of loss, and exercised his in uence on the ueen of the netherworld for a good treatment of the deceased in her realm. Did the lamenter play the Balang-harp that he had set up Document 22b shows that the lamenter and a harpist collaborated at a mourning rite. That was also the case of oratorios where the harp was played by the harpist, not the 41 42 The Mesopotamian attitude to male homosexuality was positive appreciation (Wiggermann, RlA 12:418, Sexualit t A). Apart from homosexuality, anal intercourse with a woman was practiced in order to prevent pregnancy (CAD s.v. nâku 3, cited by Wiggermann). For recent discussions of the sexuality and anatomy of the third gender’ of the lamenter, see Gabbay 2008; Shehata 2009:82 83; Gabbay PHG:67 68. Michalowski 2006, limiting himself to Ur III administrative documents, nds the very same dichotomy in the nature of the lamenter, which he expresses as love and death, marriage option and military option. The connection with death was the temporal induction of a soldier to serve as lamenter in battle deaths, the connection with marriage might have been the lamenter’s instruction of the couple about matters of sexuality. 591 Wolfgang Heimpel lamenter. The only statement that the lamenter played the Balang-harp is the Late period document 51 whose Sumerian text and Akkadian translation are not trustworthy. The lamenter was connected with the Balang-harp in oratorios and burial rites as master of ceremony. The suru was a particular type or designation of lamenter.43 He is attested already in document 13 from ED IIIb Girsu where the expenditure of beer for the suru and Balang-harps, set up in di erent places, is recorded. In this case, the suru could not have impersonated the Balang-harp. Perhaps the beer was destined for the harpist who was not the suru. 3c Harpists In ED pictorial representations, men played the portable roundharp (MgB 2/2 no. 32, 34, 35) and women the large roundharp with foot (MgB 2/2. no. 29 and Marcetteau 2010:69 70). An OAkk. seal (MgB 2/2 no. 44) shows a woman playing a portable roundharp with recurved neck before a god. The female harpists are accompanied by two female musicians with claves, and so is a donkey playing a portable roundharp (MgB 2/2 no. 30). The hori ontally held angle-harp that arrived in the OB period was played by women and men. In OAkk. texts, all harpists (bala -di) appearing in administrative documents were women.44 On the other hand, a harpist with masculine name Dada is attested in an ED IIIa text (6) and two Akkadian translations of the Sumerian term bala -di are masculine active participles (see p594). 3c1 Female Harpists (bala -di) Krecher 1966:162n467 observed that the lamenting goddess in an oratorio addresses a harpist, for example I am displaced from the house, my tears ( ow) without end. Oh harpist, I am displaced from the house, my tears ( ow) without end (CLAM 520 A 2 3), or the cattlepen destroying day, the sheepfold shredding day Oh harpist, the day when the intent of its heart is not found ( S 2 12 I 7 8). The harpist must be a woman in this scenario. In the performance of the oratorio, she played the harp and sang. An OB pictorial representation shows a singing female harpist.45 Her words would have been mostly the words of the goddess, repeated in commiseration and not repeated in script. In two cases, actual answers of the harpist are included in the lyrics of an oratorio: 43 44 45 The sign sur9, the word by itself, and as part of the name of the instrument al arsura is treated in eldhuis 1997 1998. RIME 2.1.4.54; Molina 1991:142 145 P101667; MAD 1 (Gelb 1952) 232; 303; 336; OIP 104 (Gelb et al. 1989 1991), 43. MAD 1 54 and 55 rev. I 7; OIP 104, 44 rev. II’ 4’ 6’. Schmidt-Colinet in RlA 12:505 ( S nger, S ngerin B) with a precise drawing by C. Wol . 592 Balang-Gods (1) Sherida, the wife of the sun-god, addresses her harpist (Wilcke 1973): The northwind in my face, the cold days have arrived here. Oh harpist, the northwind in my face, the cold days have arrived here. The harpist answers: Lady of this city, my lady Sherida, amber, gentle woman Oh my lady, lady of Whitehouse the mountains will block the wind for you.46 (2) In another oratorio (R mer 1983), the city-goddess of Isin laments that an enemy de led her and her temple on the instigation of An and Enlil. She left her city while her city called for her to stay, giving up responsibility for her temple and city to the enemy. The harpist answers: How was it destroyed How was it entirely destroyed How could you yourself de le it How could you destroy it, how could you entirely destroy it Oh Lady, how could you entirely destroy your abode, how de le it 47 The harpist in the rst case consoles with a rational argument; in the second she tells the lamenting goddess to blame herself. Both actions t an adviser. Two additional statements round o the advising role of female harpists. Shehata 2009:94 97, treating the role of harpists, uotes lines 65 66 of the composition A Man and His God (ETCSL 5.2.4) where a harpist is asked to act on behalf of the lamenting man: Is not my sister a harpist of sweet sounds Let her speak to you the personal god in tears of my deeds that have brought about my ruin. 48 Lines 68 69 of the Nippur Lament describe the reaction of harpists to the lament of a personi ed temple: Like a cow separated from its calf, the house emitted bitter cries about itself, was tear-stricken. The harpists, those of sweet sounds, answer its words in tears like nursemaids singing a lullaby. 49 According to the rst statement, the harpist can soften the heart of the personal god enraged about the deeds of his human client. In the second, she is compared to a nursemaid who can put a baby to sleep. Clearly the female 46 47 48 49 im kur-ra igi- a2 u4 e18-bi ma-te bala -di im kur-ra igi- a2 u4 e18-bi ma-te nin uru2-ba ga- a-an-mu su2-ra2-a 2 munus a6-ga a ga- a-an-mu nin gu-la ga- a-an e2-bar6-bar6-ra im hur-sa -e mu-un- i- ar-re. a-gim i3-gul a-gim i3-gul-gul ni2- u a-gim mu-un-pe-el, nin ama5- u a-gim i3-gul-la ni2- u a-gim mu-un-pe-el . nin-mu bala -di lu2 ad du10 na-nam ni 2-ak u-hul du11-ga-mu er2-ra ha-ra-ni-ib-be2. e2-e ab2 amar-bi ku5-ra2-gim ni2-bi- e3 ur5 gig-ga im- a4 SIG7.SIG7 i3- a2- a2 bala -di lu2 ad du10-ga-ke4-ne ummeda u5-a di-gim mu-bi er2-ra mi-ni-ib-bal-bal-e-ne. 593 Wolfgang Heimpel harpist is seen as adviser of her divine mistress. She impersonates the Balangharp servant-goddess in the role as adviser. Franklin alerts me to the recent treatment by Arnaud 2010:164-174 of a long known, mostly Sumerian cuneiform inscription from Byblos with Ur III signforms. This curious document concerns the restoration of the cult in the temple of Ishtar of Byblos. Its lines are arranged vertically, as in monumental inscriptions of the Ur III period; but the signs are hori ontally oriented, as in later periods. The section that Arnaud recogni es as a description of the temple’s former state mentions a female singer and female harp player (munus nar munus balag-di3), presumably belonging to the original temple sta . 3c2 Male Harpists As mentioned already, the only male balang-player appearing in an administrative record known to me is in document 6. Not all male balang temple-servants had something to do with the Balangharp. Great Dragon of the Homeland was a singer, lutist, and director of musical entertainment for his divine master. That may also be the case of some of the male balang-gods for whom we have no information beyond the name. The late version of the list of persons Lu2 includes the e uation lu2 bala -di ZA-ri-ru (MSL 12, 134:175). The Akkadian word is a masculine active participle of three Akkadian verbal stems with none of the known meanings tting a harpist.50 The Eblaite translation of bala -di, na i lu um, is also a masculine active participle. In the comment to document 4d, I translate the Eblaite word as Akkadian observer’ and link it with the Sumerian observer’ (igi-du8) who acts together with the Balang-harp to soften the impact of, and divert, an oncoming storm (29). His interactions with the storm-god are called confrontations’ (gaba ri). According to the Sumerian e uivalence harpist’ for the observer’, it was he who played the harp. He would have impersonated the harp-god as adviser. The use of the word confrontation’ shows that his adviser role involved strength. 4 Ontology 4a sumerian Ontology Perhaps the most revealing passage for the many things a balang is said to be comes in the form of a string of designations with which Inana laments the loss of her Balang-harp Ninigi ibara in the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi (23f). It entails the illogical element of Inana lamenting the loss of her Balang-harp while that 50 sarāru to be false’, arāru to ash, drip, twinkle’; arāru does not seem to exist. 594 Balang-Gods very harp accompanies and responds to her lament. Otherwise, the designations provide a veritable ontology that sets apart and uni es Balang-harp, advising servant-god, and lamenter. The literary form frames the string of designations between the balang instrument and the Balang-harp servant-god, so we can expect that the whole string of designations was meant to itemi e the aspects of one and the same thing or concept ( entity in Sel ’s terminology). 1. The unior’, or impetuous Balang-harp’. The meanings of Sumerian ban3-da include young’ and younger’ as age designations, and unior’ as rank designation. The latter could contrast with Inana’s more important Balang-harp god Ninigi ibara. That would be Ninme’urur who is Inana’s other adviser and Balang-harp mentioned next to Ninigi ibara in the same text (23). Another meaning of ban3-da is impetuous’, von Soden’s ungest m in AHw s.v. ekdu. An incantation describes a breed bull mounting a cow as ekdu (BAM K cher 1963 1980 3 248 III 19). If that meaning applies, it could hardly refer to the female Ninme’urur. 2. My bellowing aurochs’. According to the Late ritual for covering a kettledrum the instrument that eventually took over the role of the Balang-harp the spotless black hide of a bull never touched by goad or stick became the drum head and its vibrations on the drum the transformed heartbeat of the killed bull turned kettledrum-god.51 I assume that this Late ritual already existed earlier in some form and was applied to the leather covering of musical instruments with bull hide resonators used in cult. The use of bull hides for Balang-harps is attested in administrative records (36, 41, 42b) and the Balang-harp is called a bull (comment to 4g, 21, 49b). Its sound was the transformed bull’s vocali ations. From bull to god was a small gap to ump in Mesopotamian culture: anthropomorphic gods carried horns on their headgear, betraying an original bovine nature. According to the ritual, it happened by way of the death of the bull. It was important that it was not a working animal, not touched by goad or stick in the ritual, even less touched by civili ation in the OB version of the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi an undomesticated aurochs bull. 3. The shining Balang-harp’. Shining’ is the standard characteri ation of the sheen of silver and refers here to silver plating the neck of the Balang-harp (see note to 42a). 51 Gabbay (PHG:124 128). 595 Wolfgang Heimpel 4. My lapis la uli’. Gold and silver for decorating Balang-harps is attested (23g, 34c, 42c); lapis la uli is not. This stone was part of the inlays framing the sound box of ED lyres. The statement my lapis la uli’ must serve for the time being as sole indication that also the Balang-harp was decorated with lapis la uli. 5. My husband’. There does not appear to be a reasonable linguistic way around understanding my husband’ as describing the relationship of the Balang-harp god with his mistress Inana. This seems to con rm Gabbay’s proposal that Ninigi ibara was male, yet the Emesal form ga an for standard Sumerian nin indicates a female (see Section 2d). The context of the lament of Inana is the start of the dry season when her other husband, Dumu i, departs on his way to eventual death. According to the plot of the oratorio, he was abducted by the same enemy that took her harp. Not many lines after calling Ninigi ibara her husband, Inana laments his loss, without calling him her husband, and then the loss of her husband Dumu i, including in her words the longing for making love with him. The literary form of the lines makes it clear that the status of husband and the wish of making love with him is restricted to Dumu i (see the comment to 23f). This leaves me doubting the textual tradition. One of the sources writes instead of the expected mu-ud-na- u ( your husband’) mu-ud-nu-bi, which is enigmatic and as lectio di cilior the more likely to be authentic. 6. My adviser’. This expresses the service of the balang servant-god for Inana.52 7. My great suru’. The word suru designates a priest who is classi ed as lamenter (gala).53 A suru priest and a Balang-harp set up in the city center received beer according to an ED IIIb document (13). Balang-gods of the weather-god Adad are named Great Suru’ and Day of the Suru’ in An:Anum (53 III 260 and 261). By virtue of being a balang servant-god of the male weather-god, the suru should be male, which again favors Gabbay’s argument for the maleness of Ninigi ibara. 8. My adviser Ninigi ibara’. The last designation identi es the harp servant-god whose name is preceded by the divine determinative. 52 53 See Section 2c and Franklin p30 33. See Section 3b. 596 Balang-Gods Di erent aspects that are separated here were explicitly merged elsewhere. The Balang-harp and the corresponding balang servant-god were merged by making a function of the harp-god that of the instrument: his advising instrument’ (ni 2 ad-gi4-gi4-ni, 17a). The balang servant-god is fashioned’ (23a1). The (neck) of the harp-god is treated with sh-oil (23a2). The grapple-hook and eye of the harp-god is plated with silver (23a3). The harp-god Ninigi ibara is set up’ in 47a. On the other hand, the instrument and the suru lamenter are recorded to have received drink separately (13). 4b rationalization To call this section Rational ontology’ would be presumptuous for me. I will simply describe what I believe is the reality behind the identi cations of instrument, instrument god, and human temple-servant. Two epistemological problems are the identi cation of instrument and person, and the dei cation of the person. 4b1 Ident ficat on The instrument was personali ed as result of being named.54 When Gudea planned the renovation of the temple of Ningirsu, he was advised to keep the god happy in temporary uarters with the gift of a chariot and his beloved balang, Great Dragon of the Homeland (17a). The name already existed, the instrument did not, so the name was traditional. Beginning in the OB period, kings, not tradition, named the instrument (40). Judging by the lack of the divine determinative, Gudea’s Great Dragon of the Homeland was no deity.55 He should have been the incumbent temple singer, who assumed the name of the instrument when exercising his functions. With the name of the instrument he would have received the history of his particular o ce, including the care for the musical entertainment of the divine master of the temple, traditional dress, and perhaps a dragon mask.56 The mutual dependency of musical instrument and player would have been the link of identity. Great Dragon of the Homeland was, so to speak, the rst 54 55 56 Cf. Franklin, p25. See p590. Many singers are attested in Girsu in Ur III records. There is one Lu-Nanshe, chief singer (nargal), who appears as father of a witness in two court cases (Falkenstein 1956 no. 113 and 161). The rst case is about prebends in the temple of Ningirsu, so the witnesses were likely clerics, as Falkenstein states. The case was decided in the fortieth year of Shulgi, which means that the chief singer could have been appointed by Gudea. So it is possible that Lu-Nanshe impersonated the Great Dragon of the Homeland. 597 Wolfgang Heimpel lute’ in musical performances. Without its player, the lute could not advise’ Ningirsu, and without his instrument, Great Dragon of the Homeland could not do so either. Fierce-faced King presents us with a di erent situation. His particular duties identify his profession as lamenter. But instead of giving him that title, he is called Ningirsu’s balang, which may either be the instrument, or the designation of the lamenter as attested in archaic texts and the ED IIIa version of the list of person Lu2 A (1, 2, 4a). Lamenters do not appear to have played the Balang-harp themselves (see Section 3b), so their identi cation with the instrument rests on their mutual dependency at burial ceremonies and performance of oratorios. Lamenter and Balang-harp albeit played by a harpist each needed the other. 4b2 de ficat on The word balang is at all periods written without the divine determinative. There are exceptions in Ur III administrative records (25, 26, 28). Still, the general lack of the determinative indicates that neither the instrument nor its named personi cation was dei ed in Old Akkadian (15) and the province of Lagash in the early Ur III period. The dei cation of the personi cation outside of Lagash in the Ur III period could have resulted from introducing the magic of turning a bull, whose hide covered the resonator of the instrument, into a god in the Ur III period (see Section 4a 2). Alternatively, it emerged more indirectly from the intellectual climate that was also responsible for the widening importance of the cult of the dei ed king in the Ur III kingdom. Another motive could have been the expectation of increased prestige, and income, of the players and managers of balang instruments the temple singers, lamenters, and harpists. catalogue For periods up to and including Ur III, full documentation of meaningful references was the goal. A selection of OB (after 2000) and Late (post-OB) documents follows. The order is basically chronological, but I list under a single number documents about one and the same balang-god, and lexical entries from various periods. All dates of documents are BCE.57 57 P000000 is the text number in cdli.ucla.edu. 598 Balang-Gods Archaic Uruk IV (before 3000) 1 W 9656,aa P001443. Englund and Boehmer 1994:94 (transliteration), pl. 89 (copy), and MgB 2/2 no. 27 (photo). List of persons belonging to the household of a lord (en). 5 male princes, 2 male , 1 mountain , 5 , two registers broken, 3 singers, 4 balang, (total) 120 n . The lord .58 The sign ATU 672 is attested only on Uruk I tablets, the very similar sign NAR on Uruk III tablets and later. Both signs depict the head and neck of a canid with long, erected ears. The lower end of neck is treated di erently. ATU 672 in W 9311,f is followed by -a, which is likely Ka5-a Fox’ or Jackal’, a common Sumerian PN. If the sign NAR nar singer’ and ATU 672 ka5 in ka5-a ackal’, and if the singer and the ackal are two words written with one sign, then ATU 672 and NAR are variants of one and the same sign. Archaic Uruk III (ca. 3000) 2 Archaic Lu2 105 106 (Englund and Nissen 1993:16 17). Great singer (nar-gal), great balang (bala -gal). Ed I/II (ca. 2700), Text From Ur 3 UET 2 3:1 2 P005577. List of recipients of kids. The rst two recipients received two kids. The name of the second includes the word balang.59 Ed IIIa (ca. 2600) 4 Lexical texts. 4a ED Lu2 A 77 78 (MSL 12:11). Great singer (nar-gal), great balang (bala -gal). 4b ED Practical ocabulary from Ebla and Abu Salabikh 205 211 (Civil 2008:39; Michalowski 2010b:119). Balang-type emarah, balang, Tilmun balang, Mari balang, ute, reed, BUR2-type balang. 60 58 59 60 2 3N1 NUNa U a, 2N1 ERIN U a, 1N1 E ENc ATU 632b KURa, 5N1 DARA3b, ATU 672, 4N1 BALA , 2N34 ENa . ( ATU: Green and Nissen 1987). 2 ma 2 ama-UR5a :ERIMb2 :DU:UD, 2 (ma 2) bala -SI:DI ( bala si-sa2 or bala -di SI ). 3N1 emarah bala , bala , bala dilmun, bala Ma-ri2ki, gi-di, gi-tag, BUR2-bala . 599 Wolfgang Heimpel 4c ED Practical ocabulary MS 2340 II 15’ 20’ (Civil 2010:210). BALA , modi ed BALA , Harhar, BALA , lyre (ki2-na-ru12).61 4d ocabulario di Ebla 571 572, MEE 4 (Pettinato 1982):264. (Sumerian) Harpist ( Akkadian) seer, BALA lyre. 62 The conventional transliteration of the word for lyre is gi-na-ru12-um. The sign GI was used to write /ki/ elsewhere in Ebla texts, and the Hebrew word, inn r begins with /k/. The word na i lu um has been understood to mean to raise one’s voice’.63 In Akkadian, it means to raise one’s eyes, observe’, and at Mari is also as substantive, observer’. An observer (igi-du8) working with the balang instrument, used to control weather-storms, is attested in Ur III texts (29, cf. Section 3c2). 4e OB version of the ED bird list 101 and 110 ( BC 4613:26 and 35), eldhuis 2004:220 222 and 345. bi2- a-gu3-bala -kar-gir5- a-namu en and u5-bi2- a-gu3- bala -di-kargir5- a-namu en This bird name is written in many di erent ways. The literal meaning is unclear. One element is balang voice’ (gu3-bala ). The unusual length of the name suggests a remarkable bird. Perhaps it is the Eurasian bittern (botaurus stellaris) of the heron family. The large bird is often called a bull or cow because part of the mating call sounds like the bellowing of cattle, for example Hungarian bölömbika bellowing bull’, Spanish avetoro bullbird’, German Rohrbrüller reed bellower’, Kuhreiher cow heron’ and many more bovid designations. The Sumerian expression its porch of the balang was a princely sounding bull (21) may refer to the fact that the cover of the soundbox was a bull hide rather than to the actual cattle-like sound. et the bovidity of the bittern may also refer to the mock attacks of the bird when it pu s up its considerable plumage, lowering its head, and opening its also considerable beak.64 4f OB MS 2645 I 33, Civil 2010:191 192. Sound-of-balang’ (ad-bala - a2mu en) is a bird name. Civil suggests that this is one part of the decomposed name of document 4e. 4g OB Proto-Ea 202 203 (MSL 14:40). 61 62 63 64 bala , BALA xGAN2-tenû, AL:HUB2, BALA , har-har, ki2-na-ru12. bala -di na i lu um, BALA ki2-na-ru12-um. Cf. Franklin, p66 67. See Tonietti 2010:83. A vivid description is found in Brehm 1911 1920 1:163 164. 600 Balang-Gods Pronunciations bu-lu-un and gu-ud/gu2-ud/gu-du of the sign BALA . Sel 1997:195n153 suggested an onomatopoetic blang’ as pronunciation of what is conventionally transliterated as bala . Bu-lu-un may indeed have been pronounced blong’ or similar. Michalowski 2010a:221 222 considers the word gu-ud/gu2-ud/gu-du gud10 and suggests that the term GUD.BALA could be understood as gudgud10, possibly an archai ing late creation that has no e uivalent in earlier phases of the Sumerian language, and has as such nothing to do with the balag. I believe the word bull was written with the balang sign when it designates a balang-god. 4h OB Proto Lu2 641 644 and 651 662 (MSL 12:56 57). Singer, great singer, balang singer, string singer, eleven further entries of special singers , snake charmer, great snake charmer, lamenter, chief lamenter, little lamenter, royal chief lamenter, royal lamenter, royal mobile lamenter, lamenter, mother of tears, balang, of balang, balang carrier.65 The position of the snake charmer belongs with the singers rather than the lamenters as shown by the Ur III text BM 014618 (Gelb 1975:57 and 60 61). 5 ED IIIa SF 70 P010663 (MSL 12:13). List of professions. Registers 1 11: bishop, carpenter, leather worker, eweler, smith, lapidary, mat weaver, balang-player (bala -di), bull player’ (gu4-di), singer (nar), builder, etc.; lamenter (gala) not included. 6 WF (Deimel 1924) 107 P011065. List of recipients of bread, among them Dada, the balang-player man’ (Da-da lu2 bala -di). 7 SF 47 III 6 8 P010632 (MSL 12:14). List of professions: Singer man, festival/song man, balang BUR2 man. 65 66 66 nar, nar-gal, nar bala , nar sa, mu -lah4, mu -lah4-gal, gala, gala-mah, gala-tur, gala-mah lugal, gala lugal, gala lugal-ra-us2-sa, gala ma-da-ab-us2, am a er2-ra, bala , b al a - a2, ba la -il2. lu2-nar, lu2-e en/ , aa 601 Wolfgang Heimpel post Ed IIIa, provenience Unknown 8 olk 1988. PN1 lamenter, PN2, PN3, PN4, PN5, barley consumers, balang. Distribution of shares.67 Ed IIIb (ca. 2500) From records of the state archive of the kingdom of Lagash. The references for bala from these records are summari ed in Sel 1995:103 105. 9 The wife of Lugalanda, ruler of the state of Lagash, traveled annually from her residence in Girsu to the city of Lagash and on to the city of Nina during month III (November) at the occasion of the Malt-Eating festival; she o ered fat and dates in Lagash, and then in Nina for Nanshe, her pantheon, holy places, and the recipients listed below. O erings on day one of the month of Malt-Eating of Nanshe: one liter of oil and dates each to gods and various sacred institutions, ending with silver up(-drum), large balang’, copper datepalm, stele, statue of Ur-Nanshe, statues inside the house, the eight of them, (and) balangs, the seven of them. 68 10 Similar records from three consecutive years of expenditures of food, for annual ourneys of the ruler’s wife from Girsu to Lagash and Nina. The occasion was called it is (expenditures) of the balang carrier having been repositioned (bala -il2 e-ta-ru-a-kam). The translation repositioned’ is assured by the corresponding passive form (ba-ta-ru-a-ne) that designates laborers who had been moved from one to another work place (Nik 1 90). Balang carriers are also attested in later lexical lists of professions.69 The recipients in 10b include temples and gods in Lagash and a mortuary installation (ki-a-na ), presumably also in Lagash, on the rst day. A chief lamenter (gala-mah) is listed as recipient of barley in the nal section without indication of a particular day (Sel 1995:103 104). 10a DP 167 dated Urukagina 2 P220817. 67 68 69 Lugal-an- a3- e3 gala, Gala-x, Ur-e2-tur, Me-na- E3, U r-dEn-ki, l u2 e gu7, ( x )bala ha-la. ub5-ku3, g al:bala , i immar urudu, na-ru2-a, alan Ur-dNan e, alan e2 a3-ga 8-ba-kam, bala 7-ba-kam. TSA 1 I 1 14 Lugalanda 2 P221362; DP 53 I 7 17 Lugalanda 3 P220703; Nik 1 23 rev. II 1’ 9’ Lugalanda 6 P221730 (minor di erences not indicated). Sel 1995:103 and 189 198; Marchesi and Marchetti 2011:232 234. bala -il2 na a a lam i (MAOG 13/2 Meissner 1940 : 44 48, pl. 4 II 28’) and bala -il2-il2 (OrNS 70 Taylor 2001 , 210 211 II 33’). 602 Balang-Gods The steward Shul-utul-Men brought bread and beer to Nina and to Lagash when Shasha, wife of Urukagina, king of Lagash, had repositioned the balang in Nina. ( ear) 2. 70 10b S 14 93 Urukagina 3 P020108. List of cereals expended for the ma or gods of the territory of Lagash, holy places, and a chief lamenter (gala-mah). (Responsible for the expenditure was) the administrator Pu ur-Mama of Shasha, wife of Urukagina, king of Lagash, when the balang carrier was repositioned in Nina. ( ear) 3. 71 10c S 14 118 Urukagina 4 P020134. The scribe En-ig-gal brought it ( sh), when the governor had repositioned the balang carrier. ear 4. 72 11 DP 55 undated P220705 (Sel 1995:103). A group of seven balangs (see 9) belonged to the temple household of Nin-MAR.KI, city-goddess of Gu’aba.73 Expenditures of our, beer, and sh went to four ma or and two minor gods; eleven places’ (ki), among them steles and statues; and in last position the balangs, the seven of them (bala 7-ba-kam) and two Enki sanctuaries in the countryside. 12 Expenditures at the occasion of a ourney of the wife of the governor of Lagash to an Ab u. The term ab u designates the cosmic realm of the groundwater ocean and a type of sanctuary of the water-god Enki. The particular Ab u mentioned in the following texts was one of ve such sanctuaries in the territory of Lagash.74 It was located on the bank of a river and named Circle Side (Da-ni in2). The name may refer to a layout that allowed circumambulation of a waterhole believed to be bottomless. 12a Nik 1 148 Lugalanda 5 P221917. Baranamtara (wife of Lugalanda, governor of Lagash), while staying at the Ab u of the river bank, o ers two rams and a male lamb to Enki of Circle Side and a kid to the sanctuary Antasura on day one, two rams for Enki of Circle Side on day two, and 1 kid for the balang on day three (1 ma bala u4 3-kam). 70 71 72 73 74 a a da a na a a a ki-ka-ke4 Siraraki-na bala e-ta-ru-a. Puzur4-ma-ma agrig a6- a6 dam Uru-ka-gi-na lugal Laga ki-ka-ke4 Siraraki-na bala -il2 e-taru-a-kam 3. En-ig-gal dub-sar-re2 ensi2-ke4 bala -il2 e-ta-ru-a mu-de6 4. The reading of the name of the goddess is not assured. For it and the goddess generally see RlA 9:463 468 (Sallaberger, Nin-MAR.KI). Sel 1995:121 124. 603 Wolfgang Heimpel 12b DP 66 Urukagina 4 P220716. Expenditures for Shasha (wife of Urukagina, governor of Lagash) on the occasion of the festival of malt-eating of Ningirsu,75 among them for the Ab u of Circle Side on day one (I 3) and the Antasura as well as a new balang’ (bala gibil) on day three (rev. II.1 3). 13 S 14 75 Lugalanda 6 P020090 (Sel 1995:104). Record of beer expended to a type of lamentation-priest called Suru (sur9) and for Balang-harps.76 The Suru drank, the Balang set up in city center drank, the Balang set up in Fierce Water drank. 77 14 S 27 55 Enentar i 5 P020371. Record of use of pine lumber: One extra large piece of pine for the arch of the gate of the balang. 78 Old Akkadian period (ca. 2350) 15 CUSAS 13 156 Adab undated P329186. List of de cits of fat incurred by priests of several gods, including a certain Namahani for the balang Nin-PA.79 Nin-PA, perhaps Nin-gidri ( Lady Scepter’80), is not attested as PN. Namahani is probably the lamenter (gala) of TCBI 1 Pomponio et al. 2006 99 P382351. 16 Two of seven attestations of female harpists (bala -di). Male harpists are not attested in this period. 16a RIME 2.1.4.54 Inscription on door pla ue from Girsu: Son of Naram-Sin the Strong, Nabi-Ulmash governor of Tutu. LipushJa’um, harpist of Sin, his daughter. 81 16b List of agricultural plots Molina 1991:142 145 (photo P101667). 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Of presumably the tenth month: Sel 1995:236. For the lamenter Suru, see 23f. sur9-de3 e-na , bala ru-a a3-uru-ka-ke4 e-na , bala ru-a a-hu -ke4 e-na . 1 u3-suh gal-gal sig7-igi ka2 bala -ka- e3. la2-i3 7 1/3 sila3 i3 bala Nin-PA Nam-ha-ni. As suggested by Cavigneaux and Krebernik, RlA 9:480 ( NIN-PA). DUMU dNa-ra-am-d u en da nim a i ul ma ENSI2 Tu-tuki i u u ia a um BALAG.DI d u en DUMU.MUNUS-su2. 604 Balang-Gods PN, the female harpist stayed at the house of female harpists. 82 Ur III period (ca. 2112–2004) I Inscriptions of Gudea of lagash and references From administrative Texts.83 Ia Balangs with names: 17 Great Dragon of the Homeland (U umgal-kalam-ma). U umgal and its Akk. e uivalent a mu designates a monstrous venomous snake that is associated with Marduk and several other gods (Wiggermann 1992:166 169). On the other hand, Great Dragon’ is also an entry of a type of person or profession in line 99 of the archaic list Lu2 A (Englund and Nissen 1993:17). It is a fre uent element in Sumerian PNs throughout early Babylonia. A servant-god, the vi ier of the Mungoose divinity Nin-kilim, is called Great Dragon’ (An:Anum 40). 17a Gudea Cylinder A 6.24 25 (RIME 3/1:73). Gudea, governor of the territory of Lagash, was visited in a dream by Ningirsu, city-god of the capital Girsu. The governor went to consult with the goddess Nanshe, a dream interpreter and Ningirsu’s sister. She told him that her brother wanted him to rebuild his temple. Gudea should make Ningirsu a gift of a chariot and his beloved balang, Great Dragon of the Homeland, the famous lute, the thing that advises him. 84 The two presents would keep the god happy during his stay in temporary uarters.85 17b RTC (Thureau-Dangin 1903) 201:7’ P216974. ear when the balang Great Dragon of the Homeland was fashioned. 86 17c Gudea Cylinder B 10.9 15 (RIME 3/1:94). The inauguration of the renovated temple included a review of the twentythree servant-gods of Ningirsu’s temple household. They passed in line before the seated image of the master-god Ningirsu. Great Dragon of the Homeland was the tenth in line. He is described as Ningirsu’s beloved singer’ (nar), his duties the management of the musical instruments tigi, bringing oy to the courtyard, 82 83 84 85 86 PN MUNUS B ALA .DI in E2 MUNUS BALA .DI ta2-ku8-un. For the date of Gudea in the Ur III period, speci cally the reign of the second Ur III king Shulgi, see Wilcke 2011. BALA ki-a a2-ni U umgal-kalam-ma i gu3-di mu tuku ni 2 ad-gi4-gi4-ni. See also Franklin, p27. mu bala U umgal-kalam-ma ba-dim2-ma. 605 Wolfgang Heimpel and spreading a good atmosphere throughout the temple with the help of the musical instruments al ar and miritum that entertained Ningirsu in his bed chamber Good House (e2-du10-ga). Balang music in the bed chamber of the moon-god Nanna of Ur is attested in line 441 of the OB text Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur.87 With the tigi, the good instruments in good order,88 with the courtyard of House Fifty lled with oy, with making pleasant House Fifty for the hero of ear,89 for Ningirsu with al ar and miritum, the instruments of Good House, with these, his divine powers, passes his beloved singer Great Dragon of the Homeland before lord Ningirsu.90 17d Gudea Cylinder B 15.19 16.2 (RIME 3/1:97). Gudea makes his rst visit of the renovated temple of Ningirsu: With oy having lled the courtyard of House Fifty, with the balang of the art of the singer, his beloved balang Great Dragon of the Homeland, having walked at the head of (the drums) sim (and) ala, does Gudea, the governor who built House Fifty, enter before lord Ningirsu. 91 17e Gudea Cylinder B 18.22 19.1 (RIME 3/1:98). The rst o ering in the renovated temple was an occasion for musical performance: (Gudea) placed Great Dragon of the Homeland among( ) the tigi, let the ala a large drum , a storm, roar for Ningirsu. 92 87 88 89 90 91 92 Michalowski 1989:64. Jacobsen 1987:434 translates the verb si sa2 ad hoc as correctly tune’, Klein 1981:194, line 54, as sweetly play,’ Krispi n 1990:3 as korrekt spielen’. The repetition of the dative su x is unusual, and so is as genitive of a personal designation. Jacobsen 1987 translates for the warrior with ear (for music), Ed ard (RIME 3/1) to the listening. ti-gi4 ni 2-du10-ge si sa2-a-da kisal e2-ninnu hul2-a sig9-a-da al- ar mi-ri2-tum ni 2 e2-du10-ga ur-sa e tug(PI.TUG2)-a-ra dNin- ir2-su-ra e2-ninnu du10-bi a2- a2-da nar ki-a 2-a-ni U umgal-kalam-ma en dNin- ir2-su-ra me-ni-da mu-na-da-dib2-be2. kisal e2 -ninnu- k e4 hul2-a sig9-a-da si-im -da a2-la2 bala nam-nar u-du7-a bala ki-a a2-ni U um-gal-kalam-ma sa -ba in-na-da ensi2 e2-ninnu mu-du3-a Gu3-de2-a en d Nin- ir2-su-ra mu-na-da-an-ku4-ku4. For attempts to make sense of da see PHG:143n578. si-im a2-la2 is found in Gudea Cylinders A 18:18 and Shulgi D 366. The reading si-im-da bala in Shulgi E 101 is in error. The source Ni 4519 II’ 8 has clearly si-im bala , the source TCL 15 14 III 17 si-im ba la , where the rst part of the sign bala is copied as if it were -da. u umgal-kalam-ma ti-gi4-a mu-gub a2-la2 u4-dam eg12 mu-na-ab-gi4. The phrase ti-gi4-a mu-DU has been translated di erently Falkenstein and von Soden 1953:180: Den Drachen des Landes Sumer, die Pauke, brachte er (mu-tum2); Jacobsen 1987:441: Ushumgalkalamma took its stand among the tigi-harps; RIME 3/1:98 (Ed ard): The (harp) Dragon-of-the-Land he 606 Balang-Gods 17f Amherst (Pinches 1908) 17 P100855. This administrative record from Girsu, dating from the 25th regnal year of Shulgi, lists expenditures of beer, bread, and soup for households of servantgods in the new house of Ningirsu, among them the balang Great Dragon of the Homeland. 18 Fierce-faced king93 (Lugal-igi-hu ) Passing before Ningirsu in line behind Great Dragon of the Homeland (17c) was Fierce-faced King, the second balang in Ningirsu’s household. His duty was paci cation of Ningirsu, speci cally at his return from victory over the inimical mountain land, which he achieved on behalf of the king of gods Enlil. According to the literary text The Return of Ninurta to Nippur, the god’s demeanor and the frightful appearance of his trophies and weapons cause anxiety among the gods as he approaches Nippur (Cooper 1978:26 27). The name Achieving his Triumph’ (dU3-ma-ni sa2-di) of a balang of Ninurta in An:Anum I 269 may refer to his triumph over the mountain land. Fierce-faced King is listed in An:Anum 97 98 together with Great Dragon of the Homeland as one of ve attendants of House Fifty, the temple of Ningirsu. Gudea Cylinder B 10.16 11.2 (RIME 3/1:94): With having soothed the inside, with having soothed the outside, with having wept and 94 tears, with having spent sighs from a sighing heart, with having when his (Ningirsu’s) wave-like risen, Euphrateslike scouring, ood-like ing heart had li ue ed the lands inimical to 93 94 oined with the kettledrum( ) (mu-gub). The parallel passage of 20c writes mu-ni-DU, where -ni- corresponds to the locative a of tigi. This favors gub to stand’ rather than tum2 to bring’. Gabbay (PHG:110) translates U umgalkalama was placed as (literally on) the tigi, basing his translation on the assumption that tigi is the bala of the singer (nar): The tigi and the bala were the same type of instrument (at least originally), the di erence between them being their cultic context: the bala was associated with the repertoire of the gala, and the tigi (written with the signs BALA and NAR) with the repertoire of the nar. Thus, some of the instruments referred to as bala in texts are probably to be identi ed with what literary and lexical texts usually regard as tigi. For example, Great Dragon of the Homeland is not the bala instrument that is usually associated with the gala, but rather the bala instrument that is usually associated with the nar and is often referred to as tigi(2) (written NAR.BALA or BALA .NAR) PHG:103 . I believe the translation as’ for literally on’ does not agree with the functions of the Sum. locative and that NAR.BALA or BALA .NAR need not be interpreted on the semantic level as bala of the nar’. The tigi instrument has been understood as percussion or string instrument. Krispi n 1990:3 argues for identi cation with a lyre. If the phrase tigi-a gub means to place among the tigi’ it implies plurality of tigi instruments. Also translated as Red-eyed King’, which would be a good description of a lamenter (the name was, however, uite common in Ur III sources and not limited to lamenters). Bauer 1967:229 proposes that sig stands for sig7 on the basis of the entry er2 sig7-me in the context of burial rites in an ED IIIb text. 607 Wolfgang Heimpel Enlil, with having his heart returned to its banks, with these, his sacred powers, passes his balang it is Fierce-faced King before lord Ningirsu.95 19 Lady Conversing Grandly with An (Nin-an-da-gal-di, see 25) Gudea Statue E I 12 14 (RIME 3/1:44). Gudea renovated the temple of Ningirsu’s wife Baba, furnishing it with a seat from which to pronounce her udgments, a treasure chest, and a balang: He fashioned for her the balang Lady Conversing Grandly with An96 and set it up for her in her mighty house.97 20 Cow of Plenty (Ab2-he-nun and Ab-he-nun).98 The identity of Ab2-he-nun and Ab-he-nun is con rmed by the association of the latter with lamenters in documents 20a and 20b. Cow of Plenty is probably a harp-god of Nin-KI.MAR. A fairly common PN in Girsu is Ur-(d) Ab-he-nun with (Gomi 1981:183 no. 197 etc.) and without (Snell 1986:205 no. 66 etc.) divine determinative. The genitive is occasionally expressed in writing, for example Ur-ab-he-nun-na in ITT 2 736, and a rare writing of the double genitive Ur-dAb-he-nun-ka Hound-of-Cow-of-Plenty’ in ITT 5 6795. The divinity d Ab-ir-nun of ED IIIb Girsu texts may also designate a balang-god. It is associated with the silver up-drum and so are a person’ (lu2) of the silver up-drum and a person’ of dAb-ir-nun, presumably the players of these instruments. The references are treated by Sel 1995:133 134. The name could mean Cow of Princely Aromatic’, which compares well with the balangs named Cedar Aroma (27, 30). Other cow instruments’ are treated in PHG:109 112 where the opinion that these were instruments fashioned with cow hides as opposed to bull hides 95 96 97 98 a a da a a da a da da a a n a a n a da n na a a an an na an a a a a an a d En-lil2-la2-ka a-gim u3-mi- ar- ar x x (x) gu2-be2 gi4-a-ni a x su3-da bala - a2-ni Lugaligi-hu -am3 en dNin- ir2-su-ra me-ni-da mu-na-da-dib-be2. The term gal-di, literally to speak great’, has positive and negative connotations (Attinger 1993:511 512). The ED IIIb Girsu names A-da-gal-di, Ses-da-gal-di, En-da-gal-di, and dInanana -da-gal-di, where the collocutors of the named person are father, brother, ruler, and a goddess, suggest an intimate relationship. The semantic relation with the Akk. translation of gal-di, tizqaru exalted,’ is unclear. Foxvog 2011:76 77 translates Excels with (thanks to) the father/ brother. See also PHG:104. For the short name An-da-gal-di, see 25. bala Nin-an-da-gal-di mu-na-dim2 e2-mah-na mu-na-ni-gub. The reading of the sign hi as hi, transliterated elsewhere as du10 or a , is con rmed by the Akk. loan word i-he2-nun-na-ku from Sum. i3-he-nun, designation of the top uality cow fat. See RlA 8:196 (M. Stol, Milch(produkte) A). 608 Balang-Gods is rightly re ected (see 36). The name of a balang of Shamash is Cow of his risen heart’ (Ab2- a3-ila2-na) in An:Anum I 13. 20a SAT 1 256 no year, month III, Girsu P131365. Record of expenditure of our and drink for the deity Cow of Plenty d ( Ab-he-nun), a courtyard where the instrument was presumably played, an unclear destination, and lamenters (gala-me). 20b BPOA 1 182 no date, Girsu P206136. Record of expenditure of drink for the temple of Nin-KI.MAR, our and drink for Cow of Plenty (dAb-he-nun), the house Plant of Life’ (e2 u2 nam-ti), and another unclear destination. 20c Nanshe Hymn 39 47 (Heimpel 1981). The OB text of the hymn describes in much detail the working of the temple household of Nanshe in Nina during the time of Gudea when it was surely composed.99 It includes a description of the New ear festival in Nina. The musical arrangement of the occasion is described in unusual detail. The governor of Lagash in person placed the Balang-harp Cow of Plenty on, at, among, next to, or any other location with respect to one or more tigi instruments. The harp occupies here the same place as Great Dragon of the Homeland with respect to tigi (17e). Claves in the form of copper sickles accompany the holy song’ ( ) that praises the temple.100 Line 45 is probably the song’s incipit, as rst lines of praises often start with the verbal na-form.101 The chief singer (nar gal) plays the ibex horn. Being the chief implies other singers and instrumentalists playing Cow of Plenty, silver balang, tigi instruments, and claves. (Cow of Plenty shares the second part of its name with the balang of Gula, Lady of Plenty: 40.) Gudea, governor of Lagash, placed Cow of Plenty on, at, among’ the tigi, placed the shining balang at its/their side. While the holy song, a song of harmony, was sung to her, small copper sickles were praising the house. 99 100 101 This is con rmed by the fact that the name of the balang-goddess is written without the divine determinative as attested for other balang-gods in the inscriptions of Gudea. Civil 1987b proposed to read urudukin-tur, understanding it as a musical instrument made of copper and called frog’ kin-turku6, but claves in form of sickles are attested (MgB 2/2:48 with g. 15 16; see also Section 1c above). The form is commonly understood as a rmative. I understand it as a negative rhetorical uestion prompting an a rmative answer of the audience. 609 Wolfgang Heimpel The chief singer was playing the ibex horn before her. Has not the temple been granted divine powers ’ he sang about the princely divine powers in the holy song about the house of Sirara. The dream interpreter brought the rst fruits before her.102 20d Hymn to Hendursanga 19 20 (Attinger and Krebernik 2005:38). Another function of the Cow of Plenty was to entertain Nanshe, or to relieve her anxiety, as she traveled by boat to visit the god Hendursanga. See also 34b. The silver boat in which the lady, mother Nanshe sails for you in it ( ) plays for her Cow of Plenty. 103 Ib Balangs without names: 21 Gudea Cylinders A 28.17 18. Among descriptions of parts of House Fifty was a porch on which the balang was placed, possibly a shaded elevated platform overlooking a courtyard and close to the gate leading to it.104 Its porch of the balang was a princelysounding105 bull, its courtyard holy prayer, shem and ala (drums). 106 22a Gudea Statue B 1 4 (RIME 3/1 1.1.7.StB). The city was cleansed in preparation for construction of the temple of Ningirsu. Women were not used as porters during that time, the use of whips 102 103 104 105 106 gu3-de2-a ensi2 Laga ki-a-ke4 ab2-he-nun tigi-a mu-ni-gub bala ku3 da-bi-a mu-ni-gub ir3ku3 ir3 ha-mun-na mu-un-na-du12-a urudu-gur10-tur-re e2 im-mi-i-i a2 dara3 nar-gal-e u mu-na-ab-tag-ge e2 ab u-ta me nam-ta-ba e2 Siraraki-ka ir3-ku3-ba me-nun-ba mu-un-du12 ensi-ke4 ne-sa - a2 mu-na-an-tum2. in-nin9 ama dNan e ma2-gur8 ku3 a-mu-ra-ab-diri-ga a3( )-ba( ) Ab2-he-nun mu-na-du12-am3. The porch of the balang could have been the porch of Baba’ (a-ga dBa-ba6), which is described as heart-soothing place’ (ki a3 ku 2) in Gudea Cylinder A 26.12. Gabbay 2013:228n10, uotes the Late Babylonian text SBH 50a:18, in which parts of a temple are lamented in anticipation of their destruction, among them ma bala - a2 gu4 gu3-di:nun x- -mu with the explanation a a a a a al-pu du10-x- x . ga2 is the standard Sumerian e uivalent of Emesal Sumerian ma. The OB version (CT 36 BM 096691 rev. III 7) writes ka2 bala - a2 am-gim du7-du7-mu, my gate of the balang butting like a wild bull. If all readings are genuine, the Balang-harp was stationed in a porch (a-ga) by a gate (ka2). A balang-gate is mentioned in 14. Porches and gates are repeatedly mentioned together in the description of the temple of Ningirsu (Heimpel 1996:18 20). The existence of a balang-house,’ for which see PHG:93, does not seem to be assured. e2-balag-e in TUT 287 is the name of a gala priest, in PDT 1 545 according to Sallaberger 1993 1:142n668, perhaps writing for tigi. The standard translation of the substantive nun is prince’. The ad ective denotes a positive, but not yet clearly de ned, uality. a-ga bala -a-bi gu4 gu3-nun di kisal-bi ud3-ku3 si-im a2-la2. 610 Balang-Gods was disallowed, mothers barred from striking their children, and balang laments at burials not enacted: The hoe was not employed at the cemetery of the city, a body was not interred. The lamenter did not set up a balang, did not elicit tears. 107 22b ITT 2 893 P110763. Record of expenditures, including beer and bread received by lamenters and harpists, and our for nine days when a balang was placed over the ghost’( ) at the place of mourning for the king’.108 Ur III period (ca. 2112–2004) II Ur III administrative records (dated according to reign year Month day): IIa Balangs with names: 23 Ninigi ibara, Ninsigarana (dNin-si-gar-an-na), and Ninme’urur (dNin-meur4-ur4), were the balang servant-gods of Inana. Ninigi ibara is widely attested, in Babylonia in the cities Uruk, Umma, Isin, and Larsa, and on the Middle Euphrates in the cities Mari (see 47) and Tuttul (23g, Durand and Kupper 1985:111). The name of the harp-god was Igi ibara in Umma. A lamenter (gala) in Ur III Girsu had the professional name Ur-dIgi- ibar-ra (M N 8 179 I 11).109 Ninsigarana and Ninigi ibara are listed as the two balang-gods of Inana in the Emesal ocabulary (23i). The name Ninsigarana means Lady Heaven’s Bolt’. Cavigneaux and Krebernik (RlA 9:488 489, Nin-si ar-ana) list the few attestations in Ur III records, the most informative document being 23b2. They propose that the form of the instrument is likened to the bolt of the name. I believe the name refers to the role of the harp servant-god to relieve the anxiety caused by the departure of Inana as planet enus when the planet disappeared at the onset of con unction. It was believed that a gate had to be opened and closed as the stars and planets passed the hori on. Ninme’urur is associated with Ninigi ibara in the Isin god-list (23e) and in the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi, where she is mentioned next to Ninigi ibara as one of the two advisers of Inana (RlA 9:470 471 Cavigneaux and Krebernik, Nin-me-urur ). The gender of Nin-me’urur is female according to the writing NIN ga- a-an-me-ur4-ur4 in Uru’amma’irabi (kirugu , line 11). In the Late Babylonian version (BM 38593 I 17 18), Inana laments the loss of Ninigi ibara 107 108 109 ki-mah uru-ka al nu- ar adda ki nu-tum2 gala-e bala nu-gub er2 nu-ta-e3. gala bala -di-ne u ba-ab-ti bala i3-dim-ma gub-ba u4 10 la2 1-kam ki-hul lugal. For more detail on Ninigi ibara see Sallaberger 1993; RlA 9:382 384 (Heimpel, Ninigi ibara); olk 2006; PHG:106n224, 112 113. 611 Wolfgang Heimpel and my lamenter of the house, Ninme’urur, the face that watches the mountain land. 110 Perhaps the harp Ninme’urur was believed to be lamenting Inana’s absence while watching the eastern mountains in wait for the planet’s appearance as morning star. In the OB list of gods SLT (Chiera 1929) 122 II 25 26, Ninigi ibara is followed by an adviser’ (dAd-gi4-gi4), the common epithet of balang-gods. This may refer to Ninsigarana or Ninme’urur. 23a Ninigi ibara and Igi ibara in Ur III. 23a1 ear-name Ibbi-Sin 21. ear when Ibbi-Sin fashioned the balang Ninigi ibara for Inana. 111 23a2 M AG 21, 22 FH 5 Umma, Amar-Sin 1 P113033. Expenditure of sh-oil for the preservation of divine images, statues, and (the neck of the harp) Igi ibara, written with divine determinative. 23a3 Princeton 1 523 Umma Amar-Sin 4 P127212. Receipt of 9 3/4 shekels of silver for plating the grapple-hook (and) eye of Igi ibara. 112 23b Ninigi ibara in rituals according to records from Ur III Umma. The beginning of the dry season was celebrated during the rst month of the year as withdrawal leading to the ultimate death of the god Dumu i. The goddess Nin-Gipar, an Inana image in the temple of the city-god of Umma, was brought out to the head-grass (u2-sa )’. 113 In the same month, Nin-Ibgala, the local Inana gure, went’ to the nearby city of abala to oin lamenting the death of her husband Dumu i. She was accompanied by her balang Igi ibara. 23b1 SA (Jean 1923) 129 Amar-Sin 5 I P128740, Tavolette (Boson 1936) 346 Amar-Sin 6 I P132131, UTI 3 1885 Amar-Sin 8 I P139904, UTI 4 2563 P140582. Food for Nin-Gipar having gone out to the head-grass’, as well as for Nin-Ibgala and Igi ibara going to abala. 23b2 M N 1 42 u-Sin 5 I P113075. 110 111 112 113 gala e2-a ga an me ur4-ur4 mu 3-me kur- e3 i-b ma-al-la-mu. olk 2006:105 translates mein Abbild, dessen Aufmerksamkeit best ndig auf das Fremdland gerichtet ist. mu Ibbi-Sin dNin-igi- i-bar-ra bala dInana-ra mu-na-dim2. 10 gin2 la2 igi 4 gal2 ku3 U.DIM4ba igi dIgi- i-bar-ra a2- a2-de3. The term u2-sag was rst understood to designate early grass. Sallaberger 1993 1:233 234, noting that this does not t the season, suggested a translation high grass’. 612 Balang-Gods Expenditures of our for the temple of the city-god Shara and his wife Ninura; the deity of Ibgal (di ir Ib-gal), otherwise called Lady of Ibgal’; Ninsigarana, the balang-god of Inana; and a dei ed musical instrument called Harmony Wood’ (dGi -ha-mun). While the date in the rst month coincides with the time of the ourney to abala of the previously listed records, the association with Ninsigarana and the absence of the ourney to abalam indicate a di erent cultic context. Note also the di erence of the name: Igi ibara is paired with Nin-gipar in 23b1 and 23c, Ninigi ibara with the deity of Ibgal here. 23c BPOA 6 1176 Umma u-Sin 3 P292368. King Shu-Sin o ered in the temple of the city-god Shara small cattle to Shara, Manishtusu a statue of the divini ed former king of Akkad and Igi ibara. The reason for this o ering is not given. Perhaps the balang Igi ibara was played as part of the cult of the dead Old Akkadian king. 23d Records from the central royal distribution center Pu rish-Dagan (Drehem) of expenditures for Ninigi ibara in Uruk in connection with the absence of the planet enus venerated as Nanaya. The fact that the expenditures fall in the same month of two consecutive years means that the two events are not linked with actual inferior and/or superior con unctions of the planet with the sun. The disappearance place’ would be the ecliptic at the western hori on. 23d1 BPOA 7 2870 Drehem ulgi 35 I P303662. Small cattle for the Gipar, the sanctuary in the house of Nanaya in Uruk, things of the disappearance place of Nanaya’ (ni 2 ki- ah3 dNa-na-a), and for Ninigi ibara. 23d2 Schneider 1932 58 Drehem ulgi 36 I P101353, Sallaberger 1993 1:221. Expenditures of lambs and kids by the governor of Uruk in Uruk: 1 lamb the sanctuary, 1 kid dMu -a-igi- al2, 1 kid Ninigi ibara, 1 kid circumambulation lament of Gipar gate (er2 ni in2-na ka gi6-par4ra), 1 kid prayer of the day Rise ye up ’ (siskur2 u4 i-ga- e-na-a), 1 lamb disappearance thing’ (ni 2- ah3) of Nanaya of the palace. 23d3 SET (Jones and Snyder 1961) 42 Drehem ulgi 37 P129452. Expenditures of large and small cattle, among them one kid for the house’ of Ninigi ibara in Uruk and two kids for the errānum-lament of the house of Belat-Suhnir (for errānum, see 45). 613 Wolfgang Heimpel 23e List of gods from OB Isin A II 11/ B II 14 A II 13/ B II 16 (Wilcke 1987:94). d Nin-igi- i-bar-ra, dNin-me-ur4-ur4, dNin-he-nun-na. For Ninhenuna see 42. Here, balang-goddesses of Inana and Gula are grouped together. 23f Oratorio Uru’amma’irabi, OB version from Tell Haddad (col. III 9 12). Inana laments the loss of her two Balang-harps and their gods: The impetuous balang, my bellowing aurochs, the shining balang, my husband, my lapis la uli, my adviser, my great suru, my adviser Ninigi ibara.114 S 2 32 I 11 14 contains the answer of the harpist: our impetuous balang, the bellowing aurochs, / your lapis la uli mu-ud-nu-bi shining balang, your adviser, your great suru, / the adviser, your Igi ibara.115 The late version of these lines in the seventeenth tablet of Uru’amma’irabi is treated by olk 2006. He understands the designation my husband’ (mu-ud-namu) as an expression of the close relationship between Inana and Ninigi ibara, translating Auserw hlter’. Gabbay (PHG:112 113), noting the grammatical male gender of the translated name Ninigi ibara in this version, does not exclude understanding this balang-god as male and sexual partner of Inana (see Section 2d). The overall context of the passage is Inana’s lament about the abduction of her husband Dumu i and removal of her pri ed possessions. Later in the text, Inana utters her wish that the enemy return her shining balang Ninigi ibara and her husband Dumu i (I 18 21), longing to lie with him. The enemy shall return my shining balang, shall (return it) in my house, shall return the shining balang, my Ninigi ibara. The enemy shall return my husband. He shall lie in my pure lap return my husband Ama’ushumgalana. He shall lie in my pure lap.116 114 115 116 bala ban3-da am mur-sa4-a-mu bala ku3 mu-ud-na-mu a-gin3-na-mu ad-gi4-gi4-mu Sur-DU-e gal-mu ad-gi4-gi4 dNin-igi- i-bar-ra-mu. bala ban3-da am mu-ru-um- u-a- u / bala ku3 mu-ud-nu-bi a-gin3- u / ad-gi4-gi4- u surru-ga- u / a d-gi-gi dIgi- i-bar-ra- u. sur-ru-ga- u stands for sur9-gal- u. Syllabary B II 285 (MSL 3:147) sur-ru SUR9 surrû. kur2-re bala -ku3-mu tu15-mu-ub-gi4-gi4 e2 a2-a tu15(-mu-ub-gi4-gi4) bala -ku3 dNinigi- i-bar-ra-mu tu15-mu-ub-gi4-gi4 kur2-re mu-ud-na-mu tu15-mu-ub-gi4-gi4 ur2-ku3- a2 614 Balang-Gods 23g1 For Ninigi ibara in Mari rituals see 47. 23g2 ARM 25:566. (Memorandum) about sending to Tuttul 4 pounds (2kg) of silver and 5 shekels (41.67g) gold for work on Ninigi ibara. 117 23h Balang composition of Inana CT 36, 35 BM 96933 I 8 (A) and Kramer 1987, BM 96680, lines 342, 351, and 406 (B). Inana is called ga- a-an Igi- i-bar-ra in A and ga- a-an dIgi- i-bar-ra in B. The reading of A is also found in the Late text MMA 186.11.3509 9a’: ga14a-an Igi- i-bar-ra (Maul 2005:79). The reading in B indicates as meaning lady of Igi ibara’, which re ects her relationship as mistress of her servant balang-divinity. 23i N-A copy of Emesal vocabulary I 88 89 (MSL 4:9). Lady Bolt of the Sky (Ninsigarana) and Lady Well Regarded (Ninigi ibara in women’s Sumerian and standard Sumerian), the two balang-gods of Inana. 118 24 Lady Occupying the Palace (dNin-e2-gal-e-si). AUCT 1 (Sigrist 1984b) 969 Drehem Amar-Sin 3 I P103814. Record of the royal gift of a silver mirror for the goddess Gula of Umma and silver for her balang Ninegalesi. The name of the balang-goddess refers to the temples of Gula that were called Palaces (e2-gal). The verb si(g) means to ll’, with the direct ob ect of the English verb corresponding to the Sumerian locative-terminative. It is often di cult to know what exactly is meant. Obviously the harp does not literally ll the palace. Perhaps the verb describes here the sound of the instrument that lls the space of the temple.119 25 ( 19) and 26 Greatly talking with An (dBala An-da-gal-di) and Divine Powers from Pure Heaven (dBala Me-an-ku3-ta). SAT 1 198 Girsu Amar-Sin 1 III P131307. Record of expenditure of fattened small cattle as o erings, including two fattened kids as o erings for the two balang-gods. An-da-gal-di of the text is short for Nin-an-da-gal-di, attested 117 118 119 tu15-nu2 a2-e ( . . . ) mu-ud-na-mu dAma-u umgal-an-na tu15-mu-ub-gi4-gi4 ur2-ku3- a2 tu15-nu2. a um 4 ma-na ku3-babbar u3 5 gin2 ku3-GI a a na i i ir dNin-igi- i-bar-ra a-na Tu-ut-tu-ulki u u lim. d ga an-si-mar-an-n a dNin-si- ar-an-na dga a n-i -b i2- i-bar-ra dNin-igi- i-bar-ra 2 GU4. BALA dInana-ke4. Cf. the opinion of Sel 1997:202n222 that the verb describes aptness of the sub ect to be t for his/her duty. 615 Wolfgang Heimpel as balang-god of Baba (19). ariation of the name with and without initial Nin lady’ is also found in case of the name Ninigi ibara (23). IIb Balangs without name But description of function: 27 Cedar-resin Balang of Baba (bala im eren dBa-u2). TUT 112, fragment of a large tablet from Girsu, records in I 11’ expenditure of beer for this balang, and M N 22 121 of ulgi 37 I expenditure of wool. Brunke and Sallaberger 2010:49 give examples for the exceptional use of cedar wood for the manufacture of furniture, but it is unlikely that the long curved and recurved neck of the Balang-harp could have been made of soft cedar wood. The neck could have been treated with cedar-resin (see 23a2). The city-goddess of Gu’aba, another city in the province of Lagash, also had a cedar-resin Balang (30). A cedar-resin balang appears in a much treated and discussed OB record of cult expenditures in Larsa, fully edited and treated anew in Westenhol and Westenhol 2006:3 81.120 It includes a word read there qu2-tur4, for which W. Sallaberger proposed the reading ku bala . L hnert 2009:68n312 commented on the context: W hrend der am Abend statt ndenden eremonie nen des Hauses, wenn die Gottheit eintritt, erhalten (die Klages nger) Substan en f r Rauchopfer und das Kohlebeckenritual; allerdings wird hier mit der Neudeutung W. Sallabergers auch das Balag Instrument erw hnt. Gabbay (PHG:70 with n. 69) proposed a di erent interpretation: Lamenters took part in the performance of a Balag during a cultic act involving cedar incense. 28 Balang of the Day of Laying’ (bala u4 nu2-a), that is, the day of invisibility of the moon. The moon’s absence was apparently feared despite its regular and predictable occurrence.121 In Umma, this balang belonged to the household of the goddess Nin-Ibgala, an Inana- gure hailing from Lagash and venerated in Umma. A Girsu record of skins left over from small cattle o erings lists ve skins from o erings to the divine balang (dbala ), or balang-god’ (di ir-bala ) for as many months of the year ulgi 39, and twelve skins for the full year of ulgi 40 (TCL 5 5672). This would have been the balang of the day of laying. 120 121 II 57: i-na ku bala im- i eren a-na ki-nu-nim III 3 4: u-ti-a gala-me i-na ku bala a2 u4-te-na u4 17-kam I 25 29: 4 sila3 i3-gi a na a ra i im 3 sila3 i3 -gu sila3 im-hi-a i-na ku bala im i eren a-na ki-nu-nim dabin i3-gu u-ti-a gala-me i-na ku bala im- i eren 1 sila3 i3- i i3- e 4 (EREN) ni-ri-im II 19 22: u-ti-a gala- me i-na ku bala a2 u4-te-na u4 20-kam. Cf. the opinion of Sel 1997:178 that the day of invisibility alludes to a mourning-ritual in which the harp played a part. 616 Balang-Gods 29 Balang of the storm’ (bala u4-da). SAT 2 166 Umma ulgi 37 II P143367; ITT 2 1021 1022 III’ 22’ date broken, Girsu P110891. Records from Umma mention an observer’ (igi-du8) as recipient of small cattle for prayer o erings described as having confronted the storm’ (u4-da gaba-ri-a). As pointed out by Sallaberger,122 two of these records replace the word u4 with dI kur, the name of the weather-god, con rming that u4 means storm’, not day’, in this context. The confrontations with the weather-god would have typically taken place in spring when thunderstorms form in the area and threaten the barley harvest. The ritual of confrontation was performed in speci ed eld areas. The observer (igi-du8) appears as responsible for the expenditure for bala u4- da in the tablet fragment ITT 5 6916 from Girsu. He would have identi ed which eld area was located in the path of an oncoming storm and confronted it with the balang that would calm the weather-god down. Among the balang servant-gods of the weather-god in An:Anum, Storm of the Suru lamenter’, his Thunder’, or He Roars’ (53 III 261, 263 264) may have been used for the purpose. For a possible link with the Eblaite word for harpist, see 4d. 30 ITT 3 4977 Girsu no year I P111073. The text records the expenditure of beer and our for the goddess Nin-KI. MAR and cedar-resin Balang, the balang of the storm in the house of Ninmar’ (bala im-eren bala u4-da a3 e2 dNin-marki). For another cedar-resin balang see 27. 31 Balang of the Storm, house (and) city encircled’ (bala u4-da e2 uru ni in-na). The ritual involving this balang took the form of a circumambulation of the temple and the city, as detailed in TCT 1 (Lafont and ildi 1989) 796. The circumambulation included o erings at the east and west gates of the Holy City of Girsu, tears’, and remuneration for the actions of lamenter (gala) and observer (igi-du8). The observer would have determined that a storm threatened the entire city of Girsu. If he corresponds to the seer’ in ED Ebla, he played the harp.123 The lamenter could have sung a song such as CT 15, 15 16 of the type tears of the drum of Ishkur’ (er2- em3-ma dI kur), which describes the god as riding a storm that causes his mother Ninlil to take fright and the king of gods, Enlil, to duck. Enlil then acknowledges the power of Ishkur’s thunder, lighting, and hailstones, and asks him to use it against a rebel land. Ishkur obeys, emerges from his temple paci ed, his thunderstorm having moved away. According to 122 123 Sallaberger 1993 1:266 and 2:163. See Section 3c2. 617 Wolfgang Heimpel HLC 23 P109901, the chief lamenter (gala-mah) Utu-Bara was responsible for our expended for the Balang-harp. See further Sallaberger 1993 1:297 and 2 Tab. 105; Heimpel 1998; Gabbay 2013:235 239. 32 Balang of the storm, facade toward Uruk house’ (bala u4-da igi e2 Unu ki - e3). The location is the west gate of the Holy City of Girsu (Heimpel 1996:20). The balang appears to be directed against a storm approaching from the west, but not deemed a threat for the entire city. Sallaberger 1993:Tab. 105; Gabbay 2013:236n36 understands igi e2 Unu as a location outside Uruk. 33 Balang of bathing’ (bala a-tu5-a). BPOA 7 1792, Umma, Amar-Sin 6 P292088. Record of expenditures of our for the Balang of bathing at the festivals, the three of them (bala a-tu5-a e en 3-a-ba). These were the festivals of the fourth, eighth, and eleventh months. Sallaberger 1993:239 demonstrated that the bathing of Shara, the city-god of Umma, was the central cult act of these festivals and that it was associated with heart cooling’ ( a ). The latter was e ected by a balang, as this newly published text shows. The procedure of bathing a divinity is described by Sallaberger 1993:192: the image in its cella is disrobed, water is poured over it as part of the life-restoring ritual called washing of the mouth’, and the image is then newly clothed. The manipulation of the image brought with it the danger of enraging the divinity, which was counteracted by the sound of the balang. IIc Balangs without name But known master-god: 34a 35 Balang of Nanna and Ninsun. Sigrist 1999:132 138 Drehem Amar-Sin 2 I P200532. Record of o erings for the ghost of king Shu-Sin, netherworld divinities, and ghosts, as well as o erings of kids for the balangs of the moon-god Nanna and Ninsun on day sixteen in Ur (rev. II 10 11), and for the balang of Ninsun again on day seventeen (rev. I 22’ 23’). 34b BPOA 7 2856 Drehem Amar-Sin 4 II P303644. Record of royal o erings of small cattle at the occasion of the harvest festival for the moon-god Nanna, the boat on which Nanna had come from Ur to the festival house Akiti, and for a balang. The balang may have entertained the moon-god and relieved his anxiety on the boat trip. See also 20d. 618 Balang-Gods 34c UET 3 298 Ur P136617. A smith receives 1/3 pound 8 plating a balang of Nanna. shekels minus 15 grains (189.6g) gold for 35 UET 3 282 P136599 (PHG:93n111, and 102n178). Receipt, of the administrator of the temple of Ningal, of cream, cheese, raisins, honey, dates for regular o erings (sa2- du11 ), regular monthly cult expenses (ni 2-dab5), and a bron e balang (bala UD.K A.BAR ). The record is sealed by the steward in the temple of Ningal, the wife of the city-god in Ur. While the sign for bron e is not fully preserved, there are no easy alternatives. Possibly the bron e balang’ was in fact a kettledrum.124 36 Balang of Ninura TCL 5 5672 16 and I 9 Umma P131743. The text registers two bull hides to be used for the balang of Ninura, the wife of the city-god of Umma. 37 NATN (Owen 1982) 824 Nippur P121521. The seven balangs of Nin receive a fattened ram.125 38 Princeton 1 99 Drehem ulgi 47 I 28 P126788. Record of o erings in Uruk, among them small cattle for the gate of the residence of the En priest (ka2 gi6-par3-ra) of Inana, a balang, and Aratta. Cavigneaux 1998 read aratta (LAM xKUR.RU), which would mean that there existed in Uruk a physical presence of the city Aratta, the prehistoric antagonist of Uruk. He notes that Aratta is mentioned repeatedly in the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi. 39 UTI 4 2849 P140868 (PHG:102n179). 2 cured hides and 1/3 pound of glue balang of the chief lukur priestess covered. 126 OB and late period sources 40 Ishbi-Erra-Enlilda-Nirgal. RIME 4 1.1.1. The king of Isin dedicates a balang to Enlil in Nippur. Unlike in earlier times, the king’s name appears in the name of the balang instrument. 124 125 126 See Section 1a above. 1 udu-niga gu4-e us2-sa bala imin dNin- . 2 ku u2-hab2 1/3 ma-na s e-gin2 bala lukur-gal si-ga. 619 Wolfgang Heimpel For Enlil, king of lands, his king, did Ishbi-Erra, strong king, king of the land, fashion a mighty balang to/for the heart. For (prolongment of) his life he dedicated it. That balang’s name is Ishbi-Erra Enlil’s Trustee’.127 41 Inana Ishbi-Erra. BIN 9 445 Ishbi-Erra 25 P236455. 1 old balang (named) Inana Ishbi-Erra was supplied (for repair) with a 1/5 m2 piece of cured bull hide, and the re uisite 3/10 m2 piece of black billy-goat hide and 42g of glue. Responsible for making sure that the supplies were used for the repair was PN, the chief lamenter.128 The balang that had been named and presumably commissioned by IshbiErra was already old’ (sumun) in the king’s lifetime. Inana Ishbi-Erra’ does not belong to any name type; probably the real name was longer, and abbreviated in the administrative context. The harp would have belonged to the Inana cult in Isin. 42 Lady of Plenty (Nin-Henuna). Nin-Henuna was the second balang of Gula, city-goddess of Isin, according to An:Anum 187. She is listed in the OB god-list from Isin together with Nin-me-ur4-ur4 and Nin-igi- i-bar-ra, the balang-gods of Inana (23e). See Cow of Plenty, Ab(2)-he-nun-na (20). 42a in Isina s ourne to i ur lines 42 48. A song for Gula under her name Lady of Isin (dNin-Isina) celebrates the rise of the city of Isin to rst rank among the cities of Babylonia after the fall of the Ur III kingdom, recounting the city-goddess’s triumphant return from a visit with Enlil who had bestowed on her a good fate for her city. Her husband Pabilsang welcomed her back. The king was there, too, and the music struck up. The returning Lady of Isin was praised and the lamenters paci ed the highest ranking gods, An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninmah, perhaps because they were feared to be upset about the move of rule over Babylonia to Isin. 127 128 bala -mah a3 tu-x-da mu-na-an-dim2 nam-ti-la- ni- e3 a mu-na-ru bala -ba dI -bi-er3-ra d En-lil2-da nir- al2 mu-bi-im. Civil 1987a on the sign -x-: Neither the meaning nor the traces favor -ud-. Perhaps it is to be read tu- u h for du8. 1 i bala -sumun dInana dI i r ra ku gu4-u2-hab2-bi 1/3 (gin2) ba-a-si ku ma 2-gal gi6-ga 1/2 (gin2) n n gala-mah. 620 Balang-Gods The text is a MA copy of an OB Sumerian text with imperfect Akkadian translation. Wagensonner 2008 identi ed an OB fragment, recopied the Late (MA) tablets, and provided an up-to-date translation and comments. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Her beloved shining129 balang, Lady of Plenty, , ly intones the holy song, a praise full of love, plays for her the shining up(-drum), the shining balang. Sum. text: The lamenter rises before her, Nin-Isina, Akk. text: The lamenters with that prayer to Ninkarak so that An, Enlil, Enki, (and) Ninmah be appeased. 130 After the exalted lady is made to feel good in her dwelling in Egalmah, the king slaughtered a bull for her, and many rams in addition.131 42b BIN 9 433 (Ishbi-Erra 19) P236443. uoted by A. Cavigneaux and M. Krebernik in RlA 9:378, Nin-hinuna. 5 shekels (3 m2) cured bull-hide (for) peg tooth/teeth/nose/mouth (KA) of the left wood’ of Ninhenuna. 132 42c BIN 10 75 (Ishbi-Erra 14) P236619. Gold decoration133 was applied to Ninhenuna. 134 43 Curse on Akkad 199 204. 129 130 131 132 133 134 ellu light, shining’ describes the sheen of silver and here probably the sheen of silver plating of the instrument. The same translation is found repeatedly (CAD s. v. balaggu). UET 3 1476 lists among silver smiths two persons titled gi bala -tu -a (see PHG:84). The intransitive form nuhhu indicates that the mentioned gods are the sub ect. Gabbay (PHG:18) points out that gods were routinely solicited to help pacify the heart of a fellow god and translates accordingly. 42. Sum.: bala -ku3 ki-a 2- a2-ni dNin-he-nun A N Akk.: a lam a el la a i ra am mu dNinhe-nun A N / 43. Sum.: ir3-ku3 a3-mi2 la-la a2-la-ni gu3 nun mi-ni- ib-be2 Akk.: za-ma-ri KU3.ME ta ni ta a la la a ma la a at i / 44. Sum.: ku ub-ku3 bala -ku3-ge u mu-un-tagtag Akk.: i na u i e i a lam i el li u la a tu i / 45. Sum.: gala ri-a mu-un-na- i- i e-ne-ra d Nin-in-si-na Akk.: GALA.ME i na ta ri ti u a ti a dNin-kar-ra-a k / 46. Sum.: An dEn-lil2 d En-ki dNin-mah-e mu-un-hu - a2-e-da Akk.: dA-nu dEn-lil2 dE-a u3 dNIN.DIGIR.ME nu-uh-h u ) / 47. Sum.: nin-mah-e e2-gal-mah-ne-a ki-tu mi-ni-ib-du10-ga-ta Akk.: i tu ru a tu ir ti i-na e2-gal-mah u ta u i u / 48. Sum.: lugal-e gu4 mu-un-na-ab-ga -e udu mu-un-na-abar2-re Akk.: ar ru GU4me u a la i UDU me u da a a i). For takribtu rather than taqribtu in 45, see Gabbay 2011:71 73. 5 gin2 ku gu4 u2-hab2 u2 kak i ga-bu dNin-he-nun-na. Limet 1960:223, gold strips’. Possibly granulation: RlA 3:530 (Boese/R ss, Gold). ni 2-su3-a ku3-sig17 dNin-he-nun-na ba-ra- x . 621 Wolfgang Heimpel The survivors of catastrophe, sent by Enlil after destruction of his temple, aim to pacify the god’s wrath: (The chief lamenter ) let seven balangs cover the ground (in a circle) like the base of the sky for seven days (and) seven nights.135 In their midst sounded up me e, lilis, shem percussion instruments for him Enlil like the weather-god. An old woman did not cease with Oh, my city’. An old man did not cease with Oh, its people’. A lamenter did not cease with Oh, Ekur’ Enlil’s temple .136 44 UET 8 79 Inscription of Warad-Sin or Rim-Sin I of Larsa (PHG:99). For my life and the life of my own father, Kudur-Mabuk I, fashioned for him/her a bron e kettledrum balang.137 45 HA 13 rev. 12’ 15’. Kramer 1985:115n1; PHG:86, 141n568, 153n662. A passage laments changes in the cult of Nin-Isina, partly in terms of Akkadian words replacing Sumerian ones. The hitherto unexplained Akkadian correspondence of ka bir with ma-zu2-um was recogni ed by Sallaberger (personal communication). (Now) her bread is akalum, her beer is šikarum, her pressed beer is mazûm, her balang is errānum.138 The up-drum of my lady had become a kettledrum balang.139 46 BIN 9 312:8 P236322. One kid hide (for) balang.140 135 136 137 138 139 140 Cooper 1983:59 translates as if they stood at heaven’s base; PHG:16n9: The image here refers to the performance of the balag instrument during dawn, translating (178n210) for seven days and seven nights, (the lamenters) placed seven bala instruments on earth like (i.e., at the time of) the standing hori on. u4 7 i6 7- e3 bala 7-e an ur2 gub-ba-gim ki mu-un- i-ib-us2 ub3 me- e2 li-li-is3 em3 d I kur-gim a3-ba mu-na-an-du12 um-ma a uru2-mu nu- a2- a2 ab-ba a lu2-bi nu- a2- a2 gala-e a e2-kur nu- a2- a2. nam-ti-mu- e3 u3 nam-ti Ku-du-ur-ma -bu -uk a-a ugu x x bala l i-li-is3 abar mu-nadim2. Gabbay understands bala as a determinative. See 23d3. ninda-a-ni a-ka-lu-um-ma ka -a-ni i a ru um ma ka bir-a-ni ma-zu2-um-ma bala -a-ni gi4-er2-ra-an-um-ma ga- a-an- a2 ku ub3-a-ni bala li-li-is3-am3. 1 ku ma 2 bala . 622 Balang-Gods 47 Ishtar Rituals from OB Mari. Dossin 1938; FM 3 no. 2 and 3; FM 9:55 64, including a model of the arrangement of participants and furnishings, with the Balang-harp ( iegler’s lyre) in central position. 47a FM 3 no. 2 I 3’ 11’. If the king so wishes, he sleeps in the b ed of Ishtar. In the morning they make him rise earlier than normal and Ishtar is served breakfast. They thoroughly clean the house of Ishtar and they place Ningi ippara vis-à-vis Ishtar. The lamenter (s) left of Ningigi ippara 141 The following lines describe the position taken by other participants, including craftsmen and hairdressers with their tools. A table sprinkled with our and a pitcher of water is set before Ishtar. Latarak and other servant-gods take their seats to her left, the identities of those to her right are lost in a break. The emblems of goddesses are brought from their shrines, the king takes his seat behind the lamenters, the servants take their places, and the lamenters sing the Uru’amma’irabi of the beginning of the month (II 19’ 20’).142 At this point something is said about the behavior of an ecstatic. Lines 24’ 25’ are read and restored by Durand and Guichard to mean after they (the lamenters) have reached (the words) a men2 , the overseers let the singers go. If (the ecstatic) gets into trance, they sing a en2 . These are the words that follow the fth section (ki-ru-gu2) of the OB version of the oratorio Uru’amma’irabi. After four missing lines at the head of the third column, a foot race is mentioned and the lamenters are said to be singing i-gi-it-te-en di-ba-x(-x). As the race ends in the temple of Ishtar, they sing the song AN-nu-wa- e, the king gets up and one of the lamenters sings an ershema to Enlil to the accompaniment of the halhallatum drum ( i -na ha-al-ha-la-tim er-se-[m]a-kam a-na dEn-lil2 i-za-mu-ur). 47b FM 3 no. 3 I 21’ 22’. d Nin -gi- i-pa-ra li-li-si-im The two lines appear to con rm that the harp-god is not identical with the kettledrum. 141 142 bi il li i arrim ina ma al I tar itt l ina k a āti u eli a a antim u ahra ma ni 2-gub I tar i a an t I tar u tana a ma d in i i i a ra ina mehret I tar u a ma a l u u ina um l d Nin-gi-zi-ip-pa-ra u itru ina i mitti … a lu u u ru am ma da ru i re e a ar hi i a-a m-mu-r u . 623 Wolfgang Heimpel 48 S 10 216: 4 8 Catalogue of liturgical texts (Krecher 1966:33; L hnert 2009:16 Hinweis Gabbay ). Oh IllaLUM, Oh IllaLUM’ 1 (leather) balang of Sin. The Lord, the of the Lord in his Land’ 1 incantation song of Suen , (altogether) 1 (leather) balang and 1 incantation song of Suen. 143 The meaning of balang is clearly the lyrics of a song. The determinative indicates that the instrument identi es the song. 49 Examples from laments of temple-mistresses about loss of their home, including the venue of balang performances. 49a Balang composition Uruhulake of Gula according to CLAM 256 (for di cult parallel lines from S 2 25 see Krecher 1966:151; line a 47 is obscure). Gula laments: a 45 The foremost city, my foremost balang-porch, a 46 the house of bitter tears, my house of tears, de led. a 47 The Arali, my princely bowl bull, a 48 the balang-porch, my porch of the princely balang.144 49b Balang composition CT 36 46 III 5 9. Ishtar laments: 5 The shining gate, my house of ladyship, 6 the outer court, my udgment place, 7 my aurochs-like ostling balang-gate,145 8 my mighty portal of Mullil, 9 my netherworld portal, eye of the land.146 The image in line 7 could refer to gate sculptures, the bovidity of the balang, or the throng of the congregation at occasions when the balang strikes up. 50 CT 36 41:16 20 (Cohen 1981:104 reference courtesy of Gabbay ). Gula laments disuse of cherished implements and musical instruments: 143 144 145 146 a il-la-L UM a il-la-LUM 1 ku bala dSuen u3-mu-un x-x-ti u3-mu-un-na kur-ra-na 1 ir3 nam- u-ub d Suen 1 ku bala 1 ir3 n am- u-ub d Suen. a 45 uru2 sa - a2 ma bala sa - a2-mu a 46 e2 er2-gig e2 er2-ra pel-la2-mu a 47 a-ra-li gu4 bur nun-na-mu a 48 ma bala - a2 ma bala nun-na-mu. The same and grammatically uncorrupted version is found in the description of the harp porch in the temple of Ningirsu in Girsu (21). 5 ka2 ku3 e2 na-a 2-ga- a-an-na-mu 6 kisal bar-ra ki di ku5-ru-mu 7 ka2 bala - a2 am-gim du7-du7-mu 8 abul-mah dmu-ul-lil2-la2-mu 9 abul gan ir i-bi2 kur-ra-mu. 624 Balang-Gods 16 17 18 19 20 My shining cup that poured no water, my shining up-drum that no one placed, my shining balang that no one played, my shining tambour that gave no sound, my shining me e instrument that did no good.147 51 CLAM 420 a 36 a 41. Late text of the penultimate section of an unidenti ed balang composition (see Maul 1999:297n53; PHG:81 82 and 85). The section has an explanatory character rather than being lyrics of an oratorio: a 36 a 37 a 38 a 39 a 40 a 41 Sum: That day the god enters the house in balang and lament. Akk.: The god enters the house in balang (and) prayer. Sum.: The lamenter who sang for him in a song, Akk.: The lamenters sing songs, Sum.: the lamenter who sang for him in a song of lordship, Akk.: the lamenters (sing) a song of lordship, Sum.: the lamenter (who sang for him) in a song of balang, Akk.: The lamenters (sing) a song of balang Sum.: (who played for him) the shining up-drum, the shining kettledrum, Akk.: with the shining up-drum, the shining kettledrum, Sum.: (who played for him) tambour, me e, shining balang. Akk.: the tambour and me e, shining balang.148 52 Late lexical series HAR-RA hubullu a 147 148 a aa 105 107 (MSL 6, 60). MIN ( kip-pa-tum) a-le-e MIN ( kip-pa-tum) ba-la-an-gi ring of alu drum hoop of Balang-harp 16 ti-lim-da ku3-ga a nu-de2-a-mu 17 ku ub ku3-ga nu-mu-un- ar-ra-mu 18 bala ku3-ga nu-mu-un-du24-a-mu 19 em3 ku3-ga ad nu- a4- a4-mu 20 me- e2 ku3-ga nu- e2- e2-ba-mu. a 36 Sum.: e2-e dim3-me-er bala er2-ra u4-de3 Akk.: ana E2 i-lu ina ba-lag-gu tak-r ib-tu2/ tes-li-tu2 a 37 Sum.: gala-e ir3-ra mu-un-na-an-du12-a Akk.: ka-lu-u2 za-ma-ri i-za-am-mu-ru a 38 Sum.: gala-e ir3-ra nam-en-na mu-un-na-an-du12-a Akk.: ka-lu-u2 za-mar be-lu-ti a 39 Sum.: gala -e ir3-ra bala - a2 mu-un- Akk.: ka-lu-u za-mar ba-la-ag-gi a 40 Sum.: ku ub3-ku3 li-li-is3-ku3 mu-un- Akk. ina up-pi el-lim ina li-li-is el-li a 41 Sum.: aa a n- Akk.: h al-hal-la-ti u ma-an-zi-i ba-la-ag2-ga el-li. 625 Wolfgang Heimpel d d MIN ( kip-pa-tum) tim-bu-u2-ti ring of timbutu instrument. 53 Balang bulls’ (GU4.BALA ) servant-gods in the Late god-list An:Anum (Litke 1998).149 I 70 I 71 I 75 name of balang translation master-god d Just Scepter An’s/Heaven’s Decision Sitting gods Nin-Shubura Nin-Shubura An d a E -bar-an-na Di ir-du-ru-na150 d In the OB version of the oratorio Elum Gusun, the gods are exhorted to go to the place called Sitting Gods’, where the rst fruits (nesa ) of the New ear were served ( S 2 11 II 12’ 14’). L hnert’s interpretation of Elum Gusun as being connected with the maintenance of irrigation works (L hnert 2009:56) ts the timing, as the threat of downpours ooding elds during the barley harvest coincides with the Babylonian New ear. The term Sitting Gods is also found in Enuma Elish I 24, designating a location where the younger gods made merry, thus enraging the older ones and leading to war between the generations. The netherworld gods had their own occasion for Sitting Gods. In an incantation prayer to Enmeshara, the netherworld is called markas, link, center’ of Sitting Gods’ (Ambos 2004: 120.44). I 76 I 77 I 78 I 79 U3-tu-ud Lu2-an-na d Ka-tar-an-na d Mul-1-iku d d Creator Heaven’s/An’s Man Heaven’s/An’s Fame One-acre Star An An An An The One-acre constellation consists of alpha, beta, gamma of Pegasus, and alpha of Andromeda. The constellation leads the stars of the path of An as they rise at the beginning of the year (RlA 5:45 Hunger, Ik ). The four stars were matched with the lands of the four cardinal points expressed as the lands of Assyria, Akkad, Elam, and Amurru (RlA 4:412 413 Hunger, Himmelsgeographie ). The One-acre Star oratorio would have been performed at night, the rst half of the Babylonian twelve-hour day. 149 150 See also Gabbay’s (PHG:103 109) analysis of names indicating the adviser role of GU4.BALA ; cf. Franklin, p30 33. The plural verb in the phrase ki AN dur2-ru-na in the OB version of the oratorio Elum Gusun ( S 2 11 II 13’) indicates that the sign AN does not write the DN An. The Late version nevertheless translates: place where Anum dwells (SBH 21 rev. 34). This understanding was accepted by Horowit 1998:225. Krecher 1966:99n268 translates wo die G tter sit en (di ir dur2-ru-na). 626 Balang-Gods I 80 d An-ta-sur-ra Dropped from Sky An A sanctuary of this name was located in the territory of Lagash, probably at its northwestern border (Gabbay 2013:19 20). The name was translated om Himmel herabgetropft (dripped down from sky) by Falkenstein 1966: 164, Twinkles from Heaven by George 1993:68. Perhaps it was a shrine built over a meteorite. I 81 d Ki-gul-la Ruin An The literal meaning is destroyed place’. The term also designates a type of person. B. Landsberger contrasted it with ki-sikil pure place’ (virgin) girl’ and understood it as the designation of a raped girl (ap. Jacobsen ap. Gordon 1959:477). The standard translation is waif ’. The literal meaning ts the present context. I 264 I 265 I 267 I 268 Bala -dEn-lil2 d Nin-lil2-da gal-di d Gu3-du10-ga d Ur-d a-ba4-ba4 d Enlil Balang Greatly Speaking with Ninlil Good oice Divine Ur ababa Enlil Enlil Ninlil Ninurta Ur- ababa was the last king of Kish at the turn from the ED III to the OAkk. periods. FM 9:53, an OB letter from Mari of a music instructor of asmah-Adad, king of Mari, mentions musical instruments and singles out MA2.TUR ur-zaba-bi-tum Sa-a m-si-Ya-as2-ma-ah-dAdad. The editor N. iegler suggests that MA2.TUR designates the soundbox of the named instrument. The name means My-sun- asmah-Addu’. The association with Ninurta and the use of the instrument by the singer (nar) is attested in lexical texts (CAD s.v. ur a a tum). I 269 d U3-ma-ni-sa2-di Achieving his Triumph Ninurta The name appears to refer to a victory celebration as told in the long song’ ( d da) of Ninurta (see 18). I 270 d U4-gu3-nun-di -voiced-Storm Ninurta The ad ective nun is conventionally translated princely’ according to the substantive nun, prince’; but, as here, the actual meaning of the ad ective must be di erent. I 272 I 273 d d Bala d Ad-he-nun Excellent through Balang Sound of Plenty Nusku Sadarnuna 627 Wolfgang Heimpel I 302 I 303 II 92 II 93 II 94 II 95 II 96 II 97 II 99 II 100 II 256 II 257 II 259 II 310 II 311 II 312 II 315 Un-ga- a6-ga Good among the People Nissaba Ha-mun-an-na Heaven’s Harmony Nissaba d Sa aa Heads-fallen-from-Hands Dingirmah d Kiri3- al Splendor Dingirmah u-KID-DU.DU d Ad-gi4-gi4 Adviser Dingirmah d min GU4.BALA ditto: Balang Bull Dingirmah d E2-kur-e diri Excellent Sanctuary Ekur Dingirmah d Nin-A-ru-ru Lady Aruru Dingirmah d a n n a Sprung from Princely Womb Ashgi d A a hu Fierce Panigara d anun-he2-du7 Ornament ganun (room) Marduk d En-nun-da al-la Wide Watch Marduk d Ga an d an na Lady Heaven’s Prayer arpanitu d Nin-e en Festival Lady Enki d Nin-e en-bala Balang Festival Lady Enki d E (4xA )- a2/ga/ a Enki d A-ru6 Sister-in-law Damgalnuna d d A-ru6 is mentioned in connection with Damgalnuna as lady of the Ab u’ (ga- a-an Ab- u) in lamentations, for example in the OB version of the Oratorio Elum Gusun (Nies 1315 I 26 Langdon 1919:208 ). II 316 II 343 II 344 Ur2-a-ru6 Nig2-na d Gi-i i-la2 d d Sister-in-law Lap Censer Torch Damgalnuna Gibil Gibil Censer and torch are examples of controlled re and thus apt names for balang that control the re god Gibil. III 49 III 50 III 51 An- ar2-a2-mu/ gu-an-na/Ša3-an-ba d Uri2 ki-kiri3- al Splendor (City of) Ur d Amar- dSin Bull Calf of Sin Nanna Nanna Nanna SbTU 3 (von Weiher 1988) 107 has dAmar- A.MU 2 dAmar- uba, Jasper Calf ’, instead of dAmar- dSin. Krebernik (RlA 8:365, Mondgott 3.3), suggests that this is the name of the third king of Ur. It would be an example of an instrument named after a king in addition to Ur ababitum. et the harp Calf of Sin is likely in direct reference to the moon-god. Another divinity dAmar- dSin is one of two calves of the weather-god (An:Anum III 254). 628 Balang-Gods III 52 III 53 III 54 III 55 Nanna-u um-mah U4-men-an-na d U4-kiri3- al-an-na d U4-e2- i-an-na d d Grand Dragon Nanna Heaven’s Crown Day Heaven’s Splendor Day Heaven’s good House Day Nanna Nanna Nanna Nanna Wiggermann 1992:169 172 treats the concept of personi ed days, the ud-beings’, especially the demonic personi cations of bad days, among them a group of seven that attack Nanna, the moon. The three balang-gods may well have been active on bad days, lamenting them and hoping for the return of the good days the balang-gods represent. Another balang-god named after a day serves Adad (III 261). III 56 III 59 III 60 III 62 III 63 III 85 III 153 III 154 III 155 III 156 III 157 III 158 An-na-hi-li-bi/ba Nin-da-gal- u151 d Nin-da-mah-di d i u d A2-mah-tuku d Ere -an- u d Du11-ga-na-ga-ti d Di-ku5-an-ki d E a an-ki d Di-ku5-si-sa2 d Kalam a d a kalam-ma d d Heaven’s Endearment Knowing well the Lady Grandly speaking with the Lady Club Strong-armed Eagle ueen Let me live by his Word Judge of Sky and Earth Decision of Sky and Earth Just Judge Homeland Consultant Consultant of the Homeland Nanna Ningal Ningal Ningublaga Ninugblaga Nin-MAR.KI Utu Utu Utu Utu Utu Utu KA 64. 5 secondary balangs of Utu (5 bala us2 dUtu-ke4 5 re-du-u2 dŠa2-maš). I I I I 12 13 14 15 A- a a na Ab2 a a na d a na d Ad-pa- i-mah-na d d Water on his risen heart Cow of his risen heart outh of his mighty raising sound of his mighty raising The paci cation of the risen heart’ was the main task of a balang-god. The semantic di erence between il2 in I 12 13 and i(g) in I 14 and 15 is unclear to me and so is the sense of the names in I 14 and 15. I 16 151 d Ha-mun-an-na Heaven’s Harmony Nindagal u is entered after the balang Ninigi ibara in the Mari god-list (Lambert 1985:183, lines 94 95). 629 Wolfgang Heimpel The names Harmony (dHa-mun in III 166) and Adviser (dAd-gi4-gi4 in III 167) of servant-gods in the temple Ebabbar are typical balang-god names and could be secondary balang-gods, yet only divine caretakers (udug) and attendants (gubba) are identi ed by temple name in An:Anum. A dei ed instrument dGi -ha-mun is mentioned in 23b2. III 260 III 261 III 262 III 263 III 264 III 265 I 73153 I 74 17 18154 30 31 100 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 168 152 153 154 Sur9-gal d U4-sur9-ra d Ug/piri 3-gu3-du10-ga d Ur5- a n x d Šeg10 mu-un-gi4-gi4 d Kiri3- al-kalam-ma d Nin-igi- i- bar-ra d Nin-si- ar-an-na d Kur-gul-gul d Ab2-ar2-he2-en- al2 d U6-nir-si-sa2 d n dugud d U ur-sa -kurra-dib-dib-be2 d U a a dib-dib-be2 d Gaba-hu gu2ubi ab u d U2bar/ba-ra ge-e -pu e2-ninnu d Kur-ra-hu -a-ninu-ku 2-u3 d Du11-ga-lugal-ani- a hun- a2 d Nita- i d Ka-ga-ni i d Sa n a d Nin-gal-( x )-KU d Nin- x x) -na d U4-men-xa d MA2-x-ba d Great Suru152 Day of the Suru Panther of Good oice his Thunder He Roars Splendor of Homeland Well regarded Lady Lady Heaven’s Bolt Mountainland Destroyer Cow Wealth Praise Just Temple Tower Heavy his Hand Hero Dragon passing through the Mountainland Hero Dragon passing through the Mountainland Fierce Breast Groundwater Ocean ubi (River) Bank Dragon of the Outback Grapple-hook of Eninnu Unrelenting his Terror in the Mountainland Spoken Words heartsoothing for his King Good Man Good his Mouth Adad Adad Adad Adad Adad Adad Inana Inana Lugalbanda Ninsun Lugal-Marada Lugal-Marada Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Ningirsu Baba Baba Baba Baba Damu The suru was a type of lamenter (see Section 3b). I 73 and 74 are restored from Emesal ocabulary I 87 88 (MSL 4:9). For the reading of the balang-gods of Lugalbanda and Ninsun see PHG:111n281. 630 Balang-Gods 186 187 199 200 279 291 Nin-gal Nin-he-nun-na d Up-lum d MIN-Eh d U ur-sa d a-ad-ma d d Great Lady Lady of Plenty Louse (Akk.) the same: Louse (Sum.) Hero Dragon The One from Before Gula Gula Manungal Manungal Tishpak Ishtaran The entry d a-ad-ma is preceded by names of the master-god Ishtaran and his vi ier udma. udma and adma are also listed as bull gods’ (di ir gu4) in An:Anum I 208 209. Little is known of their master-god Ishtaran. His word guided the Early Dynastic ruler En-Metena of Lagash at the erection of a boundary marker (RIME 1 9.5.1 I 10), and Ningirsu, the city-god of Girsu, refers to him as model administrator of city law (Gudea Cylinders A 10.24 26). He was the city-god of Der and ranked with Anu (see Lambert in RlA 5:211 Ishtaran ). The hinterland of Der at the foot of the Pusht-i-Kuh could well have been a habitat of aurochsen. 54 An:Anum I 362 The Greater Dada, the man sitting by the harp. May he sing forever of the ma esty of the gods 155 The entry is found in two manuscripts, one unprovenanced, the other N-A from Nineveh. The entry is unparalleled in An:Anum for making a statement in the form of a sentence. Gabbay (PHG:90) would understand it as a uotation from a literary text. I believe the scribe of the original of the two manuscripts was a lamenter who took the liberty to make an epitaph for his divine forefather, the greater Dada. The latter may have been the well-attested lamenter Dada of the Ur III period (Heimpel 1997). Michalowski described his career and characteri ed him as impresario and an exceptional gure in the Ur III elite hierarchy. 156 The scribe used Emesal Sumerian, the language used in oratorios, and produced an interesting verbal form. For the precative he used the Emesal form with /t/ instead of / /. The verbal preformative tu is phonetically good Emesal, albeit in unusual orthography for normal tu15. The reduplication of the base probably expresses continued success of his wish. The ending -a was perhaps meant to mark end of statement. The designation person sitting by( ) a balang (instrument ) has a surprising, probably accidental, parallel from an Ur III record of a roll call of craftsmen of the royal workshops in the kingdom of Ur III (UET 3 1476), where 155 156 Da-da gu-la lu2 balag-ga tu -a nam-mah di ir-e- ne tu-mu-un-du12-du12-a. Michalowski 2006:49 50. d 631 Wolfgang Heimpel two silversmiths (ku3-dim2) are titled with the occupation sitting balang’ ( bala -tu -a see n129 above and 34c). 55 An:Anum II 304 307 II 304 II 305 II 306 II 307 Du-un-ga NAR di ir nar-a-ke4 ilu a na a ri Du-un-ga SA MIN MIN d Gu3-du10-ga-lal3-bi dam-bi-sal d Lum-ha BALA di ir gala-ke4 d d These entries mean that Dunga’ is the pronunciation of the signs NAR and SA when writing the name of the god of the singer. That-Honey-good- oice (dGu3-du10-ga-lal3-bi) is the name of his wife, and Lumha is the pronunciation of the sign BALA when designating the name of the god of the lamenter. 632 Bibliography Abel, E. 1891. Scholia recentia in Pindari epinicia, vol. 1. Berlin. Ackerman, S. 2001. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Winona Lake. Adang, C. 1996. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Leiden. Ahl, F. 1985. Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets. Ithaca. Aign, B. 1963. Die Geschichte der Musikinstrumente des ägäischen Raumes bis um 700 vor Christus. Frankfurt am Main. Ainian, A. M. 1999. Re ections on Hero Cults. In Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, 21–23 April 1995, ed. R.-E. H gg, 9 36. Stockholm. Akurgal, E. 1962. The Art of the Hittites. New York. Al-Fouadi, A. H. 1976. Bassetki Statue with an Old Akkadian Royal Inscription of Naram-S n of Agade. Sumer 32:63 77. Albertz, R. 1994. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Louisville. Albright, W. F. 1927. Another Case of Egyptian û Coptic ê. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 62:64. ———. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. New Haven. ———. 1938. Review of J. Lassus, Inventaire archéologique de la région au nord-est de ama (Damas 1935). American Journal of Archaeology 42:592 593. ———. 1940. Islam and the Religions of the Ancient Orient. Journal of the American Oriental Society 60/3:283 301. ———. 1956. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 4th ed. Baltimore. ———. 1964. History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism. New York. Alexander, P. S. 1992. Targum, Targumim. In Freedman 1992 6:320 331. Alexiou, M. 2002. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. 2nd rev. ed. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham. Ali uot, J. 2009. La Vie religieuse au Liban sous l’Empire romain. Beirut. Allen, T. W. 1924. Homer: The Origins and the Transmission. Oxford. 633 Bibliography Allen, W. S. 1987. Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge. Alp, S. 1972. on a ci arinda arah a lar nda ulunan silindir e dam a m h rleri. Ankara. ———. 2000. Song, Music, and Dance of Hittites: Grapes and Wines in Anatolia During the Hittite Period. Ankara. Alster, B. and T. Oshima. 2007. Sargonic Dinner at Kane : The Old Assyrian Sargon Legend. Iraq 69:1 20. Amadasi, M. G. 1967. Le Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente. Rome. ———. 1982. In uence directe de la Mésopotamie sur les inscriptions en Phénicien. In eso otamien und seine ach arn Politische und ulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2 vols.), ed. H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger, 2:383 394. Berliner Beitr ge um orderen Orient 1. Berlin. Amadasi, M. G. and . Karageorghis. 1977. Fouilles de Kition III. Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia. Ambos, C. 2004. Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Dresden. Anastasiades, A. 2009. Behind Masks: The Artists of Dionysos in Ptolemaic Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 2009:195 204. Ane iri, S. 1994. wischen Musen und Hof: Die dionysischen Techniten auf ypern. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104:179 198. Aravantinos, . L. 1996. New Archaeological and Archival Discoveries at Mycenaean Thebes. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 41:135 136. Aravantinos, . L. et al. 2001. h es Fouilles de la adm e I es a lettes en lin aire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Pisa. ———. 2002. h es Fouilles de la adm e III or us des documents d archi es en linéaire B de Thèbes (1–433). Pisa. Archi, A. 1977. I Poteri della dea I tar urrita-ittita. Oriens Antiquus 16:297 311. ———. 1978 1979. Les Dieux d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire avant J. C. et les dieux d’Ugarit. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 29/30:167 171. ———. 1986a. The Archives of Ebla. In Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, ed. K. R. eenhof, 72 86. Istanbul. ———. 1986b. Die ersten ehn K nige von Ebla. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76:213 217. ———. 1987. Ebla and Eblaite. In Eblaitica 1, ed. C. H. Gordon et al., 7 17. Winona Lake. ———. 1988a. Cult of the Ancestors and Tutelary God at Ebla. In Fucus: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. . L. Arbeitman, 103 112. Amsterdam. 634 Bibliography ———. 1988b. Les Noms de personnes mariotes Ebla (III me millénaire). MARI, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4:53 58. ———, ed. 1988c. Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, July 15–17, 1985. Rome. ———. 1992. Transmission of the Mesopotamian Lexical and Literary Texts from Ebla. In Fron aroli 1992:1 29 and pl. 21 10. ———. 1993. How a Pantheon Forms: The Cases of Hattian-Hittite Anatolia and Ebla of the Third Millennium BC. In Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament, ed. B. Janowski et al., 1 18. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 129. Freiburg. ———. 1994. Studies in the Pantheon of Ebla. Orientalia 63:249 256. ———. 2001. The King-Lists from Ebla. In Historiography in the Cuneiform World I, ed. T. Abusch, 1 13. Bethesda. ———. 2006. Ebla in Its Geographical and Historical Context. In The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC, ed. G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, 96 109. Leiden. Archi, A. et al. 1988. Studies in Eblaite Prosopography. In Archi 1988c:205 306. Arnaud, D. 1986. Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI. Tome 3: Textes sumériens et accadiens. Synth se 18. Paris. ———. 1987. Recherches au pays d’Astata. Emar VI. Tome 4: Textes de la bibliothèque, transcriptions et traductions. Synth se no. 28. Paris. ———. 1994. Relecture de la liste sacri cielle RS 26.142. Studi Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici 34:107 109. ———. 1998. Prolégom nes la rédaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit II: Les Bordereaux de rois divinisés. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 41:153 173. ———. 2001. Textes administratifs religieux et profanes. In Les Textes alphabétiques en ougaritique, ed. P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, 323 332. Ras ShamraOugarit 14. Paris. ———. 2010. Textes du Levant en sumérien et en babylonien (IIIe-IIe millénaires): Lectures et relectures. Aula Orientalis 28/2:157 179. Art y, M. et al. 1976. Alasiya of the Amarna Letters. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35:171 182. Asher-Greve, J. M. and Westenhol , J. G. 2013. Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259. Fribourg. Assemani, J. S., ed. 1732 1746. Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant. 3 vols. Rome. Astour, M. C. 1964. Second Millennium B.C. Cypriot and Cretan Onomastica Reconsidered. Journal of the American Oriental Society 84/3:240 254. 635 Bibliography ———. 1965. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden. ———. 1966. Some New Divine Names from Ugarit. Journal of the American Oriental Society 86:277 284. str m, P., ed. 1992. Acta ria Acts of an International on ress on riote Archaeology Held in Göteborg on 22–24 August, 1991. 3 vols. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 107, 117, 120. Jonsered. Atallah, W. 1966. Adonis dans la littérature et l’art grecs. Paris. Attinger, P. 1993. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La Construction de du11/e/di ‘dire’. G ttingen. Attinger, P. and M. Krebernik. 2005. L’Hymne Hendursaga (Hendursaga A). In Rollinger 2005:21 104. Attridge, H. W. and R. A. Oden. 1981. Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History. Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes. Washington, DC. Aubet, M. 1993. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge. Aupert, P. 2000. Guide to Amathus. Nicosia. Aupert, P. and M.-C. Hellmann, eds. 1984. Amathonte I. Testimonia 1, Auteurs anciens, monnayage, voyageurs, fouilles, origines, géographie. Paris. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures 1955. Cambridge, MA. Averett, E. W. 2002 2004. Drumming for the Divine: A Female Tympanon Player from Cyprus. Muse 36 38:14 28. Avigad, N. 1978. The King’s Daughter and the Lyre. Israel Exploration Journal 28/3:146 151. Avio , M. 2015. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Book of Samuel. Library of Second Temple Studies 86. London Bachvarova, M. R. 2008. The Poet’s Point of iew and the Prehistory of the Iliad. In Collins et al. 2008:93 106. ———. 2008. “Sumerian Gala Priests and Eastern Mediterranean Returning Gods: Tragic Lamentation in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Suter 2008:18 52. ———. 2013. Adapting Mesopotamian Myth in Hurro-Hittite Rituals at Hattu a: I TAR, the Underworld, and the Legendary Kings. In Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski, 23 44. Atlanta. ———. Forthcoming. From Homer to Hittite: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic. Cambridge. Badalì, E. 1991. Strumenti musicali, musici e musica nella celebrazione delle feste ittite. Heidelberg. Baethgen, F. 1888. Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte: der Gott Israels und die Götter der Heiden. Berlin. 636 Bibliography Baldacci, M. 1992. Partially Published Eblaite Texts. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 40. Naples. Bardet, G. et al., eds. 1984. Archives administratives de Mari. Archives Royales de Mari 23. Paris. Barnett, R. D. 1935. The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians. Iraq 2/2:179 210. ———. 1939. Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1939:4 19. ———. 1969. New Facts about Musical Instruments from Ur. Iraq 31/2:96 103. Barr, J. 1974. Philo of Byblos and His Phoenician History. Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums 57:17 68. Barton k, A. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg. Bass, G. F. 1986. A Bron e Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Ka ): 1984 Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 90.3:269 296. Baudissin, W. W. 1911. Adonis und Esmun: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgötter und an Heilgötter. Leip ig. ———. 1912. Tammu bei den Harranern. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 66:171 188. Bauer, J. 1967. Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. PhD diss., JuliusMaximilians-Universit t W r burg. Baur, P. . C. and M. I. Rostovt e , ed. 1929 1952. The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Preliminary Report. 9 vols. New Haven. Baumgarten, A. 1981. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Leiden. Baurain, C. 1975 1976. Kinyras de Chypre, légende ou réalité histori ue. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 49:521 540. ———. 1980a. Kinyras. Une tymologie obscure. Onomata 5:7 12. ———. 1980b. Kinyras. La Fin de l’Age du Bron e Chypre et la tradition anti ue. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 104:277 308. ———. 1981. KINURAS et KERAMOS. L’Antiquité Classique 50:23 37. ———. 1981. Un Autre nom pour Amathonte de Chypre Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 105:361 372. ———. 1984. Ré exions sur les origines de la ville d’apr s les sources littéraires. In Amathonte I. Testimonia 1, Auteurs anciens, monnayage, voyageurs, fouilles, origines, géographie, ed. P. Aupert and M.-C. Hellmann, 109 117. Etudes Chypriotes 4. Paris. Bayer, B. 1968. The Biblical Nebel. Yuval: Studies of the Jewish Music Research Center 1:89 131. ———. 1982. The Finds That Could Not Be. Biblical Archaeology Review 8/1:20 33. Beal, R. H. 1992. The Location of Cilician Ura. Anatolian Studies 42:65 73. 637 Bibliography ———. 2002. Dividing a God. In Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. P. A. Mirecki and M. W. Meyer, 197 208. Leiden. Bea ley, J. D. 1928. Greek Vases in Poland. Oxford. Bechtel, F. 1921 1924. Die griechischen Dialekte. Berlin. Beckman, G. M. 1998. I tar of Nineveh Reconsidered. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50:1 10. ———. 2002a. Babyloniaca Hethitica: The babilili-Ritual’ from Boga k y (CTH 718). In Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, ed. H. A. Ho ner, 35 41. Winona Lake. ———. 2002b. My Sun-God’: Re ections of Mesopotamian Conceptions of Kingship among the Hittites. In Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena, ed. A. Panaino and G. Pettinato, 37 43. Melammu Symposia 3. Milan. ———. 2010. Mesopotamian Forerunners to the Babilili Ritual’ from Boga k y In Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Corum, August 25–31, 2008, ed. . Ha irlayan and A. S el. 2 vols. 1:109 120. Ankara. ———. 2014. The babilili-Ritual from Hattusa. Mesopotamian Civili ations 19. Winona Lake. Beckman, G. M. et al. 2011. The Ahhiyawa Texts. Atlanta. Beckman, G. M. and H. A. Ho ner. 1985. Hittite Fragments in American Collections. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 37/1:1 60. ———. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 7. Atlanta. Begg, C. T. 1997. David’s Transfer of the Ark according to Josephus. Bulletin for Biblical Research 7:11 36. Beekes, R. S. P. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden. Behn, F. 1954. Musikleben im Altertum und frühen Mittelalter. Stuttgart. Bell, J. M. 1984. God, Man, and Animal in Pindar’s Second Pythian. In Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, ed. D. E. Gerber, 1 31. Chico. Bellia, A. 2012. Il Canto delle vergini locresi: La Musica a Locri Epizefrii nelle fonti scritte e nelle documentazione archeologica (secoli VI-II a.C). Pisa. Bendall, L. M. 2003. A Reconsideration of the Northeastern Building at Pylos: Evidence for a Mycenaean Redistributive Center. American Journal of Archaeology 107/2:181 231. Ben , F. L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. A Catalog, Grammatical Study, and Glossary of Elements. Rome. Betancourt, P. P. and S. C. Ferrence, eds. 2011. Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly. Philadelphia. Bietak, M. 2005. The Setting of the Minoan Wall Paintings at Avaris. In Aegean Wall Paintin A ri ute to ar ameron, ed. L. Morgan, 83 90. London. 638 Bibliography Biga, M. G. 2003. A Ritual from Archive L.2712 of Ebla. In s.n. 2003:54 69. ———. 2006. La Musi ue Ebla. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 310:24 31. ———. 2011. La F te bla (Syrie, I e si cle av J.-C.). Journal Asiatique 299/2:479 494. Biga, M. G. and A. M. G. Capomacchia. 2012. I Testi di Ebla di ARET I: Una Rilettura alla luce dei testi paralleli. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 106:19 32. Biga, M. G. and F. Pomponio. 1987. I ar-Damu, roi d’Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1987/4:60 61 no. 106. Billigmeier, J.-C. and A. S. Dusing. 1981. The Origin and Function of the Naukrâroi at Athens. Transactions of the American Philological Association 111:11 16. Bing, J. D. 1971. Tarsus: A Forgotten Colony of Lindos. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30/2:99 109. Birney, K. J. 2007. Sea Peoples or Syrian Peddlers? The Late Bronze-Iron I Aegean Presence in Syria and Cilicia. PhD diss., Harvard University. Black, J. A. 1991. Eme-sal Cult Songs and Prayers. In Velles Paraules. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil, ed. P. Michalowski et al., 23 36. Aula Orientalis 9. Barcelona. Black, J. A. and A. Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. London. Blades, J. 1984. Percussion Instruments and Their History. Rev. ed. London. Blakely, S. 2006. Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and Recent Africa. Cambridge. Blau, J. 1977. Weak’ Phonetic Change and the Hebrew S n. Hebrew Annual Review 1:67 119. Blau, J. and J. C. Green eld. 1970. Ugaritic Glosses. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200:11 17. Blegen, C. W. and M. Lang. 1958. The Palace of Nestor Excavations of 1957. American Journal of Archaeology 62/2:175 191. Blegen, C. W. et al. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. 4 vols. Princeton. Bleibtreu, E. 1980. Die Flora der neuassyrischen Reliefs. Vienna. Blinkenberg, C. 1924. Le Temple de Paphos. Copenhagen. ———. 1931. Lindos. Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. I. Les Petits objets. Berlin. Boardman, J. 1971. THEIOS AOIDOS. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1971:37 42, pl. II III. ———. 1980. The Greeks Overseas. 2nd ed. London. ———. 1990. The Lyre-Player Group of Seals: An Encore. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1990:1 17. 639 Bibliography Boehmer, R.-M. 1965. Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin. Boisac , E. 1938. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Heidelberg. Boissonade, J. F. 1829 1833. Anecdota Graeca: E codicibus regiis. 5 vols. Paris. B mer, F. 1969 1986. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen: Kommentar. 2 vols. Heidelberg. Bonechi, M. 1992. Relations amicales syro-palestiniennes: Mari et Ha or au IIIe si cle av. J.C. In Recueil d’études en l’honneur de Michel Fleury, ed. J.-M. Durand, 9 22. Mémoires de NABU 2/Florilegium Marianum 1. Paris. Bonnet, C. 1993. Existe-t-il un B L GBL Byblos Ugarit-Forschungen 25:25 34. ———. 1996. Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques. Collezione di Studi Fenici 37. Rome. ———. 2009. De la prostitution sacrée dans l’Anti uité, et du bon usage de la démonstration en histoire. Les Études Classiques 77:171 177. Bordreuil, P. 1973. Une Inscription phénicienne champlevée des environs de Byblos. Semitica 27:23 27. Bordreuil, P., ed. 1991. Une Bibliotheque au sud de la ville: Les Textes de la 34e campagne (1973). Ras Shamra-Ougarit 7. Paris. Bordreuil, P. and D. Pardee. 1982. Le Rituel funéraire ougariti ue RS 34.126. Syria 59:121 128. Borgeaud, P. 1975. L’Absence d’Hépha stos. In Chypre des origines au moyen-âge: Séminaire interdisciplinaire, semestre d’été 1975, ed. D. van Berchem, 156 158. Geneva. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Gra . ———. 2004. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. M nster. Bos, G. et al. 2001. Hermetis Trismegisti Astrologica et Diuinatoria. Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 144C. Turnhout. Boscawen, W. S. C. 1893 1894. The Hebrew Legend of Civilisation in the Light of Recent Discovery. The Expository Times 5:351 356. Boson, G. 1936. Tavolette cuneiformi sumere. Milan. Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren. 1997 2006. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids. Bounni, A. 1981. Les Représentations d’Apollon en Palmyrene et dans le millieu Syrien. In Mythologie gréco-romaine, mythologies périphériques: Études d’iconographie: Paris, 17 mai 1979, ed. Kahil, L. and C. Augé, 107 112. Collo ues internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scienti ue 593. Paris. Bowersock, G. W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA. ———. 2000. Selected Papers on Late Antiquity. Bari. Bowra, C. M. 1964. Pindar. Oxford. 640 Bibliography Bratke, E. 1899. Das sogenannte Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden. Texte und Untersuchungen ur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 19/3 ( n.F 4/3). Leip ig. Braun, J. 1997. Musical Instruments. In Meyers 1997 4:70 79. Braun-Hol inger, E. A. 1991. Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit. Heidelberg. Braune, G. 1997. Küstenmusik in Südarabien: Die Lieder und Tänze an den jemenitischen Künsten des Arabischen Meeres. Frankfurt am Main. Breasted, J. H. 1906 1907. Ancient Records of t istorical ocuments from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 4 vols. Chicago. Brehm, A. 1911 1920. Die Vögel, Erster Band. Neubearbeitung von William Marshall, vollendet von F. Hempelmann und O. zur Strassen. Brehm’s Tierleben. Vierte, vollst ndi neu ear eitete Aufla e. 4 vols. Leip ig. Brillante, C. 1995. Amore sen a χά ι : Pind. Pyth’. II 42 48. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica n.s. 49/1:33 38. Brinkman, J. A. 1989. The Akkadian Words for Ionia’ and Ionian’. In Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S. J., ed. R. F. Sutton, 53 72. Wauconda, Illinois. Brinner, W. M. 2002. i es of the Pro hets as Recounted A Is ā A mad i n u ammad i n I rāh m al ha la . Leiden. Brisch, N., ed. 2008. Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Chicago. Brison, O. 2014. Nudity and Music in Anatolian Mythological Seduction Scenes and Iconographic Imagery. In Maurey et al. 2014:185 200. Brock, S. P. 2004. Without Mush of Nisibis, Where Would We Be Some Re ections on the Transmission of Syriac Literature. Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56.1 4:15 24. Brockelmann, C. 1899. Syrische Grammatik mit Litteratur, Chrestomathie und Glossar. Berlin. ———. 1966. Lexicon Syriacum. Hildesheim. Bron, F. 1979. Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe. Geneva. Brooke, A. E. and N. McLean, eds. 1906 1940. The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. Cambridge. Brown, E. L. 1981. The Origin of the Constellation Name Cynosura’. Orientalia n.s. 50:384 402. Brown, F. et al. 1962. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford. Brown, J. P. 1965. Kothar, Kinyras, and Kythereia. Journal of Semitic Studies 10:197 219. 641 Bibliography ———. 1968. Literary Contexts of the Common Hebrew-Greek ocabulary. Journal of Semitic Studies 13:163 191. ———. 1995. Israel and Hellas. Beihefte ur eitschrift f r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 231. Berlin. Brown, J. P. and S. Levin. 1986. The Ethnic Paradigm as a Pattern for Nominal Forms in Greek and Hebrew. General Linguistics 26/2:71 105. Brown, M. L. 1998. Was There a West Semitic Asklepios Ugarit-Forschungen 30:133 154. Brunke, H. and W. Sallaberger. 2010. Aromata f r Duft l. In Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Kleinerman and J. Sasson, 41 74. Bethesda. Bryce, T. R. 2002. Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford. Bubenik, M. 1974. Evidence for Alasi a in Linear B Texts. Phoenix 28:245 250. Buccellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III period. Naples. Buchhol , H.-G. 1966. T nerne Rasseln aus ypern. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1966:140 151. ———. 1990. Kyprische Eulenrasseln. Archaeolo ia ria 2:33 51. Buchhol , H. G. and J. Wiesner. 1977. Kriegswesen. Archaeologia Homerica 1.E. G ttingen. Buchner, G. and J. Boardman. 1966. Seals from Ischia and the Lyre-player Group. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 81:1 62. Buchner, G. and D. Ridgway. 1993. Pithekoussai I. 1 vol. in 3. Rome. Budge, E. A. W. 1886. The Book of the Bee, the Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, and Munich, with an English Translation. Oxford. ———. 1927. a arrath a he oo of the a e of reasures. London. Budin, S. L. 2002. Creating a Goddess of Sex. In Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus, ed. D. Bolger and N. Serwint, 315 324. Boston. ———. 2003. The Origin of Aphrodite. Bethesda. ———. 2008. The Myth of Sacred Prostitution. New York. Bundy, E. L. 1962. Studia Pindarica. Berkeley. Bunnens, G. 1979. L’Expansion phénicienne en méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. Brussels. Buonocore, M. 1989. Regium Iulium. Supplementa Italica 5:29 84. Burchardt, M. 1909 1910. Die altkanaanäischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen. Leip ig. Burgh, T. W. 2004. Who’s the Man ’ Sex and Gender in Iron Age Musical Performance. Near Eastern Archaeology 67/3:128 136. ———. 2006. Listening to the Artifacts: Music Culture in Ancient Palestine. New York. 642 Bibliography Burke, B. 2008. Mycenaean Memory and Bron e Age Lament. In Suter 2008:70 92. Burkert, W. 1972a. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1972b. Die Leistung eines Kreophylos. Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die archaische Heraklesepik. Museum Helveticum 29:74 85. ———. 1992. he rientali in Re olution ear astern Influence on Gree ulture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1994. Orpheus, Dionysos, und die Euneiden in Athen: Das eugnis von Euripides’ Hypsipyle. In Orchestra. Drama, Mythos, Bühne, ed. A. Bierl and P. von M llendor , 44 49. Stuttgart. ———. 1995. Lydia between East and West or How to Date the Tro an War: A Study in Herodotus. In Carter and Morris 1995:139 148. ———. 2004. Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture. Cambridge, MA. Burzik, M. 1995. uellenstudien u euro ischen u nstrumentenformen Methodenprobleme, kunsthistorische Aspekte und Fragen der Namenszuordnung. K lner Beitr ge ur Musikforschung 187. Kassel. Cagni, L. 1969. L’Epopea di Erra. Studi Semitici 34. Rome. Calder, W. M. 1928. Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua I. Manchester. ambel, H. 1999. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume 2: KaratepeAslanta he Inscri tions Facsimile dition. Berlin. Cameron, A. 2004. Greek Mythography in the Roman World. New York. Caminos, R. A. 1954. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. London. Campbell, A. F. 1975. The Ark Narrative, 1 Sam 4–6, 2 Sam 6: A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 16. Missoula. Campbell, D. 1982 1993. Greek Lyric. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library:142 144, 461, 476. Cambridge, MA. Cannavo, A. 2011. Histoire de Chypre à l’époque archaïque. PhD diss., Université de Lyon. Capomacchia, A. M. G. 1984. Il Mito di Myrrha: Aspetti del rapporto tra cultura classica ed Oriente. In s.n. 1984:95 102. Ca uot, A. 1976. La Tablette RS 24.252 et la uestion des Rephaim ougariti ues. Syria 53:295 304. ———. 1979. La Littérature ugariti ue. In Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, ed. H. Ca elles and A. Feuillet, 9:1361 1417. Paris. ———. 1985. Une Nouvelle interprétation de KTU 1.19 (1 19). tudi i ra ci e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 2:93 114. Ca uot, A. and M. S nycer. 1980. Ugaritic Religion. Leiden. 643 Bibliography Ca uot, A. et al. 1974. Textes ougaritiques. I: Mythes et légendes. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 7. Paris. Carlucci, G. 2009. L’Ipsa dello pseudo-Artemidoro. Quaderni di Storia 70:387 407. Carratelli, G. P. 1939 1940. Per la storia delle associa ioni in Rodi antica. Annuario della Regia Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 1 2:147 200. Carruba, O. 1968. Contributo alla storia di Cipro nel II millennio. Studi Classici e Orientali 17:5 29. Carter, J. B. and S. P. Morris, eds. 1995. The Ages of Homer. A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. Austin. Cassio, A. C. 2000. Esametri or ci, dialetto attico e musica dell’asia minore. In Synaulía: Cultura musicale in Grecia e contatti mediterranei, ed. A. C. Cassio et al., 97 110. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Se ione Filologico-Letteraria. uaderni 5. Naples. ———. 2012. Kypris, Kythereia and the Fifth Book of the Iliad. In Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry, ed. Montanari, F. et al., 413 426. Cassuto, U. 1943. The Reception of Ba’al in the Ugaritic Tablet AB. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 10:47 54. ———. 1961. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. Jerusalem. ———. 1971. The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age. Jerusalem. Castellino, G. R. 1972. Two Šulgi Hymns (BC). Rome. Catagnoti, A. 1989. I NE.DI nei testi amministrativi degli archivi di Ebla. Miscellanea Eblaitica 2:149 201. Catagnoti, A. and M. Bonechi. 1998. Magic and Divination at III Millennium Ebla, 1. Textual Typologies and Preliminary Lexical Approach. tudi i ra ci e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 15:17 39. Cataudella, M. R. 1971. Ka-Ma. Studi sulla società agraria micenea. Rome. Catling, H. W. 1963. Patterns of Settlement in Bron e Age Cyprus. Opuscula Atheniensia 4:129 169. ———. 1964. Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford. ———. 1971. A Cypriot Bron e Statuette in the Bomford Collection. In Schae er 1971:14 32. Caubet, A. 1987. La Musi ue Ougarit. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 131/4:731 754. ———. 1987. Chante en l’honneur de Ba’al. Le Monde de la Bible 48:33. ———. 1994. La Musi ue du Levant au bron e récent. In La Pluridisciplinarité en archéologie musicale. IVe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie musicale de l’ICTM, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 8–12 octobre 1990, ed. s.n., 129 135. Paris. 644 Bibliography ———. 1996. La Musi ue Ougarit: Nouveaux témoignages matériels. In Wyatt et al. 1996:9 31. ———. 1999. Chantes et devins: Deux cas de prati ues de la musi ue Ougarit. In ‘Schnittpunkt’ Ugarit, ed. M. Kropp and A. Wagner, 9 29. Frankfurt am Main. ———. 2014. Musical Practices and Instruments in Late Bron e Age Ugarit (Syria). In Maurey et al. 2014:172 184. Cavigneaux, A. 1998. Sur le balag Urumma’irabi et le Rituel de Mari. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1998/2:46 no. 43. Cayla, J.-B. 2001. propos de Kinyras. Nouvelle lecture d’une épicl se d’Apollon Chypre. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 31:69 81. ———. 2005. Apollon ou la vie sauvage: propos de uel ues épicl ses d’Apollon Chypre. In Nommer les dieux: Théonymes, épithètes, épiclèses dans l’antiquité, ed. N. Belayche, 227 240. Turnhout. Cerchiai, L. and M. L. Nava. 2008 2009. Uno Scarabeo del Lyre-Player Group da Monte etrano (Salerno). AION. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientali di Napoli 15 16:101 108. Cesnola, L. P. di. 1877. Cyprus, Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples: A Narrative of Researches and Excavations during Ten Years’ Residence as American Consul in that Island. London. ———. 1885. A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 1. Sculpture. New York. ———. 1894. A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 2. Terracotta. New York. ———. 1903. A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquties in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 3. Alabaster, Bronze, Faience, Glass, Inscription, Seals, etc. New York. Chabot, J. B., ed. 1899 1924. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Paris. ———. 1918. Punica. Journal Asiatique 1918:249 302. ———. 1940 1941. Recueil des inscriptions libyques; Rédigé et publié. Paris. Chadwick, J. 1975. Who Was E-ke-ra2-wo In Le Monde grec: Pensée, littérature, histoire, documents: Hommages à Claire Préaux, ed. J. Bingen et al., 450 453. Brussels. Chaniotis, A. 1990. ur Frage der Spe ialisierung im griechischen Theater des Hellenismus und der Kaiser eit. Ktema: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome Antique 15:89 108. ———. 2013. Memories of Early Crete. In Kreta in der geometrischen und archaischen Zeit. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums am Deutschen 645 Bibliography Archäologischen Institut, Abteilung Athen, 27.29. Januar 2006, Berlin, ed. W.-D. Niemeier et al., 1 18. Munich. Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayer. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Pro ect. T bingen. Charpin, D. 1978. Recherches sur la Dynastie de Manan (I): Essai de localisation et de chronologie. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 72:13 40. Charpin, D. and N. iegler. 2003. Mari et le proche-orient à l’époque amorrite: Essai d’historie politique. Florilegium Marianum 5. Paris. Chat i annou, K. 1971 2001. archaia ros eis tas ell ni as as. 5 vols. in 7. Leukosia. Chat is, A. 1914. Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos. Leben, Schriftstellerei und Fragmente, mit Ausschluss der Aristotelesbiographie. Paederborn. Chavane, M.-J. and M. on. 1978. Testimonia Salaminia 1. Première, deuxième et troisième parties. Salamine de Chypre 10. Paris. Cheng, J. 2001. Assyrian Music as Represented and Representations of Assyrian Music. PhD diss., Harvard University. Chiera, F. 1929. Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur. Oriental Institute Publications 11. Chicago. Chilton, B. D. 1990. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Collegeville. Chuvin, P. 1991. Mythologie et géographie dionysiaques: Recherches sur l’œuvre de Nonnos de Panopolis. Clermont-Ferrand. Chwolsohn, D. 1856. Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus. St. Petersburg. Civil, M. 1987a. An Inscription of Ishbi-Erra. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1987/2:14 15 no. 28. ———. 1987b. The Tigidlu and a Musical Instrument. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1987/2:27 no. 48. ———. 1989. The Texts from Meskene-Emar. Aula Orientalis 7:5 25. ———. 2004. The Series DIRI = (w)atru. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 15. Rome. ———. 2008. The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A: Archaic HAR-ra A. Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi 4. Rome. ———. 2010. The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Bethesda. Clapham, L. R. 1969. Sanchuniathon: The First Two Cycles. PhD diss., Harvard University. Clare, R. J. 2002. The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. 646 Bibliography Clauss, J. J. 1993. he est of the Ar onauts he Rede nition of the ic ero in oo 1 of Apollonius’s Argonautica. Hellenistic Culture and Society 10. Berkeley. Clay, D. 2004. Archilochos eros he ult of Poets in the Gree Polis. Washington, DC. Clemen, C. 1939. Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. Leip ig. Clemens, D. M. 1993. KTU 1.108.3 5 (RS 24.252): d r mr UgaritForschungen 25:63 74. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1885 1907. Recueil d’archéologie orientale. 8 vols. Paris. Cline, E. H. 1994. ailin the Wine ar ea International rade and the ate ron e Age Aegean. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 591. Oxford. ———. 2005. Cyprus and Alashiya: One and the Same Archaeology Odyssey September/October:41 44. ———. 2007. Rethinking Mycenaean International Trade with Egypt and the Near East. In Galaty and Parkinson 2007:190 200. ———. 2014. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton. Cochavi-Rainey, . 2003. The Alashia Texts from the 14th and 13th Centuries BCE: A Textual and Linguistic Study. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 289. M nster. Cogan, M. 2000. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 10. New York. Cogan, M. and I. Eph’al, eds. 1991. Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem. Cohen, C. 1979. Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Sa . Israel Oriental Studies 9:32 48. Cohen, M. E. 1974. Balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second and First Millennium B.C. Sources from the Ancient Near East 1, 2. Malibu. ———. 1981. Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma. Hebrew Union College Annual, Supplements 2. Cincinnati. ———. 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda. Cohen, . 2010. The Second Glosses’ in the Lexical Lists from Emar: West Semitic or Akkadian In Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Volume 1, Part 2, ed. L. Kogan et al., 813 839. Winona Lake. Coldstream, J. N. 1986. The Originality of Ancient Cypriot Art. Nicosia. ———. 1989. Status Symbols in Cyprus in the Eleventh Century BC. In Peltenburg 1989:325 335. ———. 1994. What Sort of Aegean Migration In Karageorghis 1994:143 147. Coletti, M. L. 1996 1998. Cinara. In Enciclopedia oraziana, ed. s.n., 1:689 670. Rome. Collins, B. J. 2007. The Hittites and Their World. Atlanta. 647 Bibliography Collins, B. J. et al., eds. 2008. Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbors in Ancient Anatolia. Oxford. Collon, D. 1982. The Alalakh Cylinder Seals. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 132. Oxford. ———. 1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago. ———. 2006. La Musi ue en Mésopotamie. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 310:6 14. Connelly, J. B. 1991. Continuity and Change: The Cypriot otive Tradition and the Hellenistic Koine. In andenabeele and La neur 1991:93 100 and pl. I - I. ———. 2011. Ritual Movement Through Greek Sacred Space: Towards an Archaeology of Performance. In Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean: Agency, Emotion, Gender, Reception, ed. A. Chaniotis, 313 346. Stuttgart. Constantinides, C. N. and R. Browning. 1993. Dated Greek Manuscripts from Cyprus to the Year 1570. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 30. Washington, D. C. Conti, G. 1988. Osserva ioni sulla se ione KA della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea Eblaitica 1:35 77. ———. 1990. Il Sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea Eblaitica 3. Florence. Cooper, A. 1981. Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts. In Ras Shamra Parallels III: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. R. Fisher, 3:333 469. Rome. Cooper, J. S. 1978. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur. Analecta Orientalia 52. Rome. ———. 1983. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore. ———. 1993. Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia. In Matsushima 1993:81 96. ———. 2006. Genre, Gender, and the Sumerian Lamentation. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58:39 47. Corrigan, K. A. 1992. Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters. Cambridge. Cosgrove, C. H. 2006. Clement of Alexandria and Early Christian Music. Journal of Early Christian Studies 14/3:255 282. Costa, . 2004. I Frammenti di Filocoro tr diti da Boccaccio e da Natale Conti. In Ricerche di antichità e tradizione classica, ed. E. Lan illotta, 117 147. Rome. Courtois, J.-C. 1971. Le Sanctuaire du Dieu au Lingot d’Enkomi-Alasia. In Schae er 1971:151 362. Courtois, J.-C. and Webb, J. M. 1987. Les Cylindres-sceaux d’Enkomi: fouilles françaises 1957–1970. Nicosia. Creese, D. E. 2010. The Monochord in Ancient Greek Harmonic Science. Cambridge. 648 Bibliography Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, E. A., eds. 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford. Cross, F. M. 1972. An Interpretation of the Nora Stone. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208:13 19. ———. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1974. Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit. Harvard Theological Review 67:1 15. ———. 1998. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore. Cross, F. M. and D. N. Freedman. 1955. The Song of Miriam. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14/4:237 250. Crowley, J. L. 2013. The Iconography of Aegean Seals. Leuven. Csapo, E. 2004. The Politics of the New Music. In Music and the Muses. The Culture of ‘Mousikê’ in the Classical Athenian City, ed. P. Murray and P. Wilson, 207 248. Oxford. Culican, W. 1982. Cesnola 4555 and other Phoenician Bowls. Rivista di Studi Fenici 10:13 32. Cureton, W. 1855. icile ium riacum ontainin Remains of ardesan eliton Ambrose, and Mara bar Serapion. London. Currie, B. 2005. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford. Currie, G. I. Forthcoming. Representations of Musical Instruments in By antine and Post-By antine Iconography. In Musical Instruments in Greece from Antiquity to the Modern Era, ed. A. outira. Athens. Curtiss, S. I. 1903. Ursemitische Religion im Volksleben des heutigen Orients: Forschungen und Funde aus Syrien und Palästina. Leip ig. D’Agostino, F. 1988. Die ersten 14 eilen des sog. -m e’-Textes aus Abu Salabikh und die Bedeutung des Wortes -m e. Oriens Antiquus 27:75 83. D’Albiac, C. 1992. Some Aspects of the Sphinx in Cyprus: Status and Character. In Ioannides 1992:285 290 and pl. LI LIII. D’Acunto, M. 2009. Efesto e le sue crea ioni nel III libro dell’ Iliade. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Sezione Filologico-Letteraria 31:145 198. Dahood, M. 1963. An Allusion to Koshar in E ekiel 33, 32. Biblica 44:531 532. ———. 1966 1970. Psalms. Introduction, Tanslation, and Notes. Garden City. Dalley, S. 1987. Near Eastern Patron Deities of Mining and Smelting in the Late Bron e and Early Iron Ages. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1987:60 66. Dalley, S. et al. 1998. The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Oxford. 649 Bibliography Damon, C. 1999. The Trial of Cn. Piso in Tacitus’ Annals and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre: New Light on Narrative Techni ue. American Journal of Philology 120/1:143 162. Danthine, H. 1937. Le Palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’Asie occidentale ancienne. Biblioth ue Archéologi ue et Histori ue 25. Paris. Das ewski, W. A. et al. 1988. Mosaic Floors in Cyprus. Biblioteca di Felix Ravenna’ 3. Ravenna. Davies, N. de G. 1908. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part VI. Tombs of Parennefer, Tutu, and Aÿ. London. de Martino, S. 1987. Il Lessico musicale ittita II: GI dINANNA cetra. Oriens Antiquus 26:171 185. ———. 1992. Die mantischen Texte. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkm ler I/7. Rome. ———. 2002. Song and Singing in the Hittite Literary Evidence. In Hickmann et al. 2002:623 629. de Moor, J. C. 1969. Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra I. Ugarit-Forschungen 1:167 188. ———. 1970. The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 2:187 228. de Sar ec, E. 1884 1912. Découvertes en Chaldée. 2 vols. Paris. de Vaux, R. 1961. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. London. Deger-Jalkot y, S. 1994. The Post-Palatial Period of Greece: An Aegean Prelude to the 11th Century BC in Cyprus. In Karageorghis 1994:11 30. Deimel, A. 1922. Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen. Wissenschaftliche er entlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 40. Leip ig. ———. 1924. Die Inschriften von Fara III: Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara. Wissenschaftliche er entlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 45. Leip ig. del Olmo Lete, G. 1984. Interpretación de la mitología cananea: estudios de semántica ugarítica. Valencia. ———. 1992. La Religion cananea segun la liturgia de Ugarit. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 3. Barcelona. ———. 1999. Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Bethesda. Desideri, P. and A. M. Jasink. 1990. Cilicia: dall’età di Kizzuwatna alla conquista macedone. Turin. Dessenne, A. 1957. e hin tude icono ra hi ue es ri ines la n du econd Millénaire. Paris. Detienne, M. 1994. he Gardens of Adonis ices in Gree tholo . 2nd ed. Princeton. De ale, S. C. 1988. Musical Instruments and Ritual: A Systematic Approach. Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 14:126 160. 650 Bibliography Dever, W. G. 2005. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids. Diakono , I. M. 1990. The Importance of Ebla for History and Linguistics. In Eblaitica 2, ed. C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, 2:3 30. Winona Lake. Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship. Oxford. Diehl, E. 1940. FUERUNT ANTE HOMERUM POETAE. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 89/2:81 114. Dietrich, B. C. 1978. Some Evidence from Cyprus of Apolline Cult in the Bron e Age. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 121:1 18. Dietrich, M. and O. Loret . 1966. Die so iale Struktur von Alalak und Ugarit I: Berufsbe eichnungen mit der hurritischen Endung - uli. Die Welt des Orients 3:188 205. ———. 1969a. Die so iale Struktur von Alala und Ugarit : Die Weing rten des Gebiets von Alala im 15. Jahrhundert. Ugarit-Forschungen 1:37 64. ———. 1969b. Beschriftete Lungen, und Leber-Modelle aus Ugarit. In Ugaritica 6 (eds. C. F.-A. Schae er and A. Parrot):165 179. Paris. ———. 1981. Neue Studien u den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 13:63 100. ———. 1989. Rapi’u und Milku aus Ugarit: Neuere historisch-geographische Thesen u rpu mlk ‘lm (KTU 1.108:1) und mt rpi (KTU 1.17 I 1). UgaritForschungen 21:123 131. Di kstra, M. 1979. Some Re ections on the Legend of A hat. Ugarit-Forschungen 11:199 210. Di kstra, M. and J. C. de Moor. 1975. Problematical Passages in the Legend of A h tu. Ugarit-Forschungen 7:171 215. Dikaios, P. 1936 1937. An Iron Age Painted Amphora in the Cyprus Museum. Annual of the British School at Athens 37:56 72 and pl. 57 58. ———. 1961. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum. Nicosia. ———. 1962. The Bron e Statue of a Horned God from Enkomi. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1962:1 40. ———. 1969 1971. Enkomi: Excavations 1948–1958. Mainz am Rhein. Diller, A. 1935. The Text History of the Bibliotheca of Pseudo-Apollodorus. Transactions of the American Philological Association 66:296 313. Dindorf, W. 1835 1838. Aristophanis comœdiæ. 4 vols. Oxford. Dirven, L. 1999. The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria. Leiden. Donceel, R. 1966. Recherches et travaux archéologi ues récents au Liban. L’Antiquité Classique 35:222 261. Dossin, G. 1938. Un Rituel du culte d’I tar provenant de Mari. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 35:1 13. 651 Bibliography ———. 1969. Trois inscriptions cunéiformes de Byblos. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 45:243 255. Dossin, G. et al. 1964. Textes divers. Transcrits, traduits et commentés. Archives Royales de Mari 13. Paris. Dothan, M. 1970. The Musicians of Ashdod. Archaeology 23:310 311. ———. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations: 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. 2 vols. Ati ot, English Series 9 10. Jerusalem. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven. Dothan, T. and M. Dothan. 1992. People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York. Doubleday, . 1999. The Frame Drum in the Middle East: Women, Musical Instruments and Power. Ethnomusicology 43/1:101 134. Dover, K. J. 1968. Aristophanes Clouds. Oxford. Dra korn (Kilmer), A. 1959. urrians and urrian at Aala An thno in uistic Analysis. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Dri vers, H. J. W. 1966. Bardaisan of Edessa. Assen. Drower, E. S. 1937. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Leiden. Drower, E. S. and R. Macuch. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford. Duchesne-Guillemin, M. 1969. La Harpe plectre iranienne: Son origine et sa di usion. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28:109 115. ———. 1989. Sur la lyre-kithara géante. In Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, ed. L. de Meyer and E. Haerinck, 128 134. Gent. ———. 1999. L’Animal sur la cithare: Nouvelle lumi re sur l’origine sumérienne de la cithare grec ue. Acta Iranica 34:203 237. Dué, C. 2006. The Captive Woman’s Lament in Greek Tragedy. Austin. Duent er, H. 1848. De Zenodoti studiis Homericis. G ttingen. Dugand, J.-E. 1973. Chypre et Cana’an: Essai sur l’élément oriental à Chypre dans l’antiquite, notamment en matière de toponymie. Nice. ———. 1974. Aphrodite-Astarté (de l’étymologie du nom d’Aphrodite). In omma e Pierre Far ues Philolo ie litt ratures et histoire anciennes, ed. s.n., 73 98. Annales de la Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines de Nice 21. Paris. Dumbrill, R. J. 2000. The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. London. Dumbrill, R. J. and I. L. Finkel, eds. 2010. ICONEA 2008: Proceedings of the International Conference of Near Eastern Archaeomusicology Held at the British Museum December 4, 5, and 6, 2008. London. 652 Bibliography Du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1962. Les Tessères et les monnaies de Palmyre: Un Art, une culture et une philosophie grecs dans les moules d’une cité et d’une religion sémitiques. Paris. Dunbabin, T. J. 1948. The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B.C. Oxford. Dunn- aturi, A.-E. 2003. Dancers in the Louvre: The Iranian and Cypriot Collections. Near Eastern Archaeology 66/3:106 110. Dupont-Sommer, A. 1974. Les Phéniciens Chypre. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1974:75 94. Dupont-Sommer, A. and J. Starcky. 1958. es Inscri tions aram ennes de r st les I et II. Extraits des Mémoires Présentés par Divers Savants l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 15. Paris. Durand, J.-M. 1983. Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du Palais de Mari. Archives Royales de Mari 21. Paris. ———. 1988. Archives épistolaires de Mari 1/1. Archives Royales de Mari 26. Paris. ———. 1992. Unité et diversité au Proche-Orient l’épo ue amorrite. In La Circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien Actes de la IIIe Rencontre ass riolo i ue internationale Paris juillet 1991) (eds. D. Charpin and F. Joann s) 97 128. Paris. ———. 1997. Les Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. 3 vols. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 16 18. Paris. Durand, J.-M. and J.-R. Kupper, eds. 1985. iscellanea a lonica lan es o erts à Maurice Birot. Paris. Durante, M. 1971 1974. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. 2 vols. Incunabula Graeca 50, 64. Rome. Durrell, L. 1959. Bitter Lemons. New York. Dussaud, R. 1945. Les Religions des Hittites et des Hourrites, des Phéniciens et des Syriens. Paris. ———. 1950. Kinyras. tude sur les anciens cultes chypriotes. Syria 27:57 81. ———. 1954. Review of H. Otten, Ein kanaan ischer Mythus aus Boga k y’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 1 (1953), 124 150. Syria 31:145 147. Dyson, J. T. 1998 1999. Myrrha’s Catabasis. The Classical Journal 94/2:163 167. Ebeling, E. 1919. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Leip ig. ———. 1922. Ein Hymnen-Katalog aus Assur. Berliner Beiträge zur Keilschriftforschung 1/3:1 32. Eck, W. et al. 1996. Das Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre. Munich. Edgerton, W. F. and J. A. Wilson. 1936. Historical Records of Ramses III. Chicago. Edwards, R. B. 1979. Kadmos the Phoenician: A Study in Greek Legends of the Mycenaean Age. Amsterdam. 653 Bibliography Egetmeyer, M. 2010. The Recent Debate on Eteocypriote People and Language. Pasiphae 3:69 90. ———. 2012. Sprechen Sie Golgisch ’ Anmerkungen u einer bersehenen Sprache. In tudes m c niennes Actes du IIIe collo ue international sur les textes égéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre, 20–23 septembre 2010, ed. P. Carlier, 427 434. Biblioteca di Pasiphae 10. Pisa. Egetmeyer, M. and A. Hint e. 1992. Wörterbuch zu den Inschriften im kyprischen Syllabar. Berlin. Ego, B. 1996. Targum scheni zu Ester: Übersetzung, Kommentar und theologische Deutung. Texte und Studien um Antiken Judentum 54. T bingen. Eichmann, R. 1988. ur Konstruktion und Spielhaltung der altorientalischen Spie lauten. on den Anf ngen bis in die seleukidisch-parthische eit. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19:583 625. ———. 1994. Koptische Lauten. Eine musikarchäologische Untersuchung von sieben Langhalslauten des 3.–9. Jh. n. Chr. aus Ägypten. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 27. Mainz am Rhein. ———. 2001. Musik und Migration. In Migration und Kulturtransfer. Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. Zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, ed. R. Eichmann and H. Par inger, 473 483. Bonn. Ellenbogen, M. 1962. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology. London. Ellermeier, F. 1970. Beitr ge ur Fr hgeschichte altorientalischer Saiteninstrumenten. In Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch,75 90. T bingen. Elayi, J. 2009. Byblos, cité sacrée (8e-4e s. av. J.-C.). Transeuphrat ne supplément 15. Paris. Ellis, R. S. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven. Emerit, S., ed. 2013. Le Statut du musicien dans la Méditerranée ancienne: Égypte, Mésopotamie, Grèce, Rome. Actes de la table ronde internationale tenue a Lyon Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (université Lumière Lyon 2) les 4 et 5 juillet 2008, Lyon. Biblioth ue d’étude 159. Paris. Emerton, J. A. 1982. Some Notes on the Ugaritic Counterpart of the Arabic ghain. In Studies in Philology in Honour of Ronald James Williams: A Festschrift, ed. G. E. Kadish and G. E. Freeman, 31 50. Toronto. Engel, C. 1870. The Music of the Most Ancient Nations. London. Engel, W. H. 1841. ros ine ono ra hie. 2 vols. Berlin. Englund, R. and R. M. Boehmer. 1994. Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk: The Early Campaigns. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 5. Berlin. Englund, R. and H. Nissen. 1993. Die lexikalischen Listen der archaischen Texte aus Uruk. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 3. Berlin. 654 Bibliography Erickson, K. 2011. Apollo-Nab : the Babylonian Policy of Antiochus I. In Seleucid Dissolution: the Sinking of the Anchor, ed. K. Erickson and G. Ramsey, 51 65. Philippika 50. Wiesbaden. Esin, U. 2002. Darstellungen von wei Musikinstrumenten aus Anatolien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In Hickmann et al. 2002:513 518. Etter, A., ed. 1986. O-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin. Evans, A. 1921 1936. The Palace of Minos. 3 vols. London. Falkenstein, A. 1956. Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. 3 vols. Abhandlungen, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, n.F. 39, 40, 44. Munich. ———. 1959. Sumerische Götterlieder. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1959/1. Heidelberg. ———. 1966. Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš. I: Einleitung. Analecta Orientalia 30. Rome. Falkenstein, A. and L. Matou . 1934. ur 3. Tafel der Serie diri DIR siia u = watru. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 42:144 151. Falkenstein, A. and W. von Soden. 1953. Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. rich. Falsone, G. 1988. La Fenicia come centro di lavora ione del bron o nell’et del Ferro. Dialoghi di Archeologia 6:79 110. Faraone, C. A. and D. Obbink. 2013. The Getty Hexameters: Poetry, Magic, and Mystery in Ancient Selinous. Oxford. Fariselli, A. C. 2007. Musica e dan a in contesto fenicio e punico. Itineraria 6:9 46. ———. 2010. Dan e regali’ e dan e popolari’ fra Levante fenicio e Occidente punico. In Per una storia dei popoli senza note. Atti dell’Atelier del Dottorato di ricerca in Musicologia e Beni musicali (F. A. Gallo, Ravenna, 15–17 ottobre 2007), ed. P. Dess , 13 28. Bologna. Farmer, H. G. 1928. Ibn urd bih on Musical Instruments. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3:509 518. ———. 1929. A istor of Ara ian usic to the IIIth entur . London. Farnell, L. R. 1896 1909. The Cults of the Greek States. 5 vols. Oxford. ———. 1921. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford. ———. 1930 1932. The Works of Pindar. 3 vols. London. Faucounau, J. 1994. The Cypro-Minoan Scripts: A Reappraisal Fifty ears after John F. Daniel’s Paper. Archaeolo ia ria 3:93 106. Feliu, L. 2003. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19. Leiden. Févrer, J.-G. 1956. La Grande inscription dédicatoire de Mactar. Semitica 6:15 31. 655 Bibliography Finkel, I. L. and M. J. Geller, eds. 1997. Sumerian Gods and Their Representation. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen. Finkelberg, M. 1991. Royal Succession in Heroic Greece. Classical Quarterly 41:303 316. ———. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition. Cambridge. ———. 2011. The Homer Encyclopedia. Oxford. Finkelstein, J. J. 1955. Subartu and Subarians in Old Babylonian Sources. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 9/1:1 7. ———. 1966. The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20:95 118. Fisher, L. R. 1963. The Temple uarter. Journal of Semitic Studies 34 41. Fit myer, J. A. 1995. he Aramaic Inscri tions of e re Rev. ed. Rome. Fleming, D. E. 1992. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion. Atlanta. Flinker, N. 1980. Cinyras, Myrrha, and Adonis: Father-Daughter Incest from Ovid to Milton. Milton Studies 14:59 74. Flourent os, P. 1992. Wind Musical Instruments from Ancient Cyprus. In str m 1992 1:41 47. ———. 1996. Cyprus Heritage: The Art of Ancient Cyprus as Exhibited at The Cyprus Museum. Limassol. Flower, M. A. 1994. Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C. Oxford. Fontenrose, J. E. 1981. Orion: The Myth of the Hunter and the Huntress. Classical Studies 23. Berkeley. Forbes Irving, P. M. C. 1990. Metamorphosis in Greek Myths. Oxford. Ford, A. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca. Fortin, M. 1980. Fondation de villes grec ues Chypre: Légendes et decouvertes archéologi ues. In lan es d tudes anciennes o erts aurice e el, ed. J.-B. Caron et al., 25 44. St-Jean-Chrysost me. Foster, B. R. 1993. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 vols. Bethesda. ———. 2005. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda. Foster, K. P. 1979. Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age. New Haven. Fournet, A. 2013. The Eteocypriot Languages and Hurrian. Lille. Fourrier, S. and G. Grivaud, eds. 2006. Identités croisées en un milieu méditerranéen: Le Cas de Chypre (antiquité–Moyen Âge). Mont-Saint-Aignan. Foxvog, D. A. 2011. Aspects of Name-Giving in Presargonic Lagash. In Heimpel 2011:59 97. 656 Bibliography Foxvog, D. A. and A. D. Kilmer. 1979 1988. Music. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. G. W. Bromiley) 4 vols. 3:436 449. Grand Rapids. Franceschetti, A. 2008. Musici e strumenti musicali alle corti micenee. In Sacconi et al. 2008:309 321. Frankfort, H. 1948. Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago. ———. 1970. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. New York. Franklin, J. C. 2002a. Diatonic Music in Greece: A Reassessment of Its Anti uity. Mnemosyne 56/1:669 702. ———. 2002b. Harmony in Greek and Indo-Iranian Cosmology. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 30/1 2:1 25. ———. 2002c. Terpander: The Invention of Music in the Orientalizing Period. PhD diss., University College London. ———. 2003. The Language of Musical Techni ue in Greek Epic Diction. Gaia 7:295 307. ———. 2006a. Lyre Gods of the Bron e Age Musical Koine. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 6.2:39 70. ———. 2006b. The Wisdom of the Lyre: Soundings in Greece, Cyprus and the Ancient Near East. In Hickmann et al. 2006:379 398. ———. 2008. A Feast of Music’. The Greco-Lydian Musical Movement on the Assyrian Periphery. In Collins et al. 2008:193 204. ———. 2010. Remembering Music in Early Greece. In The Historiography of Music in Global Perspective, ed. S. Mirelman, 9 50. Piscataway. ———. 2011a. Music. In Finkelberg 2011: s.v. ———. 2011b. Phorminx. In Finkelberg 2011: s.v. ———. 2012. The Lesbian Singers: Towards a Reconstruction of Hellanicus’ Karneian Victors. In Poesia, musica e agoni nella Grecia antica, ed. D. Castaldo et al., 2 vols., 720 764. Galatina. ———. 2013. Song-Benders of Circular Choruses’: Dithyramb and the Demise of Music’. In Dithyramb in Context, ed. P. Wilson and B. Kowal ig, 213 236. Oxford. ———. 2014. Greek Epic and Kypriaka: Why Cyprus Matters’. In Maurey et al. 2014:213 247. ———. Forthcoming. Kinyras and the Musical Stratigraphy of Early Cyprus. In Musical Traditions in the Middle East: Reminiscences of a Distant Past, ed. G. van den Berg and T. Krispi n. Piscataway. ———. Forthcoming. The Middle Muse: Mesopotamian Echoes in Early Greek Music. ———. Forthcoming. The Stormy Seas of Cyprus: The Poetics of Eastern Wandering in Greek Epic. 657 Bibliography Franzmann, M. 1991. The Odes of Solomon: An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form. G ttingen. Fraser, P. M. 1979. Lycophron on Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1979:328 343. Frayne, D. R. 1998. New Light on the Reign of Ishme-Dagan. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 88:6 44. Fra er, J. G. 1914. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Part IV. Adonis Attis Osiris. 3rd ed. 2 vols. London. ———. 1921. Apollodorus. The Library. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Freedman, D. N. 1976. Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry. In Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross et al., 55 107. Garden City. Freedman, D. N., ed. 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New ork. Freedman, H. and M. Simon. 1983. Midrash Rabbah. London. Friedman, R. E. 1980. The Mr h Tablet from Ugarit. Maarav 2/2:187 206. ———. 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? Englewood Cli s. Friedrich, J. H. and W. R llig. 1970. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Analecta Orientalia 46. Rome. Friedrich, J. H. et al. 1999. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome. Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg. Frit , . 1978. Kinneret und Ginnosar: oruntersuchung f r eine Ausgrabung auf dem Tell el-’Or me am See Gene areth. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 94:32 45. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 1975. dale tholo ie de l artisan en Gr ce ancienne. Paris. Fron aroli, P. 1980. Un erdetto reale. Studi Eblaiti 3/3 4:33 52. ———. 1984. Eblaic Lexicon: Problems and Appraisal. Quaderni di Semitistica 13:117 157. ———. 1988. Il Culto dei re defunti in ARET 3.178. Miscellanea Eblaitica 1:1 33. ———. 1989. A proposito del culto dei re defunti a Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1989/1:1 2 no. 2. ———. 1991. Noms de fonction dans les textes rituels d’Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1991/2:32 34 no. 49. ———. 1992. The Ritual Texts of Ebla. In Fron aroli 1992:163 185. ———. 1997. Divina ione a Ebla (TM.76.G.86). Miscellanea Eblaitica 4:1 22. Fronzaroli, P., ed. 1992. Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. Florence. Fronzaroli, P. and A. Catagnoti. 1993. Testi rituali della regalità (archivio L.2769). Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi 11. Rome. Fu ii, T. 2013. Imperial Cult and Imperial Representation in Roman Cyprus. Stuttgart. 658 Bibliography Furley, W. D. and J. M. Bremer. 2001. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. T bingen. Gabbay, U. 2008. The Akkadian Word for Third Gender:’ The kalû (gala) Once Again. In Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. R. D. Biggs et al., 49 56. Chicago. ———. 2010. The Ancient Mesopotamian Sistrum and Its References in Cuneiform Literature: The Identi cation of the SEM and ME E. In Dumbrill and Finkel 2010:23 28. ———. 2011. Laments in Gar ana. In ar ana tudies, ed. D. I. Owen, 67 74. Cornell Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda. ———. 2013. We Are Going to the House in Prayer’. Theology, Cultic Topography, and Cosmology in the Emesal Prayers of Ancient Mesopotamia. In Heaven on Earth: Temples, Ritual and the Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World, ed. D. Ragavan, 223 244. Chicago. ———. 2014. The Bala Instrument and Its Role in the Cult of Ancient Mesopotamia. In Maurey et al. 2014:128 147. Gaber, P. Forthcoming. The Iconography of Goddess Worship in the Ancient Near East. In “Better is a Book than a Well-built House.” Essays in Honor of James M. Weinstein, ed. J. orn. Gadotti, A. 2010. The Nar and Gala in Sumerian Literary Texts. In Shehata and Pru sins ky 2010:51 65. Gaifman, M. 2008. The Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East. In The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, ed. T. Kai er, 37 72. Leiden. ———. 2012. Aniconism in Greek Antiquity. Oxford. Galaty, M. L. and W. A. Parkinson, eds. 2007. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II. Rev. and exp. 2nd ed. Los Angeles. Gallavotti, C. 1961. Note sul lessico miceneo. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 39:160 179. ———. 1976. Alasios e Kuprios nei documenti micenei. In Studi ciprioti e rapporti di scavo 2, ed. s.n., 51 58. Rome. Galpin, F. W. 1936. The Music of the Sumerians and Their Immediate Successors the Babylonians and Assyrians. Cambridge. Gant , T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore. Gant , T. N. 1978. Pindar’s Second Pythian: The Myth of Ixion. Hermes 14 26. Gant ert, M. 2008. Emar Lexical Texts. PhD diss., University of Leiden. Gardiner, A. H. 1937. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies. Brussels. Garland, R. 2001. The Greek Way of Death. 2nd ed. Ithaca. Garr, W. R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. Philadelphia. 659 Bibliography Gaster, T. H. 1936 1937. Notes on the Song of the Sea’. The Expository Times 48:45. ———. 1961. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd rev. ed. Garden City. Gelb, I. J. 1952. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 1. Sargonic Texts from the Diyala Region. Chicago. ———. 1961. The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15/1:27 47. ———. 1975. Homo Ludens in Early Mesopotamia. Studia Orientalia 46:43 76. Gelb, I. J. 1980. Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Chicago. Gelb, I. J. and B. Kienast. 1990. Die Altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7. Stuttgart. Gelb, I. J. et al. 1989 1991. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. 2 vols. Oriental Institute Publications 104. Chicago. Gen , H. 2010. Re ections on the Early Bron e Age I in Lebanon. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May 5th–10th 2008, “Sapienza”-Università di Roma, ed. P. Matthiae et al., 2:205 217. Wiesbaden. Gentili, B. 1992. Pindarica’ III. La Pitica’ 2 e il carme iporchematico di Castore (fr. 105 a-b Maehler). Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica n.s. 40/1:49 55. George, A. R. 1993. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civili ations 5. Winona Lake. ———. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford. Georges, P. 1994. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience. Baltimore. Gérard-Rousseau, M. 1968. Les Mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes. Rome. Gesche, H. 1974. Nikokles von Paphos und Nikokreon von Salamis. Chiron 4:103 123. Gese, H. et al. 1970. Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer. Stuttgart. Gildersleeve, B. L. 1907. Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes. London. Gilula, D. 2000. Stratonicus, the Witty Harpist. In Athenaeus and His World, ed. D. Braund and J. Wilkins, 423 433. Exeter. Ginsberg, H. L. 1935. The ictory of the Land-God over the Sea-God. Journal of the Palestinian Oriental Society 15:327 333. ———. 1938. Women Singers and Wailers among the Northern Canaanites. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 72:13 15. Giovino, M. 2007. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. Fribourg. Giu rida, M. 1996. Echi ciprioti in Pindaro. Kokalos 42:283 301. 660 Bibliography Given, M. 1998. Inventing the Eteocypriots: Imperialist Archaeology and the Manipulation of Ethnic Identity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11.1:3 29. G erstad, E. 1944. The Coloni ation of Cyprus in Greek Legend. Opuscula Archaeologica 3:107 123. ———. 1946. Decorated Metal Bowls from Cyprus. Opuscula Archaeologica 4:1 18. ———. 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4/2. Stockholm. Glover, S. 1981. The Cults of Apollo in Cyprus: A Preliminary Study. In Studies in Cypriote Archaeology, ed. J. Biers and D. Soren, 145 151. Los Angeles. Goet e, A. 1928. Madduwatta . Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 32/1:36 37 and 140. ———. 1958. Remarks on Some Names Occurring in the Execration Texts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 151:28 33. Goldhill, S. 1991. he Poet s oice ssa s on Poetics and Gree iterature. Cambridge. Goldman, H. 1935. Preliminary Expedition to Cilicia, 1934, and Excavations at G l Kule, Tarsus, 1935. American Journal of Archaeology 39/4:526 549. Gomi, T. 1981. Neo-Sumerian Administrative Tablets in the British Museum, II. Acta Sumerologica 3:149 184. Good, R. M. 1991. On RS 24.252. Ugarit-Forschungen 23:155 160. Gordon, C. H. 1965a. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome. ———. 1965b. The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations. New York. ———. 1966. arit and inoan rete he earin of heir e ts on the ri ins of Western Culture. New York. ———. 1997. Ugaritic Phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa, ed. A. S. Kaye, 49 54. Winona Lake. Gordon, E. I. 1959. Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Philadelphia. Goren, . et al. 2003. The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence from Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Tablets from El-Amarna and Ugarit. American Journal of Archaeology 107/2:233 255. G rg, M. 1981. Die K nigstochter und die Leier. Biblische Notizen 14:7 10. Gorman, J. 2003. Reading and Theorizing Women’s Sexualities: The Representation of Women in the Acts of anthi e and Pol ena PhD diss., Temple University. Gostoli, A. 1990. Terpandro: Introduzione, testimonianze, testo critico, traduzione e commento. Rome. Gow, A. S. F. 1965. Machon. Cambridge. Grainger, J. D. 1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford. 661 Bibliography Green, L. 1992. Asiatic Musicians and the Court of Akhenaten. In Contacts between Cultures: West Asia and North Africa, Selected Papers from the 33rd Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Toronto, August 15–25, 1990, ed. K. I. Koppedrayer et al., 215 220. Lewiston. Green, M. W. and H. J. Nissen. 1987. Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 2/Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 11. Berlin. Green, P. 1991. Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley. Greenberg, M. 1983. Ezekiel 1–20. A New Translation, Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 22. Garden City. Green eld, J. C. 1965. Stylistic Aspects of the Se re Treaty Inscriptions. Acta Orientalia 29:1 18. ———. 1973. Un Rite religieux araméen et ses parall les. Revue Biblique 80:46 52. ———. 1974. The Mar eah as a Social Institution. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22:423 435. ———. 1987. Larnax t s Lapethou III Revisited. In Lipi ski 1987:391 401. Grinsell, L. . 1990. Some Sacred Trees and Rag-Bushes in Cyprus. Folklore 101 2:228. Grivaud, G. 1998. illa es d sert s h re n IIe n I e si cle Meletai kai Ipomnimata 3. Nicosia. Gr ndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome. Groom, N. 1981. Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade. London. Grottanelli, C. 1984. Da Myrrha alla mirra: Adonis e il profumo dei re siriani. In s.n. 1984:35 60. Gruppe, O. 1906. Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte. M nchen. Guillemin, M. and J. Duchesne. 1935. Sur l’origine asiati ue de la cithare grec ue. L’Antiquité Classique 4:117 124. G ntert, H. 1914. Über Reimwortbildungen im Arischen und Altgriechischen: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. Heidelberg. Gurney, O. R. 1962. Tammu Reconsidered: Some Recent Developments. Journal of Semitic Studies 7:147 160. ———. 1977. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford. G terbock, H. G. 1948. Hittite ersion of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners of Hesiod. American Journal of Archaeology 52/1:123 134. ———. 1951. The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the Hittite ersion of a Hurrian Myth. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5/4:135 161. ———. 1960. An Outline of the Hittite AN.TA . UM Festival. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19/2:80 89. 662 Bibliography ———. 1967. The Hittite Con uest of Cyprus Reconsidered. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26/2:73 81. ———. 1995. Re ections on the Musical Instruments arkammi, galgalturi, and u u al in Hittite. In Studio historiae ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occcasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. T. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos, 57 72. Istanbul. G terbock, H. G. and T. Jacobsen, eds. 1965. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 21, 1965. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago. Haas, . 1982. Hethitische Berggötter und hurritische Steindämonen. Riten, Kulte und Mythen. Eine Einführung in die altkleinasiatischen religiösen Vorstellungen. Mainz am Rhein. ———. 1984. ie erien it a i und it al i des A Priesters Rituale f r a mi arri und atu e a so ie eitere e te mit e u auf a mi arri. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkm ler I/1. Rome. ———. 1994. Geschichte der hethitische Religion. Leiden. Haas, . and I. Wegner. 1988. Die Rituale der Beschwörerinnen SALŠU.GI. 2 vols. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkm ler I/5. Rome. Haas, . and G. Wilhelm. 1974. Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna. Kevelaer. Hadas, M. 1953. Three Greek Romances. Garden City. Had ikyriakou, G. N. 2007. Aromatic and Spicy Plants in Cyprus from Antiquity to Present Day. Nicosia. Had ioannou, K. 1971. On the Identi cation of the Horned God of EngomiAlasia. In Schae er 1971:33 42. Had isavvas, S. 1992. Olive Oil Production and Divine Protection. In str m 1992 3:233 249. ———. 1993. li e il Processin in rus From the ron e A e to the antine Period. Nicosia. ———. 1996. Alassa: A Regional Center of Alasia In Late Bronze Age Settlement in rus Function and Relationshi , ed. P. str m and E. Herscher, 23 38. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 126. Jonsered. Hagel, S. 2005. Is Nid abli Dorian Baghdader Mitteilungen 36:287 348. ———. 2009. Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History. Cambridge. H gg, T. 1973. Photius at Work: Evidence from the Bibliotheca. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 14:213 222. ———. 1975. Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur: Untersuchungen zur Technik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Bibliotheke. Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 8. Stockholm. Hall, E. 1989. In entin the ar arian Gree elf e nition throu h ra ed . Oxford. 663 Bibliography Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge. Hallo, W. W. 1963. Royal Hymns and Mesopotamian Unity. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17:112 118. Halpern, B. 2004. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids. Halton, T. 1983. Clement’s Lyre: A Broken String, a New Song. The Second Century. A Journal of Early Christian Studies 3:177 199. Hammond, N. G. L. 1983. Three Historians of Alexander the Great: The So-Called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin, and Curtius. Cambridge. Hardie, P. 1985. Imago mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:11 31. Harrington, D. J., ed. 1976. Pseudo-Philo. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum. Paris. Harris, . S. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven. ———. 1939. Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History. New Haven. Harrison, T., ed. 2008. Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change. Scripta Mediterranea 27 28. Toronto. Hartmann, H. 1960. Die Musik der sumerischen Kultur. Frankfurt am Main. Hava, J. G. 1964. al-Faraid Arabic-English Dictionary. Beirut. Hawkins, J. D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume 1. Berlin. ———. 2009. Cilicia, the Amu , and Aleppo: New Light on a Dark Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4:164 173. Head, B. . et al. 1911. Historia numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Oxford. Healey, J. F. 1978. MLKM/RP’UM and the Kispum. Ugarit-Forschungen 10:89 91. Heckel, W. 2006. Ma aeus, Callisthenes, and the Alexander Sarcophagus. Historia 55:385 396. Heckel, W. and J. C. ardley. 1997. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Books 11–12, Alexander the Great. Oxford. Heimpel, W. 1981. The Nanshe Hymn. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33:65 139. ———. 1995. Plow Animal Inspection Records from Ur III Girsu and Umma. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 8:71 171. ———. 1996. The Gates of Eninnu. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48:17 29. ———. 1997. A Famous Harpist. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997/4:126 no. 137. ———. 1998. A Circumambulation Rite. Acta Sumerologica 20:13 16. ———. 1998. Harp Gods. Unpublished paper circulated by author. ———. 2009. Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. Cornell Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 5. Bethesda. ———. 2014. LAK 41 and Sb 41. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2014/1:1 2 no. 1. 664 Bibliography Heimpel, W., ed. 2011. trin s and hreads A ele ration of the Wor of Anne ra orn Kilmer. Winona Lake. Helck, W. 1955. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Heft 17. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis’ III. und Amenophis’ II. Leip ig. ———. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend vor Christus. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden. ———. 1989. Grunds t liches ur sog. Syllabischen Schreibung’. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 16:121 143. Helm, R. 1984. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Berlin. Helt er, M. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit: Royal ServiceSystem, Taxes, Royal Economy, Army and Administration. Wiesbaden. Hemmerdinger, B. 1970. De la méconnaissance de uel ues étymologies grec ues. Glotta 48:40 66. Henry, W. B. 2005. Pindar’s Nemeans: A Selection. Munich. Henshaw, R. A. 1993. Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel, the Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 31. Allison Park. Hercher, R. 1851. u Apollodors Bibliothek. Philologus 6:571 575. Herdner, A. 1963. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10/Bibliothe ue Archeologi ue et Histori ue 79. Paris. ———. 1978. Nouveaux textes alphabéti ues de Ras-Shamra I e campagne. In Ugaritica 7, ed. A.-I.-F. Al-Ouche, 1 74. Paris. Hermary, A. 1989. Musee du Louvre. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre. Sculptures. Paris. Herrmann, W. 1973. ttrt- r. Die Welt des Orients 7/1:135 136. Her og, R. 1899. Koische Forschungen und Funde. Leip ig. Hespel, R. and R. Draguet. 1981 1982. Livre des scolies: Recension de Séert. Louvain. Heubeck, A. 1958. Griech. βασιλε ς und das eichen Nr. 16 in Linear B. Indogermanische Forschungen 63:113 138. ———. 1959. Lydiaka: Untersuchungen zu Schrift, Sprache und Götternamen der Lyder. Erlangen. ———. 1961. Praegraeca: Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum vorgriechischindogermanischen Substrat. Erlangen. Heubner, H. 1963 1982. P. Cornelius Tacitus. Die Historien: Kommentar. 5 vols. Heidelberg. Heyden, K. 2006. Die christliche Geschichte des Philippos von Side: Mit einem kommentierten Katalog der Fragmente. In Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik, ed. M. Wallra , 209 243. Berlin. Heyne, C. G. 1803. Ad Apollodori Bibliothecam observationes. G ttingen. 665 Bibliography Hickmann, E. et al., eds. 2000. usi arch olo ie fr her etall eiten ortr e des 1. Symposiums der International Study Group on Music Archaeology im Kloster Michaelstein, 18–24 Mai 1998. Rahden. Hickmann, E. et al., eds. 2002. Archäologie früher Klangerzeugung und Tonordnungen. Arch ologie fr her Klanger eugung und Tonordnungen. Rahden. Hickmann, E. et al., eds. 2006. Musikarchäologie im Kontext: Archäologische Befunde, historische Zusammenhänge, soziokulturelle Beziehungen. Studien zur Musikarch ologie 5/Orient-Arch ologie 20. Rahden. Hickmann, H. 1954a. Dieux et déesses de la musi ue. Cahiers d’Histoire Égyptienne 6/1:31 59. ———. 1954b. Le Métier de musicien. Cahiers d’Histoire Égyptienne 6/5 6:299 314. ———. 1961. gypten und orderasien im musikalischen Austausch. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 111:23 41. ———. 1970. Die Musik des arabisch-islamischen Bereichs. In Spuler 1970:1 134 Hicks, E. L. 1891. Inscriptions from Western Cilicia. Journal of Hellenic Studies 12:225 273. Higgins, R. A. and R. P. Winnington-Ingram. 1965. Lute-Players in Greek Art. Journal of Hellenic Studies 85:62 71. Hiller, S. 1979. Ka-ko na-wi-o: Notes on Interdependence of Temple and Bron e in the Aegean Late Bron e Age. In Ernst and M hlestein 1979:189 193. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. et al., eds. 1906. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin. Himmelhoch, L. 1990 1991. The Use of the Ethnics a-ra-si- o and ku-pi-ri- o in Linear B Texts. Minos 25 26:91 104. Hoch, J. E. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton. Ho man, G. 1896. Aram ische Inschriften aus N rab bei Aleppo. Neue und alte G tter. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 9:237 292. Ho ner, H. A. 1967. Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew . Journal of Biblical Literature 86/4:385 401. ———. 1988. The Song of Silver: A Member of the Kumarbi Cycle of Songs’. In Documentum Asiae Minoris antiquae: Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. E. Neu and C. R ster, 143 166. Wiesbaden. Ho ner, H. A. and G. M. Beckman. 1998. Hittite Myths. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 2. Atlanta. Hofstra, S. 2000. Small Things Considered: The Finds from LH IIIB Pylos in Context. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin. Hofti er, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden. Hogarth, D. G. 1889. Devia Cypria: Notes of an Archaeological Journey in Cyprus in 1888. London. 666 Bibliography ———. 1896. A Wandering Scholar in the Levant. 2nd ed. London. Holmes, . L. 1971. The Location of Alashiya. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91:426 429. Holst-Warhaft, G. 1992. Dangerous Voices: Women’s Laments and Greek Literature. London. Honeyman, A. M. 1938. arna t s a ethou A Third Phoenician Inscription. Le Muséon 51:285 298. Hopkins, D. 1985. Nature’s Laws and Man’s: The Story of Cinyras and Myrrha in Ovid and Dryden. The Modern Language Review 80/4:786 801. Horowit , W. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civili ations 8. Winona Lake. ———. 2006. A Late Babylonian Tablet with Concentric Circles from the University Museum (CBS 1766). Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30:37 53. Horowit , W. and S. Shnider. 2009. Return to CBS 1766. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2009/1:7 9 no. 6. Howard-Carter, T. 1987. Dilmun: At Sea or Not at Sea Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39:57 117. Hro ny, B. 1917. ie rache der ethiter Ihr au und ihre u eh ri eit um indo ermanischen rachstamm in nt i erun s ersuch. Leip ig. Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J. 1961. The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period. Leiden. H bner, U. 1992. Der Tan um die Ascheren. Ugarit-Forschungen 24:121 132. Huehnergard, J. 2008. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Rev. ed. Winona Lake. Hu mon, H. B. 1965. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore. Hutchinson, G. O. 2006. Propertius, Elegies Book IV. Cambridge. Huxley, G. L. 1960. Theopompos and Melia. La Parola del Passato 15:57 58. ———. 1966. The Early Ionians. New York. Iacovou, M. 1988. The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B.C. Cyprus. G teborg. ———. 1999. The Greek Exodus to Cyprus: The Anti uity of Hellenism. Mediterranean Historical Review 14/2:1 28. ———. 2005. Cyprus at the Dawn of the First Millenium BC: Cultural Homogenisation versus the Tyranny of Ethnic Identi cations. In Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. J. Clarke, 125 134. Oxford. ———. 2006a. From the Mycenaean A-SI-RE-U to the Cypriote PA-SI-LEWO-SE: The Basileus in the Kingdoms of Cyprus. In Ancient Greece: From 667 Bibliography the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, ed. S. Deger-Jalkot y and I. S. Lemos, 315 335. Edinburgh. ———. 2006b. Greeks’, Phoenicians’ and Eteocypriots’: Ethnic Identities in the Cypriote Kingdoms. In ‘Sweet Land … ’: Lectures on the History and Culture of Cyprus, ed. J. Chrysostomides and C. Dendrinos, 27 59. Camberley. ———. 2008. Cyprus: From Migration to Hellenisation. In Greek Colonization: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, ed. G. R. Tsetskhlad e, 2:219 288. Leiden. Ingholt, H. et al. 1955. Recueil des tessères de Palmyre. Biblioth ue archéologi ue et histori ue 58. Paris. Ioannides, G. C., ed. 1992. Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis. Leuosia. Ivanov, . . 1999. An Ancient Name of the Lyre. Archiv Orientální 67:585 600. Jacobsen, T. 1973. Notes on Nintur. Orientalia n.s. 42:274 298. ———. 1975. Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, 65 97. Baltimore. ———. 1987. The Harps that Once … Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven. Jacobson, H. 1996. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation. Leiden. Jager, R. M. 2000. Traditionelle Musik auf ypern. In Zypern: Insel im Brennpunkt der Kulturen, ed. S. Rogge, 269 284. Schriften des Instituts f r Interdis iplinare ypern-Studien 1. M nster. James, M. R., ed. 1893. Apocrypha anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments Now First Edited from Manuscripts. Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 2.3. Cambridge. James, P. and M. A. van der Slui s. 2012. Silver’: A Hurrian Phaethon. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 12/2:237 251. Jan, K. von 1882. Die griechischen Saiteninstrumente. Leip ig. Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns. Cambridge. Jasink, A. M. 2001. Presen e micenee e greche nella Cilicia preclassica. In tudi in onore di ichele ataudella, ed. M. R. Cataudella and S. Bianchetti, 599 620. La Spe ia. ———. 2010. The Role of Cyprus and the Mycenaean/Greek Presence in the Island from the End of the Bron e Age to the First Phases of the Iron Age. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 52:149 167. ———. 2013. The G ksu River alley from Late Bron e to Iron Age: Local Cultures, External In uences, and Relations with Foreign Peoples. In Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches, ed. M. C. Ho and R. F. Townsend, 12 26. Oxford. 668 Bibliography Jasink, A. M. and M. Marino. 2007. The West Anatolian Origins of the ue Kingdom Dynasty. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49:407 426. Jaussen, A. and R. Savignac. 1909 1920. Mission archéologique en Arabie: Mars-mai 1907. Paris. Jean, C.-F. 1923. Sumer et Akkad. Contribution a I’histoire de la civilisation dans la Basse-Mésopotamie. Paris. ———. 1931. La Religion sumérienne, d’après les documents sumériens antérieurs à la dynastie d’Isin (–2186). Paris. Jenkins, J. 1969. A Short Note on African Lyres in Use Today. Iraq 31/2:103 and pl. III. Jide ian, N. 1968. Byblos through the Ages. Beirut. Jirku, A. 1960. Gab es eine pal stinisch-syrische Gottheit Kinneret Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72:69. ———. 1963. Der kyprische Heros Kinyras und der syrische Gott Kinaru(m). Forschungen und Fortschritte 37:211. ———. 1965. Rapa’u, der F rst der Rapa’uma-Rephaim. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77:82 83. Joann s, F. 1985. Nouveaux mémorandums. In Durand and Kupper 1985:97 113. Johnson, J. 1980. Maroni de Chypre. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 59. G teborg. Johnson, T. 2004. A Symposion of Praise: Horace Returns to Lyric in Odes IV. Madison. Johnston, S. I., ed. 2004. Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Cambridge, MA. Jones, G. H. 1990. The Nathan Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 80. She eld. Jones, I. H. 1992. Music and Musical Instruments. In Freedman 1992 4:930 939. Jones, P. 2003. Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123/2:291 302. Jones, T. B. and J. W. Snyder. 1961. Sumerian Economic Texts from the Third Ur Dynasty. Minneapolis. Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie. Paris. Jouan, F. 1966. Euripide et les legends des chants cypriens. Paris. Jugie, M. 1929 1930. Poésies rhythmi ues de Nicéphore Calliste anthopoulos. Byzantion. Revue Internationale des Études Byzantines 5:362 390. K. Lawson ounger, J., ed. 2007. Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Winona Lake. Kai er, T. 2008. The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 164. Leiden. Kammenhuber, A. 1990. Marduk und Santa in der hethitischen berlieferung des 2. Jt.s v. Chr. Orientalia 59:188 195. Kapera, . J. 1966. Terakotowa ota Kinyrasa. Filomata 194:195 202. 669 Bibliography ———. 1969. Die Terrakotta otte des Kinyras. Bibliotheca Classica Orientalis 14:45 46. ———. 1970. A Terracotta Model of a Sea-Barge. Rozprawy i Sprawozdiana Muzeum Norodowego w Krakowie 10:39 51. ———. 1971. Kinyras and the Son of Mygdalion. Two Remarks on the Ancient Cypriot Onomastica. Folia Orientalia 13:130 142. ———. 1972. Remarks on the Early History of the Kingdom of Paphos. In Karageorghis and Christodoulos 1972:191 199. Karageorghis, J. 1977. La Grande déesse de Chypre et son culte à travers l’iconographie de l’époque néolithique au VIème s.a.C. Lyon. ———. 1988. L’Apport des gloses notre connaissance du dialecte chyprien ancien. In Karageorghis and Masson 1988:181 198. ———. 2005. Kypris: The Aphrodite of Cyprus. Ancient Sources and Archaeological Evidence. Nicosia. Karageorghis, J. and . Karageorghis. 2002. The Great Goddess of Cyprus or the Genesis of Aphrodite in Cyprus. In Parpola and Whiting 2002 1:263 282. Karageorghis, J. and O. Masson, eds. 1988. The History of the Greek Language in Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Symposium sponsored by the Pierides Foundation, Larnaca, Cyprus, 8–13 September 1986. Nicosia. Karageorghis, . 1960. Chroni ue des fouilles Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 84/1:242 299. ———. 1967. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis. Salamis olume 3. Nicosia. ———. 1969. Salamis: Recent Discoveries in Cyprus. New York. ———. 1976a. The Civilization of Prehistoric Cyprus. Athens. ———. 1976b. ition cenaean and Phoenician isco eries in rus. London. ———. ed. 1979. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations et een rus and rete ca icosia th A ril nd A ril Nicosia. ———. 1980a. Fouilles l’Ancienne-Paphos de Chypre: Les Premiers colons grecs. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 124/1:122 136. ———. 1980b. Kypriaka . Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1980:128 135 and pl. 117 119. ———, ed. 1986. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident,’ Nicosia, 8–14 September 1985. Nicosia. ———. 1993. Erotica from Salamis. Rivista di Studi Fenici 21, Supplement:7 13. ———, ed. 1994. Cyprus in the 11th Century B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Nicosia, 30–31 October 1993. Nicosia. ———. 1998. Greek Gods and Heroes in Ancient Cyprus. Athens. 670 Bibliography ———. 1999a. A Cypriot Silver Bowl Reconsidered. I. The Iconography of the Decoration. Metropolitan Museum Journal 34:13 20. ———. 1999b. Excavating at Salamis in Cyprus, 1952–1974. Athens. ———. 2002a. Ancient Art from Cyprus in the Collection of George and Nefeli Giabra Pierides. Nicosia. ———. 2002b. Early Cyprus, Crossroads of the Mediterranean. Los Angeles. ———. 2003. The Cyprus Collections in the Medelhavsmuseet. Nicosia. Karageorghis, . and A. Christodoulos, eds. 1972. Acts of the First International Congress of Cypriot Studies. Nicosia. April 14–19, 1969. Nicosia. Karageorghis, . et al. 2000. Ancient Art from Cyprus. The Cesnola Collection in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. Karageorghis, . and G. Papasavvas. 2001. A Bron e Ingot-Bearer from Cyprus. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20/4:339 354. Kauhanen, T. 2012. The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel. G ttingen. Kebede, A. 1968. The Krar. Ethiopian Observer 11/3:154 161. ———. 1977. The Bowl-Lyre of Northeast Africa. Krar: The Devil’s Instrument. Ethnomusicology 21:379 395. Keel, O. 1997. or us der tem elsie el Amulette aus Pal stina Israel on den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 13. Freiburg. ———. 1998. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 261. She eld. Keel, O. and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Edinburgh. Kern, O. 1922. Orphicorum fragmenta. Berlin. Keswani, P. S. 1989. Dimensions of Social Hierarchy in Late Bron e Age Cyprus: An Aanalysis of the Mortuary Data from Enkomi. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2/1:49 86. ———. 1993. Models of Local Exchange in Late Bron e Age Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292:73 83. ———. 1996. Hierarchies, Heterarchies, and Urbani ation Processes: The iew from Bron e Age Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9:211 250. Khat i annou, K. 1971 2001. ar haia ros eis tas ell ni as as. Leukosia. Killebrew, A. E. and G. Lehmann, eds. 2012. The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 15. Atlanta. Killen, J. T. 2000 2001. A Note on Pylos Tablet Un1482. Minos 35 6:385 390. ———. 2008. Mycenaean Economy. In A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, ed. . Duhoux and A. M. Davies, 159 200. Louvain-la-Neuve. 671 Bibliography Kilmer, A. D. 1965. The Strings of Musical Instruments: Their Names, Numbers and Signi cance. In G terbock and Jacobsen 1965:261 268. ———. 1971. The Discovery of an Ancient Mesopotamian Theory of Music. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 115:131 149. Kimmel-Clau et, F. 2013. Morts, tombeaux et cultes des poètes grecs: Étude de la survie des grands poètes des époques archaïque et classique en Grèce ancienne. Bordeaux. Kindiy, O. 2008. Christos Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria. Saarbr cken. King, P. J. 1989. The Mar eah: Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 20:98 106. Kinlaw, D. F. 1967. A Study of the Personal Names in the Akkadian Texts from Ugarit. PhD diss., Brandeis University. Kirk, G. S. 1954. Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments. Cambridge. Kirst, S. 1956. Kinyras, K nig von Kypros, und El Sch pfer der Erde. Forschungen und Fortschritte 30:185 189. Kitchen, K. A. 1977. The King List of Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 9:131 142. ———. 2008. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated & Annotated. Vol. V: Setnakht, Ramesses III and Contermporaries. Oxford. Klein, J. 1981. Three Šulgi Hymns. Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Ramat-Gan. ———. 1990. ulgi and I medagan: Originality and Dependence in Sumerian Royal Hymnology. In Klein and Skaist 1990:65 136. ———. 1993. Additional Notes to The Marriage of Martu’. In inatt tu a dār ti Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume, ed. A. F. Rainey, 93 106. Tel Aviv. ———. 1996. The Marriage of Martu. The Urbani ation of Barbaric’ Nomads. In utual Influences of Peo les and ultures in the Ancient ear ast, ed. M. Malul, 83 96. Haifa. ———. 1997. The God Martu in Sumerian Literature. In Finkel and Geller 1997:99 116. Klein, J. and A. Skaist, eds. 1990. Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi. Ramat-Gan. Kleing nther, A. 1933. Pr tos euret s. Philologus Supplementband 27. Leip ig. Kleinig, J. W. 1993. he ord s on he asis Function and i ni cance of horal Music in Chronicles. She eld. Klinger, J. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. Wiesbaden. Knapp, A. B. 1979. A Re-examination of the Interpretation of Cypriote Material Culture in the MCIII-LCI Period in the Light of Textual Data. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. 672 Bibliography ———. 1980. KBo I 26: Ala iya and Hatti. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32:43 47. ———. 1983. An Alashiyan Merchant at Ugarit. Tel Aviv 10:38 45. ———. 1985. Alashiya, Caphtor/Keftiu, and Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Recent Studies in Cypriote Archaeology and History. Journal of Field Archaeology 12/2:231 250. ———. 1986. Production, Exchange and Socio-Political Compexity on Bron e Age Cyprus. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5:53 60. ———. 1986. o er Production and i ine Protection Archaeolo Ideolo and Social Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus. G teborg. ———. 1988. Copper Production and Eastern Mediterranean Trade: The Rise of Complex Society on Cyprus. In tate and ociet he mer ence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization, ed. J. Gledhill et al., 149 169. London. ———. 1991. Spice, Drugs, Grain, and Grog: Organic Goods in Bron e Age East Mediterranean Trade. In Bronze Age Trade in the Aegean, ed. N. H. Gale, 21 68. Jonsered. ———. 1993. Thalassocracies in Bron e Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth. World Archaeology 24/3:332 347. ———. 1997. he Archaeolo of ate ron e A e riot ociet he tud of Settlement, Survey and Landscape. Glasgow. ———. 2006. Orientali ation and Prehistoric Cyprus: The Social Life of Oriental Goods. In Debating Orientalization. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. C. Riva and N. C. ella, 48 68. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 10. London. ———. 2011. Sound of Silence: Music and Musical Practice in Late Bron e-Iron Age Cyprus. In Heimpel 2011:121 132. ———. 2011. Cyprus, Copper and Alashiya. In Betancourt and Ferrence 2011:249 254. ———. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Knapp, A. B. and A. Marchant. 1982. Cyprus, Cypro-Minoan, and Hurrians. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1982:15 30. Knudt on, J. A. 1907 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2 vols. orderasiatische Bibliothek 2. Leip ig. K cher, F. 1963 1980. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. 6 vols. Berlin. K hler, L. and W. Baumgartner. 1994 2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden. Koitabashi, M. 1992. The Dei cation of the Lyre’ in Ancient Ugarit. Orient 28:106 110. 673 Bibliography ———. 1992. Signi cance of Ugaritic msltm Cymbals’ in the Anat Text. In Cult and Ritual in the Ancient Near East, ed. T. Mikasa, 1 5. Wiesbaden. ———. 1996. Musicians in the Ugaritic Texts. In Essays on Ancient Anatolia and Syria in the Second and Third Millenium B.C., ed. T. Mikasa, 221 232. Wiesbaden. ———. 1998. Music in the Texts from Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 30:363 396. ———. 2012. Ashtart in the Mythological and Ritual Texts of Ugarit. Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 55/2:53 62. Kolotourou, K. 2002. Images of Sound: Music Performances and the Lyre Player Motif in Early Iron Age Art. In SOMA 2001. Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers, The University of Liverpool, 23-25 February 2001, ed. G. Muskett et al., 215 222. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1040. Oxford. ———. 2005. Music and Cult: The Signi cance of Percussion and the Cypriote Connection. In Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period: Proceedings of an International Symposium on Cypriote Archaeology, Erlangen, 23–24 July 2004, ed. . Karageorghis et al., 183 204. M hnesee. ———. 2007. Rattling Jewellery and the Cypriot Coroplast. Archaeologia Cypria 5:79 99. Kouremenos, T. et al. 2006. The Derveni Papyrus. Florence. Krahmalkov, C. R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven. ———. 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden. Kramer, S. N. 1963. Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107:485 527. ———. 1969. The Sacred Marriage Rite. Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. London. ———. 1981. BM 29616: The Fashioning of the Gala. Acta Sumerologica 3:1 11. ———. 1985. BM 86535: A Large Extract of a Diversi ed Balag-Composition. In Durand and Kupper 1985:115 135. ———. 1987. By the Rivers of Babylon: A Balag-Liturgy of Inanna. Aula Orientalis 5:71 90. ———. 1990. The Marriage of Martu. In Klein and Skaist 1990:11 27. ———. 1991. Solomon and ulgi: A Comparative Portrait. In Cogan and Eph al 1991:189 195. Krappe, A. H. 1941 1942. The Birth of Adonis. Review of Religion 6:3 17. Krauss, S. 1910 1912. Talmudische Archäologie. Leip ig. 674 Bibliography Krebernik, M. 1983. u Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 2. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 73:1 47. ———. 1986. Die G tterlisten aus Fara. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76:161 204. Krecher, J. 1966. Sumerische Kultlyrik. Wiesbaden. Krencker, D. and W. schiet schmann. 1938. Römische Tempel in Syrien, nach Aufnahmen und Untersuchungen von Mitgliedern der Deutschen Baalbekexpedition 1901-1904. Berlin. Krispi n, T. J. H. 1990. Beitrage ur altorientalischen Musikforschung 1. ulgi und die Musik. Akkadica 70:1 27. ———. 2010. Musical Ensembles in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Dumbrill and Finkel 2010:125 150. ———. 2011. The Acceptance of Pop Music in Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Lute of the Second Millennium B.C. and Its Socio-Cultural Context. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Near Eastern Archaeomusicology held at Senate House, University of London, December 1, 2 and 3, 2011, ed. R. Dumbrill and I. L. Finkel, 113 126. London. Kronasser, H. 1963. Die Umsiedelung der schwarzen Gottheit: Das hethitische Ritual I des li i . Vienna. Kuhrt, A. 1995. The Ancient Near East. 2 vols. London. Kurke, L. 1991. he ra c in Praise Pindar and the Poetics of ocial conom . Ithaca. Kurt , D. C. and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs. London. Kushnareva, K. 2000. Some Evidence of Musical Instruments in Bron e Age Caucasus. In Hickmann et al. 2000:103 112. Rahden. Lafont, B. and F. Yildiz. 1989. Tablettes cunéiformes de Tello au Musée d’Istanbul: Datant de l’époque de la IIIe Dynastie d’Ur. Tome I. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te stanbul 65. Leiden. Lambert, R. 1984. Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. New York. Lambert, W. G. 1982. The Hymn to the ueen of Nippur. In Zikir umim Ass riolo ical tudies Presented to F R raus on the ccasion of is Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel, 173 218. Leiden. ———. A List of Gods’ Names. In Durand and Kupper 1985:181 189. ———. 1990. Ancient Mesopotamian Gods: Superstition, Philosophy, Theology. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 207:115 130. Landi, C. 1930. Demogòrgone. Con saggio di nuova edizione delle “Genologie [sic] deorum gentilium” del Boccaccio e silloge dei frammenti di Teodonzio. Palermo. Lane, E. W. 1980. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Beirut. Lane Fox, R. 1980. The Search for Alexander. Boston. Lanfranchi, G. B. 2005. The Luwian-Phoenician Bilingual of inek y and the Annexation of Cilicia to the Assyrian Empire. In Rollinger 2005:481 496. Lang, M. 1969. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos, II. The Frescoes. Princeton. 675 Bibliography Langdon, S. 1919. Two Sumerian Liturgical Texts. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 16/4:207 209. ———. 1931. The Mythology of All Races. V. Semitic. Boston. ———. 1935. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars. London. Lapinkivi, P. 2004. The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence. State Archives of Assyria Studies 15. Helsinki. Lardinois, A. P. 2001. Keening Sappho: Female Speech Genre’s in Sappho’s Poetry. In Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, ed. A. Lardinois and L. McClure, 75 92. Princeton. Laroche, E. 1948. Te ub, ebat et leur cour. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2:113 136. ———. 1955. tudes de vocabulaire . Revue Hittite et Asianique 13/57:72 74. ———. 1968. Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra. In Nougayrol et al. 1968:447 544. ———. 1976 1977. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Revue Hittite et Asianique 34 35:13 161, 159 323. Lassus, J. 1935. Inventaire archéologique de la région au nord-est de Hama. 2 vols. Documents d’ tudes Orientales 4. Damas. Latte, K. 1953 1956. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Copenhagen. Lavagnini, B. 1950. Studi sul romanzo greco. Messina. Lawergren, B. 1984. The Cylinder Kithara in Etruria, Greece, and Anatolia. Imago Musicae 1:147 174. ———. 1985. A Lyre Common to Etruria, Greece, and Anatolia: The Cylinder Kithara. Acta Musicologica 57:25 33. ———. 1993. Lyres in the West (Italy, Greece) and the East (Egypt, the Near East), ca. 2000 400 b.c. Opuscula Romana 19/6:55 76. Lawergren, B. and O. R. Gurney. 1987. Sound Holes and Geometrical Figures: Clues to the Terminology of Ancient Mesopotamian Harps. Iraq 49:37 52. Lawson, G. 2004. Music, Intentionality, and Tradition: Identifying Purpose, and Continuity of Purpose, in the Music-Archaeological Record. In Music Archeological Sources: Artifacts, Oral Tradition, Written Evidence, ed. E. Hickmann and R. Eichmann, 61 97. Studien ur Musikarch ologie 4/ Orient-Arch ologie 15. Rahden. ———. 2006. Sites, Landscapes and Portable Anti uities’. The Nature and alue of Context in the Music-Archaeological Record. In Hickmann et al. 2006:3 14. ———. 2008. Conserving the Future of Music’s Distant Past Some Thoughts on the Development of Music-Archaeological Conservation. In Challenges and Objectives in Music Archaeology. Papers from the 5th Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at the Ethnological Museum, 676 Bibliography State Museums Berlin, 19–23 September, 2006, ed. E. Hickmann et al., 389 400. Studien ur Musikarch ologie 6/Orient-Arch ologie 22. Rahden. Laymon, C. M., ed. 1971. The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville. Leaf, W. 1900 1902. The Iliad. Edited, with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices. 2 vols. London and New ork. Lebek, W. D. 1973. Ein Hymnus auf Antinoos (Mitford, the Inscriptions of Kourion No. 104). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 12:101 137. Lee, A. W. 2004. Dryden’s Cinyras and Myrrha’. Explicator 62/3:141 144. Lef vre-Novaro, D. 2007. La Danse dans les mod les réduits des ges du Bron e et du Fer en gée et Chypre. Ktema: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome Antique 32:57 63. Leibovitch, J. 1960. The Statuette of an Egyptian Harper and String-Instruments in Egyptian Statuary. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 46:53 59. Leigh, M. 1994. Servius on ergil’s Senex Corycius: New Evidence. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 33:181 195. Leithart, P. J. 2003. From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution. Moscow, Idaho. Le eune, M. 1958. Memoires de philologie mycénienne. Première série (1955–1957). Paris. ———. 1964. Index inverse du grec mycénien. Paris. Lemaire, A. 1996. Les Textes prophéti ues de Mari dans leurs relations avec l’Ouest. In Amurru 1. Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites: Dix ans de travaux. Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai 1993), ed. J.-M. Durand, 427 438. Paris. Lemerle, P. 1986. Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase: Notes and Remarks on Education and Culture in Byzantium from Its Origins to the 10th Century. Canberra. Lenchantin, M. 1932. Nuovi frammenti di Filocoro. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 10:41 58. Lenormant, F. 1871 1872. Lettres assyriologiques sur l’histoire et les antiquités de l’Asie antérieure. 2 vols. Paris. Leonhard, C. 2001. Ishodad of Merw’s Exegesis of the Psalms 119 and 139-147. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 585, Subsidia 107. Louvain. Leukart, A. 1979. Autour de ka-ko na-wi- o: uel ues crit res. In Risch and M hlestein 1979:183 188. ———. 1994. ie fr h riechischen omina auf tās und ās ntersuchun en u ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús). Vienna. Leumann, M. 1950. Homerische Wörter. Basel. Levaniouk, O. 1999. Penelope and the Pênelops. In Nine Essays on Homer, ed. M. Carlisle and O. Levaniouk, 95 136. Lanham. 677 Bibliography Levenson, J. D. 1985. A Technical Meaning for n m in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum 35/1:61 67. Levine, B. A. 1963a. The Net n m. Journal of Biblical Literature 82/2:207 212. ———. 1963b. Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17/4:105 111. ———. 1983. The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre. In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, 467 475. Winona Lake. Levine, B. A. and J.-M. de Tarragon. 1984. Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104/4:649 659. Levy, M. A. 1864. Die palmyrenischen Inschriften. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 18:66 117. Lewis, T. 1989. Cults of the Dead in Ugarit and Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 39. Atlanta. Lewy, H. 1895. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin. Li Castro, E. and P. Scardina. 2011. The Double Curve Enigma. Music in Art 36/1 2:203 217. Lichtenstein, M. H. 1972. Psalm 68:7 Revisited. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 4/2:97 112. Lichtheim, M. 1945. The Songs of the Harpers. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4/3:178 212. ———. 1973. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Berkeley. Lieberman, S. 1942. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries C.E. New York. Liebowit , H. A. 1967. Horses in New Kingdom Art and the Date of an Ivory from Megiddo. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 6:129 134. Lightfoot, J. L. 1999. Parthenius of icaea he Poetical Fra ments and the r ti a ath mata. Oxford. ———. 2004. The Apology of Ps.-Meliton. tudi i ra ci e in uistici sul icino Oriente Antico 24:59 110. ———. 2009. Ps.-Meliton and the Cults of the Roman Near East. In Les Religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain: Cent ans après Cumont (1906-2006). Bilan historique et historiographique; Colloque de Rome, 16-18 Novembre 2006, ed. C. Bonnet et al., 387 400. Brussels. ———. 2014. Dionysius Periegetes: Description of the Known World. Oxford. Limet, H. 1960. Le Travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Biblioth ue de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Li ge, fasc. 155. Paris. 678 Bibliography ———. 1976. Textes administratifs de l’époque des šakkanakku. Archives Royales de Mari 19. Paris. ———. 1986. Textes administratifs relatifs aux métaux. Archives Royales de Mari 25. Paris. Linssen, M. J. H. 2004. The Cults of Uruk and Babylon The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice. Leiden. Lipi ski, E. 1977. An Ugaritic Letter to Amenophis III concerning Trade with Ala iya. Iraq 39:213 217. ———. 1978. Ditanu. In Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. . Avishur and J. Blau, 2 vols. 1:91 110. Jerusalem. ———, ed. 1987a. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22/Studia Phoenicia 5. Leuven. ———. 1987b. Resheph Amyklos. In Lipi ski 1987a:87 99. ———. 1991. The Cypriot assals of Esarhaddon. In Cogan and Eph’al 1991:58 64. ———. 2004. Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven. ———. 2009. Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 181/Studia Phoenicia 19. Leuven. Litke, R. L. 1998. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN:dA-nu-um and A Anu am li. New Haven. Liverani, M. 1971. Sydyk e Misor. In Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, ed. s.n., 6 vols. 6:55 74. Milan. ———. 1990. Presti e and Interest International Relations in the ear ast ca 1100 B.C. History of the Ancient Near East. Studies 1. Padua. ———. 1997. Bron e Production in Byblos. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997/4:122 123 no. 131. Livingstone, A. 1986. Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford. ———. 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki. Llewellyn-Jones, L. 2013. King and Court in Ancient Persia, 559 to 331 BCE. Edinburgh. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1973. Modern Interpretation of Pindar: The Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes. Journal of Hellenic Studies 93:109 137. L hnert, A. 2009. “Wie die Sonne tritt heraus”: Eine Klage zum Auszug Enlils mit einer Untersuchung zu Komposition und Tradition sumerischer Klagelieder in altbabylonischer Zeit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 365. M nster. Lokkegaard, F. 1954. Some Comments on the Sanchuniathon Tradition. Studia Theologica 8/1:51 76. 679 Bibliography Long, C. R. 1974. The Haghia Triadha Sarcophagus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 41. G teborg. L pe -Rui , C. 2009. Mopsos and Cultural Exchange between Greeks and Locals in Cilicia. In Ancient Myth. Media, Transformations and Sense-Constructions, ed. U. Dill and C. Walde, 487 501. Berlin. ———. 2010. When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge, MA. Loret , O. 1984. adn come epiteto di Baal e i suoi rapporti con Adonis e Adona . In s.n. 1984:25 33. Lorimer, H. 1950. Homer and the Monuments. London. Loucas-Durie, E. 1989. Kinyras et la sacralisation de la fonction techni ue Chypre. Métis 4/1:117 127. Loud, G. 1936. News from Armageddon. The Illustrated London News, 20 June 1008 1111. ———. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago. Lowenstamm, S. 1969. The Lord is my Strength and my Glory’. Vetus Testamentum 19:464 470. Ludwig, M.-C. 1990. Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Isme-Dagan von Isin. Santag 2. Wiesbaden. Lupack, S. 2007. Palaces, Sanctuaries, and Workshops: The Role of the Religious Sector in Mycenaean Economics. In Galaty and Parkinson 2007:54 65. ———. 2008a. The Northeast Building of Pylos and An 1281. In Sacconi et al. 2008:467 484. ———. 2008b. The Role of the Religious Sector in the Economy of Late Bronze Age Mycenaean Greece. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1858. Oxford. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1978. Ciris: A Poem Attributed to Vergil. Cambridge. Machinist, P. 1983a. Rest and iolence in the Poem of Erra. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:221 226. ———. 1983b. Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:719 737. ———. 1993. Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C. In Anfänge politischen en ens in der Anti e ie nah stlichen ulturen und die Griechen, ed. K. Raa aub, 135 144. Munich. ———. 2000. Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History. In Oren 2000:53 83. Philadelphia. Maeda, T. 1981. King of Kish’ in Pre-Sargonic Sumer. Orient 17:1 17. Maier, F. G. 1974. Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos). Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1974:132 138. 680 Bibliography ———. 1979. The Paphian Shrine of Aphrodite and Crete. In Karageorghis 1979:228 234. ———. 1983. New Evidence for the Early History of Palaepaphos-Skales. In Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, ed. . Karageorghis, 229 233. Constance. ———. 1985. Factoids in Ancient History: The Case of Fifth-Century Cyprus. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:32 39. ———. 1986. Kinyras and Agapenor. In Karageorghis 1986:311 320. ———. 1989. Priest Kings in Cyprus. In Peltenburg 1989:376 391. ———. 1996. History from the Earth: The Kingdom of Paphos in the Achaemenid Period. Transeuphratène 12:376 391. Malamat, A. 1999. Amorrite Musicians at Mari. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999/2:49 50 no. 46. ———. 2003. Musicians from Ha or and Mari. In s.n. 2003:355 357. Malbran-Labat, F. 1999. Nouvelles donées épigraphi ues sur Chypre et Ougarit. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1999:121 123. Maliaras, N. 2007. . Athens. Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley. Mallowan, M. E. L. 1966. Nimrud and Its Remains. 2 vols. London. Mander, P. 1988. Sumerian Personal Names in Ebla. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108/3:481 483. Manniche, L. 1971. Les Sc nes de musi ue sur les talatat du I e pylone de Karnak. Kêmi 21:155 164. ———. 1976. usical Instruments from the om of ut an ham n. Tut’ankham n’s Tomb Series I. Oxford. ———. 1978. Symbolic Blindness. Chronique d’Égypte 53:13 21. ———. 1989. la cour d’Akhenaton et de Nefertiti. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 142:24 32. ———. 2000. Musical Practises at the Court of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In Hickmann et al. 2000:233 238. ———. 2006. Angular Harps of the Amarna Period. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 92:248 249. Marcetteau, M. 2010. A ueen’s Orchestra at the Court of Mari: New Perspectives on the Archaic Instrumentarium in the Third Millennium. In Dumbrill and Finkel 2010:67 75. Marchesi, G. and N. Marchetti. 2011. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civili ations 14. Winona Lake. Margalit, B. 1972. The K r t/k rt: Patroness-Saints of Women. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 4/1:52 61. 681 Bibliography ———. 1984. Lexicographical Notes on the A ht Epic (Part II: KTU 1.19). Ugarit- Forschungen 16:119 179. ———. 1989. The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary. Berlin. Markoe, G. 1988. A Funerary Ritual on Two Cypriot ases. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988:19 24 and pl. I.12. ———. 2003. Phoenician Metalwork Abroad: A uestion of Export or On-site Production In Ploes/Sea Routes: Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th– 6th c. BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th–October 2nd, 2002, ed. N. C. Stampolidis and . Karageorghis, 209 216. Athens. Markou, E. 2006. Probl mes iconographi ues du monnoyage d’or des derniers rois de Salamine au I e si cle avant J.-C. In Fourrier and Grivaud 2006:135 152. Mar uand, A. 1887. A Silver Patera from Kourion. American Journal of Archaeology and the History of the Fine Arts 3:322 337. Marshall, K., ed. 1993. Rediscovering the Muses: Women’s Musical Traditions. Boston. Martelli, M. C. 1988. La Stipe votive di Jalisos: Un Primo bilancio. In Archaeology in the Dodecannese, ed. S. Diet and I. Papachristodoulou, 104 120. Copenhagen. Martin, R. P. 1984. Hesiod, Odysseus and the Instruction of Princes. Transactions of the American Philological Association 114:29 48. ———. 1989. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca. ———. 2003. The Pipes are Brawling: Conceptuali ing Musical Performance in Athens. In he ultures ithin Ancient Gree ulture ontact onflict Collaboration, ed. C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, 153 180. Cambridge. Martinelli, M. C. et al. 2009. La Musa dimenticata: Aspetti dell’esperienza musicale greca in età ellenistica. Pisa. Mas Latrie, L. de 1852 1861. Histoire de l’île de Chypre sous le règne des princes de la maison de Lusignan. Paris. Masson, D. 1958. Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne: Études comparées. 2 vols. Paris. Masson, E. 1974. Cyprominoica. Répertoires, documents de Ras Shamra, essais d’interprétation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 31.2. G teborg. Masson, O. 1968. L’ mission de Nikokles de Paphos au type d’Apollon sur l’omphalos. Opuscula Atheniensia 8:116 118. ———. 1973. Remar ues sur les cultes chypriotes l’épo ue du Bron e Recent. In The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, ed. . Karageorghis, 110 121. Nicosia. ———. 1980. Une Nouvelle inscription de Paphos concernant le roi Nikokl s. Kadmos 19:65 80. 682 Bibliography ———. 1986. ocabulaire grec et épigraphie: ἀρχ ς, chef, archonte’. In Etter 1986:450 457. ———. 1988a. Le Dialecte de Paphos. In Karageorghis and Masson 1988:19 30. ———. 1988b. L’Inscription syllabi ue en paphien recent du village de Tala (Paphos). Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988:63 68. ———. 1991. Notes de numismati ue chypriote. Revue Numismatique 33:60 70. ———. 1992. Encore les royaumes chypriotes dans la liste d’Essarhaddon. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 18:27 30. Masson, O. and M. S nycer. 1972. Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Geneva. Mathews, E. G. 1998. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 572 573/ Scriptores Armeniaci 23 24. Louvain. Matsushima, E., ed. 1993. cial ult and Po ular Reli ion in the Ancient ear ast Heidelberg. ———. 1993. Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and Their Interaction with the Society. In Matsushima 1993:209 219. Matth us, H. 1985. Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern. Munich. Matthews, . J. 1974. Panyassis of Halikarnassos: Text and Commentary. Mnemosyne Supplement 33. Leiden. ———. 1996. Antimachus of olo hon e t and ommentar . Mnemosyne Supplement 155. Leiden. Matthiae, P. 1989. Ebla: Un Impero ritrovato. Dai primi scavi alle ultime scoperte. 2nd ed. Torino. Maul, S. 1999. Gottesdienst im Sonnenheiligtum u Sippar. In Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger, ed. B. B ck et al., 285 316. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 267. M nster. ———. 2005. Bilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian) Hymns from the Seleucid-Arsacid Period. In Corpus of Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2. Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C., ed. I. Spar and W. G. Lambert, 11 116. New ork. Maurey, . et al., eds. 2014. Music in Antiquity: The Near East and the Mediterranean. Jerusalem. Mavrogordato, J. 1956. Digenes Akrites. Oxford. Mayer, W. 1996. The Hurrian Cult at Ugarit. In Wyatt et al. 1996:205 211. Mayrhofer, M. 1956 1976. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg. Ma ar, A. 2003. Ritual Dancing the Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 66/3:126 127. 683 Bibliography Ma ar, B. 1974. ena an e i ra el e arim his ori im. Jerusalem. McCallum, L. R. 1987. Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The Megaron Frescoes. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. McCarter, P. K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 9. Garden City. McGeough, K. M. and M. S. Smith. 2011. Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Text, Translation, and Notes. Leuven. McKinnon, J. W. 1968. Musical Instruments in Medieval Psalm Commentaries and Psalters. Journal of the American Musicological Society 21/1:3 20. McLaughlin, J. 1991. The Mar eah at Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study. Ugarit-Forschungen 23:266 281. ———. 2001. he ar a in the Pro hetic iterature References and Allusions in i ht of the Extra-Biblical Evidence. etus Testamentum Supplements 86. Leiden. Meekers, M. 1987. The Sacred Tree on Cypriote Cylinder Seals. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1987:67 76. Meerschaert, C. 1991. Les Musiciens dans la coroplastie chypriote de l’épo ue archa ue. In andenabeele and La neur 1991:183 193, pl. 143 144. Meier-Br gger, M. 2006. Sprachliche Beobachtungen. In Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben: Ihr Aufschlusswert für die mykenische Sprache und Kultur, ed. S. Deger-Jalkot y and O. Panagl, 111 118. ienna. Meineke, A. 1843. Analecta Alexandrina: Sive, Commentationes de Euphorione Chalcidensi, Rhiano Cretensi, Alexandro Aetolo, Parthenio Nicaeno. Berlin. Meissner, B. 1940. Studien zur assyrischen Lexikographie IV. Mitteilungen der altorientalischen Gesellschaft 13/2. Leip ig. Mekouria, T. T. 1994. L’In uence du roi David et de son Psautier en Ethiopie. In Actes de la me onf rence Internationale des tudes ethio iennes , ed. C. Lepage, 1:145 153. Paris. Melchert, H. C. 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology. Leiden Studies in IndoEuropean 3. Amsterdam. Melena, J. L. 1975. Studies on Some Mycenaean Inscriptions from Knossos Dealing with Textiles. Salamanca. ———. 2000 2001. 63 Joins and uasi- oins of Fragments in the Linear B Tablets from Pylos. Minos 35 36:371 384. ———. 2001. Textos griegos micénicos comentados. itoria-Gastei . Merrillees, R. S. 1987. Alashia Revisited. Cahiers de la Revue Bibli ue 22. Paris. ———. 1992. The Government of Cyprus in the Late Bron e Age. In str m 1992 3:310 328. Merrillees, R. S. and A. S. Gilbert. 2011. Alashiya: A Scienti c uest for Its Location. In Betancourt and Ferrence 2011:255 264. 684 Bibliography Mertzenfeld, C. D. de 1954. Inventaire commenté des ivoires phéniciens et apparentés découverts dans le proche-orient. 2 vols. Paris. Mettinger, T. N. D. 1976 1977. The Last Words of David.’ A Study of Structure and Meaning in II Samuel 23:1 7. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbook 41/42:147 156. ———. 2001. The Riddle of Resurrection: ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Ancient Near East. Stockholm. Metzger, B. M. and M. D. Coogan. 1993. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford. Meyer, E. 1877. ber einige semitische G tter. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 31:716 741. Meyers, C. L. 1991. Of Drums and Damsels: Women’s Performance in Ancient Israel. Biblical Archaeologist 54/1:16 27. ———. 1993. The Drum-Dance-Song Ensemble: Women’s Performance in Biblical Israel. In Marshall 1993:49 67, 234 238. Meyers, E. M., ed. 1997. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York. Michaelides, D. 1992. Cypriot Mosaics. 2nd rev. ed. Department of Anti uities, Cyprus, Picture Book 7. Nicosia. Michaelides, S. 1978. The Music of Ancient Greece: An Encyclopaedia. London. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, I. 1976. Literary, Epigraphic, and Numismatic Evidence on Nikokles, King of Paphos. Kypriakai Spoudai 40:15 28. ———. 1987. Repercussions of the Phoenician Presence in Cyprus. In Lipi ski 1987:331 338. Michalowski, P. 1983. History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:237 248. ———. 1985. Third Millennium Contacts: Observations on the Relationships Between Mari and Ebla. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105:293 302. ———. 1986. Mental Maps and Ideology: Re ections on Subartu. In The Origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C., ed. W. Harvey, 129 156. Guilford. ———. 1989. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Mesopotamian Civili ations 1. Winona Lake. ———. 1992. The Early Mesopotamian Incantation Tradition. In Fron aroli 1992:305 326. ———. 1993. Memory and Deed: The Historiography of the Political Expansion of the Akkad State. In Akkad. The First World Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions, ed. M. Liverani, 69 90. Padova. ———. 1999. Sumer Dreams of Subartu: Politics and the Geographical Imagination. In Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, ed. . L. Karel, 305 315. Leuven. 685 Bibliography ———. 2005. Literary Works from the Court of King Ishbi-Erra of Isin. In “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. . Sefati et al., 199 212. Bethesda. ———. 2006. Love or Death Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58:49 61. ———. 2008. The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Brisch 2008:33 46. ———. 2009. A ur during the Ur III Period. In Here & There across the Ancient ear ast tudies in onour of r st na c o s a, ed. O. Drewnowska, 149 156. Wars awa. ———. 2010a. Learning Music: Schooling, Apprenticeship, and Gender in Early Mesopomia. In Shehata and Pru sins ky 2010:199 239. ———. 2010b. Traveler’s Tales: Observations on Musical Mobility in Mesopotamia and Beyond. In Dumbrill and Finkel 2010:117 124. ———. 2011. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Winona Lake. Mierse, W. E. 2012. Temples and Sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age Levant: Recovery After Collapse. Winona Lake. Miglio, A. 2013. Tribe and State: The Dynamics of International Politics and the Reign of Zimri-Lim. Piscataway. Mildenberg, L. 1984. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War. Aarau. Milik, J. T. 1972. Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine. Biblioth ue archéologi ue et histori ue 92. Paris. Millar, F. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337. Cambridge, MA. Miller, J. I. 1969. The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire, 29 B.C. to A.D. 641. Oxford. Miller, J. L. 2004. Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals. Wiesbaden. ———. 2008. Setting up the Goddess of the Night Separately. In Collins et al. 2008:67 72. Miller, M. 1971. The Thalassocracies. Albany. Miller, S. G. 1988. The Theorodokoi of the Nemean Games. Hesperia 57/2:147 163. ———. 2004. Ancient Greek Athletics. New Haven. Mirelman, S. 2010. The gala Musician Dada and the si-im Instrument. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2010/2:40 41 no. 33. ———. 2014. The ala-Instrument: Its Identi cation and Role. In Maurey et al. 2014:148 171. ———. Forthcoming. Birds, Balags and Snakes (K.4206 ). Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 686 Bibliography Mitchell, S. et al. 1982. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II: The Ankara District. The Inscriptions of North Galatia. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 135. Oxford. Mitford, T. B. 1947. Some Published Inscriptions from Roman Cyprus. Annual of the British School at Athens 42:201 237. ———. 1953. Seleucus and Theodorus. Opuscula Atheniensia 1:130 171. ———. 1960a. Paphian Inscriptions of Ho man nos. 98 and 99. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 7:1 10. ———. 1960b. Unpublished Syllabic Inscriptions of the Cyprus Museum. Opuscula Atheniensia 3:177 213. ———. 1960c. A Cypriot Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius. Journal of Roman Studies 50:75 79. ———. 1961a. Further Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology 65/2:93 151. ———. 1961b. Studies in the Signaries of South-Western Cyprus. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 10. London. ———. 1990. The Cults of Roman Cyprus. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 18/3:2176 2211. Mlynarc yk, J. 1980. The Paphian Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1980:239 252. ———. 1983. Sur le Theios Aoidos de J. Boardman. Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences 24:110 115. Molina, M. 1991. Tablillas sarg nicas del Museo de Montserrat, Barcelona. Aula Orientalis 9:137 154. Monloup, T. 1984. Les Figurines de terre cuite de tradition archaïque. Salamine de Chypre 12. Paris. ———. 1994. Les Terres cuites classiques: Un Sanctuaire de la grand déesse. Salamine de Chypre 14. Paris. Montecchi, B. 2011. Allotments of HORD and IN to carpenters (te-ka-ta-si) at Thebes (TH F 247, Gp 112, 114, 147, 175). Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 53:171 187. Moortgat, A. 1955. Tell Halaf 3: Die Bildwerke. Berlin. Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Morpurgo (Davies), A. 1963. Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon. Incunabula Graeca 3. Rome. ———. 1960. KTILOS (Pind., Pyth. II,17). Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 2:30 40. Morris, S. P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton. ———. 1997. Homer and the Near East. In A New Companion to Homer, ed. I. Morris and B. Powell, 599 623. Leiden. 687 Bibliography ———. 1998. Daidalos and Kothar: The Future of Their Relationship. In he Ae ean and the rient in the econd illennium Proceedin s of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997, ed. E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, 281 289. Li ge. Mosca, P. G. and J. Russell. 1987. A Phoenician Inscription from Cebel Ire Da i in Rough Cilicia. Epigraphica Anatolica 9:1 28. Moscati, S. 2001. The Phoenicians. London. Moulton, C. 1977. Similes in the Homeric Poems. G ttingen. Movers, F. C. 1841 1856. Die Phönizier. 2 vols. in 4. Bonn. M hlestein, H. 1981. Der homerische Phoinix und sein Name. i a Anti a 31:85 91. Muhly, J. D. 1972. The Land of Alashiya: References to Alashiya in the Texts of the Second Millennium B.C. and the History of Cyprus in the Late Bron e Age. In Karageorghis and Christodoulos 1972:201 219. ———. 1979. Cypriote Copper: Some Geological and Metallurgical Problems. In Karageorghis 1979:87 100 and pl. I - II. ———. 1980. Bron e Figurines and Near Eastern Metalwork. Israel Exploration Journal 30:148 161. ———. 1986. The Role of Cyprus in the Economy of the Eastern Mediterranean during the Second Millennium B.C. In Karageorghis 1986:45 62. ———. 1989. The Organisation of the Copper Industry in Late Bron e Age Cyprus. In Peltenburg 1989:298 314. ———. 1996. The Signi cance of Metals in the Late Bron e Age Economy of Cyprus. In he e elo ment of the riot conom From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day (eds. . Karageorghis and D. Michaelides) 45 60. Nicosia. Muhly, J. D. et al. 1980. The Oxhide Ingots from Enkomi and Mathiati and Late Bron e Age Copper Smelting on Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1980:84 99. Mullen, E. T. 1980. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico. Murray, A. S. et al. 1900. Excavations in Cyprus: Bequest of Miss E. T. Turner to the British Museum. London. Murray, R. 2004. Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition. Rev. ed. Piscataway. Murray, W. M. 1995. Ancient Sailing Winds in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Case for Cyprus. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus and the Sea, ed. . Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, 33 44. Nicosia. Muscarella, O. W. 1981. Ladders to Heaven: Art Treasures from Lands of the Bible. Toronto. 688 Bibliography Muss-Arnolt, W. 1892. On Semitic Words in Greek and Latin. Transactions of the American Philological Association 23:35 156. Myers, J. M. 1965. I Chronicles. Introduction, Translations, and Notes. The Anchor Bible 12. Garden City. Myres, J. L. 1906. On the List of Thalassocracies’ in Eusebius. Journal of Hellenic Studies 26:84 130. ———. 1914. Handbook of the Cesnola Collection. New York. Na’aman, N. 1990. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 22:248 250. Nagy, G. 1973. Phaethon, Sappho’s Phaon, and the White Rock of Leukas. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 77:137 177. ———. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Art and Poetry. Baltimore. ———. 1990. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore. ———. 2007. Lyric and Greek Myth. In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology, ed. R. D. Woodard, 19 51. Cambridge. Nakassis, D. 2012. Prestige and Interest: Feasting and the King at Mycenaean Pylos. Hesperia 81:1 30. ———. 2013. Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos. Leiden. Naoumides, M. 1968. New Fragments of Ancient Greek Poetry. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 9/3:267 290. Neil, R. A., ed. 1901. The Knights of Aristophanes. Cambridge. Nelson, H. H. et al. 1930. Medinet Habu I: Earlier Historical Records of Ramses III. Oriental Institute Publications 8. Chicago. Neri, D. 2000. Le Coppe fenicie della tomba Bernardini nel Museo di Villa Giulia. La Spe ia. Nettl, B. 1985. The Western Impact on World Music: Change, Adaptation, and Survival. New York. Neu, E. 1970. Ein althethitisches Gewitterritual. Studien u den Boga k y-Texten Heft 12. Wiesbaden. Neumann, G. 1961. Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Newberry, P. E. 1893. Beni Hasan Part I. London. Nicolaou, I. 1964. Inscriptiones Cypriae alphabeticae. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1964:189 219 and pl. I I. Nikoloudis, S. 2008. Multiculturalism in the Mycenaean World. In Collins et al. 2008:45 56. Nissinen, M. 2008. Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage. In Nissinen and Uro 2008:173 218. 689 Bibliography Nissinen, M. et al. 2003. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Writings from the Ancient World 12. Atlanta. Nissinen, M. and R. Uro, eds. 2008. Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Winona Lake. Nketia, J. H. K. 1963. Drumming in Akan Communities of Ghana. Edinburgh. N ldeke, T. 1875. Mandäische Grammatik. Halle. ———. 1881. ASSURIOS SURIOS SUROS. Hermes 5:443 468. Noreña, C. F. 2011. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power. Cambridge. Norris, H. T. 1983. Fables and Legends in Pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Times. In The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, ed. A. F. L. Beeston, 374 386. Cambridge. North, R. 1964. The Cain Music. Journal of Biblical Literature 83/4:373 389. Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit IV: Textes accadiens des archives sud. Paris. ———. 1957. Nouveaux textes d’Ugarit en cunéiforms babyloniens (20e campagne, 1956). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 101/1:77 86. ———. 1968. Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et biblioth ues privées d’Ugarit. In Nougayrol et al. 1968:1 446. Nougayrol, J. et al., ed. 1968. Ugaritica 5. Paris. Obermann, J. 1947. How Baal Destroyed a Rival. A Mythological Incantation Scene. Journal of the American Oriental Society 67:195 208. Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden. Oden, R. A. 1977. Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea. Missoula. ———. 1978. Philo of Byblos and Hellenistic Historiography. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115 126. Oettinger, N. 2008. The Seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a Historical Figure. In Collins et al. 2008:63 66. Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. H. 1893. Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. Oriental Civilization, Art and Religion in Ancient Times. London. Olivetti, P. 2010. Uses and Interpretations of Ritual Terminology: Goos, Oimoge, Threnos, and Linos in Ancient Greek Literature. PhD diss., University of Birmingham. Olivier, J.-P. 1960. À propos d’une ‘liste’ de desservants de sanctuaire dans les documents en linéaire B de Pylos. Brussels. Olivier, J.-P. et al. 1973. Index généraux du linéaire B. Rome. ———. 1996. Corpus hieroglyphicarum inscriptionum Cretae. Paris. Oren, E. D., ed. 2000. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. University Museum Monograph 108. Philadelphia. 690 Bibliography Otten, H. 1953. Ein kanaan ischer Mythus aus Boga k y. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 1:124 150. ———. 1958. Hethitische Totenrituale. Berlin. ———. 1963. Neue uellung um Ausklang des hethitischen Reiches. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 94:1 23. ———. 1971. in hethitisches Festritual o I . Wiesbaden. Otto, J. K. T. von 1872. Corpus apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi 9. Hermiae philosophi Irrisio gentilium philosophorum: Apologetarum quadrati Aristidis, Aristonis, Miltiadis, Melitonis, Apollinaris reliquiae. Jena. Ovadiah, R. and A. Ovadiah. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Rome. Owen, D. I. 1982. Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts primarily from Nippur. Winona Lake. Owuor, H. A. 1983. Contemporary Lyres in Eastern Africa. African Musicology 1/2:18 33. g , T. 1988. nand te e An Im ortant ult enter in the ld ittite Period. Ankara. Pade, M. 1997. The Fragments of Theodontius in Boccaccio’s Genealogie deorum gentilium libri. In Avignon & Naples: Italy in France, France in Italy in the Fourteenth Century, ed. M. Pade et al., 149 182. Rome. Palagia, O. 2000. Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander. In Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, ed. A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham, 167 206. New ork. Palaima, T. G. 1988. The Scribes of Pylos. Rome. ———. 1991. Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets. In Thalassa: L’Egée r histori ue et la mer Actes de la troisi me Rencontre enne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990, eds. R. La neur and L. Basch, 273 309. Li ge. ———. 1995a. The Last Days of the Pylos Polity. In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. R. La neur and W.-D. Niemeier, 623 637. Li ge. ———. 1995b. The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions. In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, ed. P. Rehak, 119 138 and pl. LI LII. Li ge. Palaima, T. G. and J. C. Wright. 1985. Ins and Outs of the Archives Rooms at Pylos. American Journal of Archaeology 89:251 262. Paleocosta, E. 1998. L’Iconographie des oueurs de lyre Chypre du IIIe au e s. av. J.-C. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 28:45 66 and pl. I I. Palmer, A. 1993. A Lyre without a oice’: The Poetics and the Politics of Ephrem the Syrian. ARAM 5:371 399. Palmer, L. R. 1955. Observations on the Linear B’ Tablets from Mycenae. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 2:36 45. 691 Bibliography ———. 1963. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford. Panagides, A. 1946. reis rioi titanes in ras ua oras n n . Cyprus (s.n.). Papadopoulos, T., ed. 2004. stienne de usi nan horo ra a escri tion de toute l’isle de Cypre. 2 vols. Kypriologik Biblioth k 10A/10B. Nicosia. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. 1904. heodoros tudites . St. Petersburg. Papantonio, G. 2012. Religion and Social Transformations in Cyprus: From the Cypriot Basileis to the Hellenistic Strategos. Leiden. Papasavvas, G. 2001. hal inoi h ostates a o t n ro ai t n r t ri odi oi ai tetra leuroi h ostates a o t n ster och tou hal ou he s t n Pr im och tou id rou. Nicosia. ———. 2004. Cypriot Bron e Stands and Their Mediterranean Perspective. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 14:31 59. ———. 2011. From Smiting to Smithing: The Transformation of a Cypriot God. In Betancourt and Ferrence 2011:59 66. Papathomopoulos, M. 1968. Antoninus Liberalis. Les Métamorphoses. Collection des Universités de France. Paris. Pardee, D. 1988a. An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution according to Genre. In Archi 1988:119 158. ———. 1988b. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt I and Proverbs 2). Leiden. ———. 1992. RS 24.643: Texte et structure. Syria 69:153 170. ———. 1996a. L’Ougariti ue et le hourrite dans les textes rituels de Ras ShamraOugarit. In Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle: Le Bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la table-ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organisée par l’URA 1062 ‘Etudes sémitiques’, ed. F. Bri uel-Chatonnet, 63 80. Paris. ———. 1996b. “ ar i u, Kispu, and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist iew. In Wyatt et al. 1996:273 287. ———. 1997. Review of G. J. Brooke, ed., Ugarit and the Bible (M nster 1994). Journal of the American Oriental Society 117:375 378. ———. 2000. Ugaritic Studies at the End of the 20th Century. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 320:49 86. ———. 2007. Preliminary Presentation of a New Ugaritic Song to Attartu (RIH 98/02). In ounger 2007:27 40. ———. 2008. Ugaritic. In The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, ed. R. G. Woodard, 5 35. Cambridge. Paribeni, R. 1908. Sarcofago dipinto di Haghia Triada. Monumenti Antichi pubblicati per cura della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 19 coll. 5 86. Parker, S. B. 1970. The Feast of R pi’u. Ugarit-Forschungen 2:243 249. 692 Bibliography 2 Again. Vetus Testamentum 21/3:373 379. ———. 1971. Exodus ———. 1972. The Ugaritic Deity Rapi’u. Ugarit-Forschungen 4:97 104. ———. ed. 1997. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta. Parpola, S. 1997. Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki. ———. 2004. National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post Empire Times. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18/2:5 40. Parpola, S. and K. Watanabe. 1988. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki. Parpola, S. and R. M. Whiting, eds. 2002. Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. 2 vols. Helsinki. Parrot, A. 1967. Mission archéologique de Mari. III: Les Temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninnizaza. Paris. Parry, H. 1982. Hieron and Ares, Kinyras and Aphrodite. Pindar’s second Pythian. In lan es o erts en homma e au R rend re tienne Gareau, ed. s.n., 25 34. Ottawa. Patai, R. 1964. Lilith. The Journal of American Folklore 77/No. 306:295 314. Paton, L. B. 1919 1920. Survivals of Primitive Religion in Modern Palestine. The Annual of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem 1:51 65. Pat ek, B. 2003. Homer and the Near East. The Case of Assyrian Historical Epic and Prose Narrative. Gaia 63 74. Pearson, A. C. 1917. The Fragments of Sophocles. 2 vols. Cambridge. Pearson, L. 1955. The Diary and the Letters of Alexander the Great. Historia 3:429 455. Pecchioli Daddi, F. 1982. Mestieri, professioni e dignità nell’Anatolia ittita. Rome. Peckham, B. 1968. Notes on a Fifth-Century Phoenician Inscription from Kition, Cyprus (CIS 86). Orientalia n.s. 37:304 324. Peek, W. 1955. Griechische Vers-Inschriften I. Grab-Epigramme. Berlin. Peltenburg, E. J. 1968. Western Asiatic Glazed Vessels of the Second Millennium. PhD diss., University of Birmingham. ———. 1972. On the Classi cation of Faience ases from Late Bron e Age Cyprus. In Karageorghis and Christodolou 1972:129 136. ———. 1986. Ramesside Egypt and Cyprus. In Karageorghis 1986:149 179. ———, ed. 1989. Early Society in Cyprus. Edinburgh. ———. 2007. Hathor, Faience, and Copper on Late Bron e Age Cyprus. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 37:373 394. Pel el, S. 1977. Dating the Early Dynastic otive Pla ues from Susa. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36:1 15. 693 Bibliography Pentiuc, E. J. 2001. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. Winona Lake. Perpillou, J.-L. 1978. Autour du locatif des th mes en -i-. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 73/1:293 299. Petit, T. 1998. Amathousiens, Ethiopiens et Perses. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 28:73 86. ———. 1999. Eteocypriot Myth and Amathusian Reality. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12/1:108 120. ———. 2001. The First Palace of Amathus and the Cypriot Poleogenesis. In The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West, ed. I. Nielsen, 53 75. Athens. Petru evski, M. D. 1955. Golemoto otkritie na M. entris La grande découverte de M. entris. i a Anti a 5:387 401. Pettinato, G. 1979. ulto u ciale ad la durante il re no di I i i is. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 16. Rome. ———. 1982. Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769. Materiali Epigra ci di Ebla 4. Naples. ———. 1992. Il Rituale per la successione al trono ad Ebla. Studi Semitici n.s. 9. Rome. P ster, F. 1909 1912. Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. 2 vols. Giessen. Picard, C. 1955. El, Kinyras, ou uel ue guerrier chypriote Revue Archéologique 45:48 49. Pinches, T. G. 1908. The Amherst Tablets. An Account of the Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of Lord Amherst of Hackney. London. Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994. L’Aphrodite grecque: Contribution à l’étude de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique. Ath nes. Pitard, W. T. 1992. A New Edition of the R pi ma’ Texts: KTU 1.20 22. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 285:33 77. Pitra, J.-B. 1854. Spicilegium Solesmense. Tome II. Paris. Plumley, G. A. 1976. l an ur he udanese re or the u ian issar. Cambridge. Poethig, E. B. 1985. The Victory Song Tradition of the Women of Israel. PhD diss., Union Theological Seminary. P hlmann, E. and M. L. West. 2001. Documents of Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. Polin, C. C. J. 1974. Music of the Ancient Near East. Westport. Pomponio, F. 1978. a Il ulto e la ura di un dio del antheon a ilonese ed assiro. Studi Semitici 51. Roma. Pomponio, F. et al. 2006. Tavolette cuneiformi di Adab delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia. 2 vols. Rome. Pomponio, F. and P. ella. 1997. Les Dieux d’Ebla: Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 245. M nster. 694 Bibliography Pomponius Laetus, I. 1544. Iulii Pomponii Sabini Grammatici Eruditissimi, In omnia quae quidem extant, P. Vergilii Maronis opera, Commentarii, varia multarum rerum cognitione referti, nuncque primum in lucem editi; cum rerum & verborum in hisce memorabilium locupletissimo indice. Basel. Poncy, H. et al. 2001. Sceaux du Musee d’Adana. Anatolia Antiqua 9:9 37. Pongrat -Leisten, B. 1994. Ina ulmi ru ie ultto o ra hische und ideolo ische Pro rammati der a tu Pro ession in a lonien und Ass rien im I ahrtausend v. Chr. Mainz. ———. 2008. Sacred Marriage and the Transfer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between the Gods and the King in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Nissinen and Uro 2008:43 74. Pongrat -Leisten, B. 2011. Comments on the Translatability of Divinity: Cultic and Theological Responses to the Presence of the Other in the Ancient Near East. In Les Représentations des dieux des autres. Colloque de Toulouse, 9-11 décembre 2010, ed. C. Bonnet et al., 83 111. Caltanissetta. Pope, M. H. 1955. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden. ———. 1979 1980. Le MR H Ougarit et ailleurs. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 29 30:141 143. ———. 1981. The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit. In Ugarit in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, ed. G. D. oung, 159 179. Winona Lake. Pope, M. H. and R llig, W. 1965. Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Ph ni ier. In Wörterbuch der Mythologie. 1. Abt., Die alten Kulturvölker Bd. 1. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient, ed. Haussig, H. W., 217 312. Stuttgart. Popham, M. 1995. An Engraved Near Eastern Bron e Bowl from Lefkandi. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14/1:103 107. Popko, M. 1978. Kultobjekte in der hethitischen Religion (nach keilschriftlichen Quellen). Warsaw. Porada, E. 1947. Seal Impressions of Nuzi. New Haven. ———. 1948. The Cylinder Seals of the Late Cypriote Bron e Age. American Journal of Archaeology 52/1:178 198. ———. 1956. A Lyre Player from Tarsus and His Relations. In The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, ed. S. S. Weinberg, 185 211. Locust alley. ———. 1980. A Cylinder Seal Showing a Harpist. In Music and Civilisation, ed. T. C. Mitchell, 29 31. The British Museum earbook 4. London. ———. 1981. The Cylinder Seals Found at Thebes in Boeotia. Archiv für Orientforschung 28:1 70, 77. Porter, J. R. 1954. The Interpretation of 2 Samuel I and Psalm C II. Journal of Theological Studies 5:161 173. 695 Bibliography Pouilloux, J. 1976. Chypriotes Delphes. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1976:158 167. Powell, J. E. 1939. The Sources of Plutarch’s Alexander. Journal of Hellenic Studies 59/2:229 240. Power, E. 1929. The Ancient Gods and Language of Cyprus Revealed by the Accadian Inscriptions of Amathus. Biblica 10:129 169. Power, T. 2010. The Culture of Kitharoidia. Cambridge, MA. ———. 2012. A Piping Odysseus in Ptolemy the uail. In Donum natalicium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy septuagenario a discipulis collegis familiaribus oblatum, ed. . Bers et al. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc. essay:PowerT.A Piping Odysseus in Ptolemy the uail.2012. Price, M. and B. L. Trell. 1977. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine. London. Priebatsch, H. . 1980. Spiranten und Aspiratae in Ugaritic, AT und Hellas. Ugarit-Forschungen 12:317 333. Proven a, A. 2014. Soothing Lyres and ἐπῳδαί. Music Therapy and the Cases of Orpheus, Empedocles, David. In Maurey et al. 2014:298 339. Pru sins ky, R. 2010. Die k niglichen S nger der Ur III- eit. In Shehata and Pru sins ky 2010:95 118. ———. 2013. The Social Positions of NAR-Musicians of the Ur III Period at the End of the IIIrd Millennium BC. In Emerit 2013:31 46. Pulak, C. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27/3:188 224. Putnam, M. C. J. 1986. Arti ces of ternit orace s Fourth oo of des. Ithaca. uasten, J. 1930. Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der Heidnischen Antike und Christlichen Fruhzeit. M nster in Westfalen. ———. 1951. Patrology. Westminster, Maryland. Raa aub, K. 2000. In uence, Adaptation, and Interaction: Near Eastern and Early Greek Political Thought. In The Heirs of Assyria, ed. S. Aro and R. M. Whiting, 51 64. Melammu Symposia 1. Helsinki. Radner, K. 2005. Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung. Wiesbaden. Rainey, A. F. 1978. l Amarna ta lets u lement to A nudt on ie El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2nd rev. ed. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 8. Kevelaer. Ramelli, I. L. E. 2009. Bardaisan of Edessa: A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpretation. Piscataway. Rashid, S. A. 1995. Untersuchungen um Musikinstrumentarium Assyriens. In Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens, Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, ed. U. Finkebeiner et al., 573-595. Main am Rhein. Rattray, R. S. 1923. Ashanti. Oxford. 696 Bibliography Red eld, J. M. 2003. he ocrian aidens o e and eath in Gree Ital . Princeton. Redford, D. B. 1990. The Sea and the Goddess. In Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, ed. S. Israelit-Groll, 824 835. Jerusalem. Rehak, P., ed. 1995. The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Li ge. Reiner, E. 1938. Die rituelle Totenklage der Griechen. Stuttgart. ———. 1958. Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. Archiv für Orientforschung, Beihefte 11. Gra . Reinhold, G. G. G., ed. 2008. Die Zahl Sieben im Alten Orient: Studien zur Zahlensymbolik in der Bibel und ihrer altorientalischen Umwelt. Frankfurt am Main. Renan, E. 1864. Mission de Phénicie. Paris. Reyes, A. T. 1994. Archaic Cyprus. A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Oxford. ———. 2001. The Stamp-Seals of Ancient Cyprus. Oxford. Ribichini, S. 1981. Adonis. Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco. Studi Semitici 55. Rome. ———. 1982. Kinyras di Cipro. Religioni e Civiltà 3:479 500. Richards, L. O. 1985. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Grand Rapids. Richardson, H. N. 1971. The Last Words of David. Some Notes on II Sam 23:1 7. Journal of Biblical Literature 90:257 266. Richardson, N. J. 1991. Homer and Cyprus. In The Civilizations of the Aegean and heir i usion in rus and the astern editerranean Proceedings of an International Symposium, 18–24 September 1989, ed. V. Karageorghis, 124 128. Larnaca. Ridder, A. de 1908. Collection de Clercq. V. Les Antiquités chypriotes. Paris. Rimmer, J. 1969. Ancient Musical Instruments of Western Asia in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, the British Museum. London. Risch, E. 1966. Les Di érences dialectales dans le mycénien. In Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, ed. L. R. Palmer and J. Chadwick, 150 157. Cambridge. ———. 1974. propos de l’origine des masculins grecs en - . Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69:109 119. ———. 1988. Le Développement du chypriote dans le cadre des dialectes grecs anciens. In Karageorghis and Masson 1988:67 80. Risch, E. and H. M hlestein, eds. 1979. Colloquium Mycenaeaum. The Sixth International Congress on the Aegean and Mycenaean Texts at Chaumont sur Neuchâtel, September 7–13, 1975. Geneva. Ri o, M. A. 2007. I Sigilli del Gruppo del Suonatore di Lira’ dalla stipe dell’Athenaion di Jalysos. Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 2007:33 82. 697 Bibliography ———. 2008 2009. I Sigilli del Gruppo del Suonatore di Lira in Etruria e nell’Agro Falisco. Annali di Archeologia e Storia antica 15 16:105 142. Roaf, M. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York. Robert, C. 1883. Die Phaethonsage bei Hesiod. Hermes 18/3:434 441. Robert, L. 1940. Les Gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Paris. Roberts, A. et al. 1885 1896. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Bu alo. Robkin, A. L. H. 1979. The Agricultural ear, the Commodity SA and the Linen Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. American Journal of Archaeology 89/4:469 474. Robson, J. and H. G. Farmer, eds. 1938. Ancient Arabian Musical Instruments as escri ed I n alama in the itā al malāhi Collection of Oriental Writers on Music 4. Glasgow. Rochette, R. 1848. Mémoires d’archéologie comparée, asiatique, grecque et étrusque. Paris. Rohde, E. 1914. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer. Wiesbaden. Rollinger, R., ed. 2005. Von Sumer bis Homer: Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004. M nster. Rollinger, R. 2006. The Terms Assyria’ and Syria’ Again. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65.4:283 287. R mer, W. H. P. 1965. Sumerische Königshymnen der Isin-Zeit. Leiden. ———. 1983. Sumerische Emesallieder. Bibliotheca Orientalis 40:566 592. ———. 1989. Miscellanea Sumerologica I: ur sumerischen Dichtung Heirat des Gottes Mardu’. Ugarit-Forschungen 21:319 334. Roscher, W. H. 2003. Beiträge zur Zahlensymbolik der Griechen und anderer Völker. Hildesheim. Ros l, R. 2013. Frühe semitische Lehnwörter im Griechischen. Frankfurt am Main. Roth, M. T. 1983. The Slave and the Scoundrel: CBS 10467, A Sumerian Morality Tale Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 275 282. Rowley, H. H. 1939. adok and Nehushtan. Journal of Biblical Literature 58:113 141. Roy, J. 1987. Pausanias, III, 5, 2 3 and III, 53, 7: Laodice Descendant of Agapenor; Tegea and Cyprus. L’Antiquité Classique 56:192 200. Rudolf, M. 1965. Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin. Rui gh, C. J. 1962. Tabellae Mycenenses selectae. Leiden. ———. 1967. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam. ———. 1988. Sur le vocalisme du dialecte chypriote au premier millénaire av. J.-C. In Karageorghis and Masson 1988:131 151. Ruipére , M. S. 1956. Une Charte royale de partage des terres Pylos. Minos 4:146 164. 698 Bibliography Rupp, D. W. 1985. Prolegomena to a Study of Strati cation and Social Organisation in Iron Age Cyprus. In Status, Social Organisation, and trati cation urrent Archaeolo ical Reconstructions, eds. M. Thompson et al., 119 130. Calgary. Rutten, M. 1939. Deux vases chypriotes du Musée du Louvre. In Mélanges syriens o erts onsieur Ren ussaud, ed. s.n., 2 vols. 435 449. Paris. s.n., ed. 1909. Hilprecht Anniversary Volume. Studies in Assyriology and Archaeology Dedicated to Hermann V. Hilprecht … by his Colleagues, Friends, and Admirers. Leip ig. s.n., ed. 1984. Adonis: Relazioni del colloquio in Roma, 22-23 maggio 1981. Collezione di Studi Fenici 18. Rome. s.n., ed. 2003. Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden. Sacconi, A. et al., eds. 2008. ollo uium Romanum Atti del II collo uio interna ionale di micenologia, Roma, 20–25 febbraio 2006. Pisa. Sachs, C. 1943. The Rise of Music in the Ancient World East and West. New York. Saghieh, M. 1983. Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster. Sallaberger, W. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. 2 vols. Untersuchungen ur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Arch ologie 7. Berlin. ———. 1999. Ur III- eit. In Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. W. Sallaberger and . Westenhol , 119 414. Freiburg. ———. 2000. Das Erscheinen Marduks als or eichen: Kultstatue und Neu ahrsfest in der Omenserie umma lu. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 90:227 262. Salviat, F. 1962. Lions d’ivoire orientaux Thasos. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 86/1:95 116. Salviat, F. and J. Servais. 1964. St le indicatrice thasienne trouvée au sanctuaire d’Aliki. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 88/1:267 287. Sanmart n, J. 1980. Glossen um ugaritischen Lexicon (I ). Ugarit-Forschungen 12:335 339. ———. 1991. Isoglosas morfoléxicas ebla tico-ugar ticas: La Trampa lexicogr ca. Aula Orientalis 9:165 217. Sarna, N. M. 1993. Songs of the Heart: An Introduction to the Book of Psalms. New York. Sasson, J. M. 1968. Instances of Mobility among Mari Artisans. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 190:46 54. Sayce, A. H. 1898. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians. London. 699 Bibliography Scardina, P. 2010. I Sigilli del Lyre Player Group: Tracce di archeologia musicale tra l’Etruria e il Mediterraneo orientale. In La Musica in Etruria: Atti del convegno internazionale, Tarquinia 18/20 Settembre 2009, ed. M. Carrese et al., 67 78. Tar uinia. Schadewaldt, W. 1928. Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion. Halle. Schae er, C. F.-A. 1952. n omi Alasia ou elles missions en h re . Paris. ———. 1965. An Ingot God from Cyprus. Antiquity 39:56 57. ———, ed. 1971. Alasia I. Paris. ———. 1983. Corpus des cylindres-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi-Alasia. Tome 1. Mission Archéologi ue de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi-Alasia. Synth se no. 13. Paris. Schar , A. 1922. Aegyptische Sonnenlieder. Berlin. Schmidt, B. B. 1994. Israel s ene cent ead Ancestor ult and ecromanc in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. T bingen. Schmidt-Colinet, C. 1981. Die Musikinstrumente in der Kunst des Alten Orients: Archäologisch-philologische Studien. Abhandlungen ur Kunst-, Musik- und Literaturwissenschaft 312. Bonn. Schneider, N. 1932. Die Drehem- und Dioha-Texte im Kloster Montserrat (Barcelona), in Autographie und mit systematischen Wörterverzeichnissen. Analecta Orientalia 7. Rome. Schoene, A. 1967. Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo. 2nd ed. Dublin. Scholem, G. 1974. Kabbalah. New York. Schott, S. 1934. Der Gott des Harfenspiels. In Mélanges Maspero I. Orient ancien, ed. s.n., 457 464. Cairo. Schretter, M. K. 1974. Alter rient und ellas Fra en der eeinflussun riechischen Gedankengutes aus altorientalischen Quellen, dargestellt an den Göttern Nergal, Rescheph, Apollon. Innsbruck. ———. 1990. Emesal-Studien. Sprach- und literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen. Innsbruck. Schroeder, O. 1915. Ueber den Namen des Tam von Byblos in der Amarna eit. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 18:292 293. Schuller, E. M. 1986. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. Harvard Semitic Studies 28. Atlanta. Schwart , B. 1938. The Hittite and Luwian Ritual of arpiya of Ke uwatna. Journal of the American Oriental Society 58/2:334 353. Schwart , E. 1931. Einiges ber Assyrien, Syrien und Koilesyrien. Philologus 86:373 399. Segal, C. 1962. Gorgias and the Psychology of the Logos. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 66:99 155. 700 Bibliography ———. 1998. Aglaia: The Poetry of Alcman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides, and Corinna. Lanham. Segert, S. 1984. Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Berkeley. Seibert, J. 1976. ur Bev lkerungsstruktur Cyperns. Ancient Society 7:1 28. Sellers, O. R. 1941. Musical Instruments of Israel. Biblical Archaeologist 4:33 47. Sel , G. J. 1995. Untersuchungen zu Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13. Philadelphia. ———. 1997. The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp’: Towards an Understanding of the Problems of Dei cation in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. In Finkel and Geller 1997:167 213. ———. 2008. The Divine Prototypes. In Brisch 2008:13 31. Sendrey, A. 1969. Music in Ancient Israel. New York. ———. 1974. Music in the Social and Religious Life of Antiquity. Rutherford. Seow, C. L. 1989. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. Harvard Semitic Monographs 44. Atlanta. Serghidou, A. 2006. Discours ethnographi ue et u tes identitaires en Chypre ancienne. In Fourrier and Grivaud 2006:165 186. Servais-Soye , B. 1977. Byblos et la fête des Adonies. tudes Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 60. Leiden. ———. 1984. Musi ue et Adonies. Apport archéologi ue la connaissance du rituel adonidien. In s.n. 1984:61 72. Rome. Sethe, K. 1926. Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefässcherben des mittleren Reiches: Nach den Originalen im Berliner Museum. Berlin. Se nec, J. 1953. The Survival of the Pagan Gods. New York. Shedid, A. G. 1994. Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten. Mainz am Rhein. Shehata, D. 2006a. On the Mythological Background of the Lamentation Priest. In Hickmann et al. 2006:119 127. ———. 2006b. Some Observations on the /al arsur/. In Hickmann et al. 2006:367 378. ———. 2009. Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire: Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Organisation von Musikerberufen und Liedgattugen in altbabylonischer Zeit. G ttinger Beitr ge um Alten Orient 3. G ttingen. ———. 2013. Status and Organi ation of the Babylonian Lamentation Priests. In Emerit 2013:69 84. Shehata, D. and R. Pru sins ky, eds. 2010. Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. Wiener O ene Orientalistik 8. Vienna. 701 Bibliography Shelmerdine, C. W. 1984. The Perfumed Oil Industry at Pylos. In Shelmerdine and Palaima 1984:81 95. ———. 1985. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. G teborg. ———. 2008. The Palace and Its Operations. In Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, ed. J. L. Davis et al., 2nd ed., 81 96. Princeton. Shelmerdine, C. W. and T. G. Palaima, eds. 1984. P los omes Ali e Industr Administration in a Mycenaean Palace. New York. Sherratt, E. S. 1992. Immigration and Archaeology: Some Indirect Re ections. In str m 1992 2:316 347. ———. 1994. Commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical Innovation in 12th 11th Century Cyprus. In Karageorghis 1994:59 108. Shiloah, A. 1972. The Simsimiyya: A Stringed Instrument of the Red Sea Area. Asian Music 4/1:15 26. ———. 1993. The Dimension of Music in Islamic and Jewish Culture. Aldershot. ———. 1995. Music in the World of Islam: A Socio-Cultural study. Detroit. Shipp, R. M. 2002. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. Leiden. Shnider, S. 2010. Some Comments on W. Horowit , A Late Babylonian Tablet with Concentric Circles’. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 32:133 137. Shrimpton, G. S. 1991. Theopompus the Historian. Montreal. Siegelov , J. 1971. Appu-Märchen und Hedammu-Mythus. Studien u den Boga k yTexten 14. Wiesbaden. Sigrist, M. 1984a. Les Sattukku dans l’Ešumeša durant la période d’Isin et Larsa. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 11. Malibu. ———. 1984b. Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts 1. Berrien Springs, Michigan. ———. 1999. Livraisons et depenses royales durant la Troisieme Dynastie d’Ur. In Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient and Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (eds. R. Cha an et al.) 111 152. Winona Lake. Sigrist, M. and T. Gomi. 1991. The Comprehensive Catalogue of Published Ur III Tablets. Bethesda. Simmons, S. D. 1960. Early Old Babylonian Tablets from Harmal and Elsewhere (Continued). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 14/3:75 87. Singer, I. 1983 1984. The Hittite KI.LAM Festival. 2 vols. Studien u den Boga k yTexten 27 28. Wiesbaden. ———. 2006. Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523. Altorientalische Forschungen 33:242 262. Sivan, D. 1984. Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th c. B.C. from Canaan and Syria. Kevelaer. 702 Bibliography ———. 2001. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Leiden. Sivan, D. and . Cochavi-Rainey. 1992. West-Semitic Vocabulary in Egyptian Script of the 14th to the 10th Centuries BCE. Beer-Sheva. S berg, . W. 1965. Beitr ge um sumerischen W rterbuch. In G terbock and Jacobsen 1965:63 70. ———, ed. 1984 . The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. S berg, . W. and E. Bergmann. 1969. The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 3. Locust alley. Smith, J. S. 2008. Cyprus, the Phoenicians, and Kition. In Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. C. Sagona, 261 303. Leuven. ———. 2009. Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Cambridge. Smith, M. S. 1984. The Magic of Kothar in KTU 1.6 I 49 50. Revue Biblique 91:377 380. ———. 1990. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Francisco. ———. 1994. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. I, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.1–1.2. Leiden. ———. 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford. ———. 2008. Sacred Marriage in the Ugaritic Texts The Case of KTU/CAT 1.23 (Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods). In Nissinen and Uro 2008:93 113. ———. 2014. Athtart in Late Bron e Age Syrian Texts. In Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar, Astarte, Aphrodite, ed. D. T. Sugimoto, 33 85. Fribourg. Smith, M. S. and W. T. Pitard. 2009. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. Leiden. Snell, D. C. 1986. The Rams of Lagash. Acta Sumerologica 8:133 218. Snodgrass, A. 1994. Gains, Losses, and Survivals: What We Infer for the 11th Century B.C. In Karageorghis 1994:167 176. Sollberger, E. 1959/1960. Byblos sous les rois d’Ur. Archiv für Orientforschung 19:120 122. Sollberger, E. and C. Walker. 1985. Hammu-r p Mari et Sippar. In Durand and Kupper 1985:257 264. Solomon, J. 2011. Giovanni Boccaccio: Genealogy of the Pagan Gods, Volume I, Books I–IV. Cambridge, MA. ———. 2013. Gods, Greeks, and Poetry. In Boccaccio: A Critical Guide to the Complete Works, ed. . Kirkham et al., 235 244. Chicago. Sommer, F. 1921. Ein hethitisches Gebet. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 33:85 102. 703 Bibliography Sophocleous, S. 1985. Atlas des représentations chypro-archaic des divinités. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-Book 33. G teborg. South, A. K. 1984. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios and the Late Bron e Age of Cyprus. In Cyprus at the Close of the Late Bronze Age, ed. . Karageorghis and J. D. Muhly, 11 17. Nicosia. Spuler, B., ed. 1970. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten. Ergänzungsband 4. Leiden. Spycket, A. 1972. La Musi ue instrumentale mesopotamienne. Journal des Savants July Sept.:153 209. Spyridakis, K. 1935. ua oris I on alamis ntersuchun en ur Geschichte des kyprischen Königs. Stuttgart. ———. 1963. rioi asileis tou ai h h eta eisa s eri tou ell ni ou hara t ros t s Ar haias ria s historias. Leukosia. Stadelmann, R. 1967. Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Probleme der gyptologie 5. Leiden. Staubli, T. 1991. Das Image der Nomaden im alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. Freiburg. Stauder, W. 1957. Die Harfen und Leiern der Sumerer. Frankfurter am Main. ———. 1961. Die Harfen und Leiern Vorderasiens, in babylonischer und assyrischer Zeit. Frankfurt am Main. ———. 1970. Die Musik der Sumerer, Babylonier und Assyrer. In Spuler 1970:171 243. ———. 1973. Alte Musikinstrumente in ihrer vieltausendjährigen Entwicklung und Geschichte. Braunschweig. Steel, L. 1998. The Social Impact of Mycenaean Imported Pottery in Cyprus. Annual of the British School at Athens 93:285 296. ———. 2004. rus efore istor From the arliest ettlers to the nd of the ron e Age. London. Steele, P. M. 2011. Eteocypriot: Linguistic and Archaeological Evidence. In Cyprus: An Island Culture. Society and Social Relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian Period, ed. A. Georgiou, 122 132. Oxford. ———, ed. 2012. Syllabic Writing on Cyprus and Its Context. Cambridge. ———. 2013. A Linguistic History of Ancient Cyprus: The Non-Greek Languages and Their Relations with Greek, c.1600–300 BC. Cambridge. Stefanis, I. E. 1986. ion sia oi te hnitai m oles st n ros o ra hia tou theatrou ai t s mousi s t n ar hai n ell n n. Iraklion. Steiner, G. 1962. Neue Ala i a-Texts. Kadmos 1/2:130 138. Steinkeller, P. 1987. The Administrative and Economic Organi ation of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46:19 41. 704 Bibliography ———. 1992. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Civili ations 4. Winona Lake. ———. 1993. Observations on the Sumerian Personal Names in Ebla Sources and on the Onomasticon of Mari and Kish. In The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen et al., 236 245. Bethesda. ———. 1999. On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship. In Priests and cials in the Ancient ear ast, ed. K. Watanabe, 103 137. Heidelberg. ———. 2006. New Light on Marha i and Its Contacts with Makkan and Babylonia. Journal of Magan Studies 1:1 17. Stella, L. A. 1958. La Religione greca nei testi micenei. Numen 5/1:18 57. ———. 1965. La Civiltà micenea nei documenti contemporanei. Rome. Stephens, S. A. 2002. Linus Song. Hermathena 173/174:13 28. Stieglit , R. R. 1990. Ebla and the Gods of Canaan. In Eblaitica 2, ed. C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, 79 89. Winona Lake. ———. 2002. The Dei ed Kings of Ebla. In Eblaitica 4, ed. C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, 215 222. Winona Lake. Stiehle, R. 1853. Die kyklischen Nosten. Philologus 8:49 77. St kl, J. 2012. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison. Leiden. Stoneman, R. 2008. Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend. New Haven. Strack, H. L. 1983. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. New York. Strange, J. 1980. a htor eftiu A e In esti ation. Leiden. Strauss, R. 2006. Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin. Stutley, M. and J. Stutley. 1977. Harper’s Dictionary of Hinduism: Its Mythology, Folklore, Philosophy, Literature, and History. New York. Suter, A., ed. 2008. Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond. Oxford. Suter, C. E. 2000. Gudea’s Temple Building. Groningen. Sweet, R. F. G. 1994. A New Look at the Sacred Marriage’ in Ancient Meospotamia. In orolla orontonensis tudies in onour of Ronald orton Smith, ed. E. Robbins and S. Sandahl, 85 104. Toronto. S emerényi, O. 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of IndoEuropean Accent. Naples. ———. 1968. Review of E. Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec (Paris, 1967). Indogermanische Forschungen 73:192 197. ———. 1974. The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: Ex Oriente lux. Journal of Hellenic Studies 94:144 157. 705 Bibliography ———. 1981. Review of P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Tome IV (Paris 1980). Gnomon 53/2:113 116. ———. 1986. Etyma Graeca (30 32): ocabula maritima tria. In Etter 1986:425 450. Tadmor, H. 1982. Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East. In Humanizing America’s Iconic Book, ed. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight, 127 152. Chico. Talbert, R. J. A. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton. ———. 1999. Tacitus and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. American Journal of Philology 120/1:89 97. ———. 2010. Rome’s World: The Peutinger Map Reconsidered. Cambridge. Taylor, J. 2001. A New OB Proto-Lu-Proto-I i Combination Tablet. Orientalia n.s. 70:209 234. Taylor, P. 2008. The GALA and the Gallos. In Collins et al. 2008:173 180. Teeter, E. 1993. Female Musicians in Pharaonic Egypt. In Marshall 1993:68 91. Tegyey, I. 1984. The Northeast Workshop at Pylos. In Shelmerdine and Palaima 1984:65 79. Teixidor, J. 1977. The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East. Princeton. Tekoglu, R. and A. Lemaire. 2000. La Bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de inek y. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 144/3:961 1006. Thackston, W. M. 1978. he ales of the Pro hets of al isa i. Boston. Thalmann, W. G. 1984. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore. Thomas, R. 1981. Cinna, Calvus, and the Ciris. Classical Quarterly 31: 371 374. Thompson, D. A. W. 1936. A Glossary of Greek Birds. London. Thompson, E. M. 1893. Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography. New York. Thubron, C. 1987. The Hills of Adonis: A Journey in Lebanon. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1903. Recueil des tablettes chaldéennes. Paris. ———. 1907. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften. Leip ig. ———. 1921. Rituels accadiens. Paris. ———. 1922. Tablettes d’Uruk: À l’usage des prêtres du Temple d’Anu au temps des Séleucides. Textes Cunéiformes. Musées du Louvre 6. Paris. ———. 1939. Tablettes hourrites provenant de Mari. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 36:1 28. Tischler, J. et al. 1977. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbrucker Beitr ge ur Sprachwissenschaft 20. Innsbruck. Todd, I. A. and A. K. South. 1992. The Late Bron e Age in the asilikos alley: Recent Research. In Ioannides 1992:191 204. 706 Bibliography Tomberg, K.-H. 1968. Die Kaine Historia des Ptolemaios Chennos: Eine literarhistorische und quellenkritische Untersuchung. Bonn. Tonietti, M. . 1988. La Figura del nar nei testi di Ebla. Ipotesi per una cronologia delle liste di nomi presenti nei testi economici. Miscellanea Eblaitica 1:79 119. ———. 1989. Aggiornamento alla cronologia dei nar. Miscellanea Eblaitica 2:117 129. ———. 1997. Nar Directly Connected to a Temple in Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997/1:37 38 no. 39. ———. 1998. The Mobility of the NAR and the Sumerian Personal Names in Pre-Sargonic Mari Onomasticon. Subartu 4/2:83 101. ———. 2010. Musicians in the Ebla Texts: A Third-Millennium Local Source for Northern Syria. In Shehata and Pru sins ky 2010:67 93. Trémouille, M.-C. 2005. Texte verschiedenen Inhalts. Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkm ler I/8. Rome. Tropper, J. 1994. Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language In Ugarit and the Bible, ed. G. J. Brooke, 343 353. M nster. Tsabl , E. 2009. PhD diss., ανεπιστ μιο θ νών. Tsukimoto, A. 1985. ntersuchun en ur oten fle e is um im alten eso otamien. Kevelaer. Tsumura, D. T. 1973. The Ugaritic Drama of the Good Gods: A Philological Study. PhD diss., Brandeis University. Tubb, J. N. 2003. Phoenician Dance. Near Eastern Archaeology 66/3:122 125. Tuplin, C. 1996. Achaemenid Studies. Stuttgart. Ulbrich, T. 1906. Die pseudo-melitonische Apologie. In Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, ed. M. Sdralek, 4:67 148. Breslau. Ulrich, E. G. 1978. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Missoula. ———. 1989. Josephus’ Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel. In Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldmna and G. Hata, 81 96. Leiden. Untersteiner, M. 1954. The Sophists. New York. Utley, F. L. 1941. The One Hundred and Three Names of Noah’s Wife. Speculum 16/4:426 452. van de Mieroop, M. 2005. King Hammurabi of Babylon: A Biography. Malden. van den Branden, A. 1956. Notes phéniciennes. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 13:87 95. ———. 1968. Grammaire phénicienne. Beyrouth. van der Ploeg, J. 1963. Notes sur le Psaume LI . Oudtestamentische Studiën 13:137 172. 707 Bibliography van der Slui s, M. A. 2008. On the Wings of Love. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8/2:219 251. van der alk, M. 1949. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden. ———. 1963. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad. Leiden. ———. 1971 1987. ommentarii ad omeri Iliadem ertinentes ad dem codicis Laurentiani editi. Leiden. van Di k, J. 1983. Lugal Ud Me-Lám-bi Nir-Gál. Leiden. van Meurs, J. 1675. Creta, Rhodus, Cyprus, sive De nobilissimarum harum insularum rebus & antiquitatibus, commentarii postumi, nunc primum editi. 3 vols. Amsterdam. van Selms, A. 1979. The Root r and Its Derivatives in Ugaritic Literature. Ugarit-Forschungen 11:739 744. van Soldt, W. H. 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. Kevelaer. ———. 1995. Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts. In Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loret , 171 212. M nster. andenabeele, F. and R. La neur, eds. 1991. Cypriote Terracottas: Proceedings of the First International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Brussels-Liège-Amsterdam, 29 May–1 June 1989. Brussels. andervondelen, M. 1994. Danseuses inédites du British Museum. In Cypriote Stone Sculpture. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Brussels-Liège, 17–19 May, 1993, ed. F. andenabeele and R. La neur, 149 152 and pl. LI L . Brussels-Li ge. anschoonwinkel, J. 1990. Mopsos: Legendes et réalité. Hethitica 10:185 211. ———. 1994. La Présence grec ue Chypre au Ie si cle av. J.-C. In Karageorghis 1994:109 132. eldhuis, N. C. 1996. The Ugarit Lexical Text RS 13.53 (PRU III, Planche ). Die Welt des Orients 27:25 29. ———. 1997. Elementary Education at Nippur: The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects. PhD diss., Ri ksuniversiteit Groningen. ———. 1997 1998. The Sur9-Priest, the Instrument gi Al-gar-sur9, and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign. Archiv für Orientforschung 44 45:115 128. ———. 2000. Kassite Exercises: Literary and Lexical Extracts. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52:67 94. ———. 2004. Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the Birds.” Cuneiform Monographs 22. Leiden. ella, N. Forthcoming. Phoenician’ Metal Bowls: Boundary Ob ects in the Archaic Period. In Punic Interactions: Cultural, Technological and Economic 708 Bibliography Exchange between Punic and Other Cultures in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the II International on ress of lassical Archaeolo Rome, ed. A. Wilson and J. uinn. ellay, C. 1957. Les Légendes du cycle troyen. Monaco. ermes, G. 2011. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. London. ermeule, E. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Sather Classical Lectures 46. Berkeley. irolleaud, C. 1929. Les Inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras Shamra. Syria 10:304 310. ———. 1968. Les Nouveaux textes mythologi ues et liturgi ues de Ras Shamra ( I e Campagne, 1961). In Nougayrol et al. 1968:545 595. olk, K. 1988. Eine bemerkenswerte nach-Fara- eitliche Urkunde. Orientalia 57:206. ———. 2006. Inannas Tischlein Deck’ Dich’. orl u ger Bericht ur Rekonstruktion der 17. Tafel von ru m-ma-ir-ra-bi. Baghdader Mitteilungen 37:91 116. von Hornbostel, E. M. and C. Sachs, 1914. Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Ein ersuch. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 46.4 5:553 590. von Kampt , H. 1956. Homerische Personennamen: Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische lassi ation. G ttingen. von Lieven, A. 2008. Native and Foreign Elements in the Musical Life of Ancient Egypt. In Hickmann et al. 2008:155 160. von Soden, W. 1988. Musikinstrumente in Mari. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1988/3:42 43 no. 59. von Weiher, E. 1988. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk 3. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12. Berlin. orreiter, L. 1972/1973. Westsemitische Urformen von Saiteninstrumenten. Mitteilungungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musik des Orients (Berlin) 11:71 77. oyat is, M. E. 1985. Arcadia and Cyprus: Aspects of Their Interrelationship Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries B.C. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1985:155 163. Wace, A. J. B. 1902 1903. Apollo Seated on the Omphalos: A Statue at Alexandria. Annual of the British School at Athens 9:211 242. Waer eggers, C. and R. Siebes. 2007. An Alternative Interpretation of the SevenPointed Star on CBS 1766. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2007/2:43 45 no. 40. Wagensonner, K. 2008. Nin-Isina(k)s Journey to Nippur Reconsidered. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 98:277 294. Wagner, R. 1891. Epitoma Vaticana ex Apollodori Bibliotheca. Leip ig. 709 Bibliography ———, ed. 1894. Apollodori Bibliotheca. Leip ig. Walcot, P. 1966. Hesiod and the Near East. Cardi . Ward, W. A. and M. S. Joukowsky, eds. 1992. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque. Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York. Watson, W. G. E. 1994. Aspects of Style in KTU 123. tudi i ra ci e in uistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 11:3 8. ———. 1996. Comments on Some Ugaritic Lexical Items. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 22:73 84. Watt, J. W. 1986. The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit. 2 vols. Louvain. Webb, J. M. 1992. Cypriote Bron e Age Glyptic: Style, Function and Social Context. In Eikon: Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping Methodology, ed. R. La neur and J. L. Crowley, 113 121. Li ge. ———. 1999. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 75. Jonsered. ———. 2001. The Sanctuary of the Ingot God at Enkomi: A New Reading of Its Construction, Use, and Abandonment. In Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of Paul Åström, ed. P. M. Fischer, 69 82. ienna. ———. 2002. Device, Image, and Coercion: The Role of Glyptic in the Political Economy of Late Bron e Age Cyprus. In Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, ed. J. S. Smith, 111 154. Boston. ———. 2003. From Ishtar to Aphrodite: The Transformation of a Goddess. In From Ishtar to Aphrodite: 3200 Years of Cypriot Hellenism: Treasures from the Museums of Cyprus, ed. S. Had isavvas et al., 15 20. New ork. Webster, T. B. L. 1954. Pylos Aa, Ab Tablets Pylos E Tablets Additional Homeric Notes. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 1:11 16. ———. 1964. From Mycenae to Homer. 2nd ed. New York. Wegner, I. 1981. Gestalt und Kult der Ištar-Šawuška in Kleinasien. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 36/Hurritologische Studien 3. Kevelaer. ———. 2007. Einführung in die hurritische Sprache. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden. Wegner, M. 1949. Das Musikleben der Griechen. Berlin. ———. 1950. Die Musikinstrumente des alten Orients. M nster. Weidner, E. F. 1939. The Inscription from Kythera. Journal of Hellenic Studies 59:137 138. ———. 1957 1958. Neue Endeckungen in Ugarit. Archiv für Orientforschung 18:167 170. Weit man, S. 1997. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Bloomington. 710 Bibliography Wellhausen, J. 1871. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis. G ttingen. Werner, E. 1957. Musical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For Curt Sachs on His 75th Birthday. Musical Quarterly 43:21 37. West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod Theogony. Oxford. ———. 1990. Notes on Sappho and Alcaeus. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 80:1 8. ———. 2000. The Name of Aphrodite. Glotta 76:134 138. ———. 2001. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich. ———. 2003. Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, MA. ———. 2013. The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. Westenhol , . 1999. The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. In Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. W. Sallaberger and Å. Westenhol , 17 117. Freiburg. Westenhol , J. G. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. The Texts. Mesopotamian Civili ations 7. Winona Lake. ———. 2007. Notes on the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend. Iraq 69:21 27. ———. 2011. The Transmission and Reception of the Sargonic Sagas in the Hittite World. In Hethitische Literatur: Überlieferungsprozesse, Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen und Nachwirken. Akten des Symposiums vom 18. bis 20. Februar 2010 in Bonn, ed. M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar, 285 304. M nster. Westenhol , J. G. and A. Westenhol , 2006. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Old Babylonian Inscriptions. Cuneiform Monographs 33. Leiden. Westermann, A. 1843. Mythographoi: Scriptores poeticae historiae Graeci. Brunswick. Wheeler, B. M. 2002. Prophets in the Quran: An Introduction to the Quran and Muslim Exegesis. London. White, H. G. E. 1932. The Monasteries of the Wâdi ‘n Natrûn, Part II: The History of the Monasteries of Nitria and of Scetis. New York. Whittaker, G. 2002. Linguistic Anthropology and the Study of Emesal as (a) Women’s Language. In Parpola and Whiting 2002 2:633 644. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1992. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Rexts. Cuneiform Monographs 1. Groningen. Wi ngaarden, G. J. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus, and Italy (ca. 1600–1200 BC). Amsterdam. Wilamowit -M llendor , U. von. 1900. Lesefr chte. Hermes 35/3:533 566. Wilcke, C. 1973. Sumerische literarische Texte in Manchester und Liverpool. Archiv für Orientforschung 24:1 17. ———. 1987. Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984). In Isin I ān a r āt III ie r e nisse der Aus ra un en , ed. B. 711 Bibliography Hrouda, 83 120 and Tafeln 133 144. Abhandlungen, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, n.F. 94. Munich. ———. 2011. Eine Weihinschrift Gudeas von Laga mit altbabylonischer berset ung. In Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, ed. A. R. George and M. Civil, 29 47. Cornell Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda. Wilhelm, G. 1989. The Hurrians. Warminster. Williamson, M. 1969. Les Harpes sculptees du temple d’Ishtar Mari. Syria 46:209 224 and pl. II. Wilson, E. J. 1996. The Cylinders of Gudea: Transliteration, Translation and Index. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 244. Neukirchen- luyn. Wilson, N. G. 1983. Scholars of Byzantium. Baltimore. Wilson, P. 1999. The Aulos in Athens. In Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, ed. S. D. Goldhill and R. Osborne, 58 95. Cambridge. ———. 2009. Thamyris the Thracian: The Archetypal Wandering Poet In Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality and Panhellenism, ed. R. Hunter and I. Rutherford, 117 187. Cambridge. Wimber, M. 2009. Makers of Meaning: Plays and Processions in Goddess Cults of the Near East. In Pageants and Processions: Images and Idiom as Spectacle, ed. H. du Toit, 3 24. Newcastle. Winkler, J. J. 1990. The Constraints of Desire. The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York. Winter, I. J. 1976. Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: uestions of Style and Distribution. Iraq 38/1:1 22. ———. 1987. Is There a South Syrian Style of Ivory Carving in the First Millennium B.C. Iraq 43:101 130. ———. 1988. North Syria as a Bron e-Working Centre in the Early First Millennium B.C.: Luxury Commodities at Home and Abroad. In Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c.1000–539 B.C., ed. J. E. Curtis, 193 225. London. ———. 1990. Review of G. Markoe, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley 1985). Gnomon 62/3:236 241. ———. 1995. Homer’s Phoenicians: History, Ethnography, or Literary Trope In Carter and Morris 1995:247 271. ———. 1997. Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the isual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology. In Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, 359 381. Helsinki. Wiseman, T. P. 1974. Cinna the Poet, and Other Roman Essays. Leicester. 712 Bibliography ———. 1985. Who Was Crassicius Pansa Transactions of the American Philological Association 115:187 196. Woodbury, L. 1978. The Gratitude of the Locrian Maiden: Pindar, Pyth. 2.18 20. Transactions of the American Philological Association 108:285 299. Wright, D. P. 2001. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake. Wyatt, N. 2001. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. She eld. ———. 2007. The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit. In ounger 2007:41 74. Wyatt, N. et al., eds. 1996. Ugarit, Religion, and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 12. M nster. Wypustek, A. 2013. Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods. Leiden. ella, P. 1976. Il Dio siriano Kothar. In a ia tudi di storia delle reli ioni in memoria di Ra aela Garosi, ed. P. ella, 111 126. Rome. ———. 1979 1984. Remar ues sur le vocabulaire sacri ciel d’Ugarit. Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Études Chamito-sémitiques I III:467 487. adin, . 1971. Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. New York. akubovich, I. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden. amauchi, E. M. 1973. Cultic Prostitution: A Case Study in Cultural Di usion. In Occident and Orient. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of this i t fth irthda , ed. H. A. Ho ner, 213 222. Kevelaer. asur-Landau, A. 2008. A Message in a Jug: Canaanite, Philistine, and Cypriot Iconography and the Orpheus Jug’. In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, ed. A. Fantalkin and A. asur-Landau, 213 229. Bene Israel. on, M. 1974. Un Dépôt de sculptures archaïques (Ayios Varnavas, site A). Salamine de Chypre 5. Paris. ———. 1999. Chypre et Ougarit la n du Bron e Récent. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1999:113 119. ———. 2004. Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Paris. on, M. and A. Caubet, 1988. Un Culte populaire de la Grand Déesse Lapithos. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988/2:1 16 and pl. I I . on, M. and M. S nycer, 1991. Une Inscription phénicienne royale de Kition (Chypre). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135/4:791 823. 713 Bibliography ounger, J. G. 1998. Music in the Aegean Bronze Age. Jonsered. ounger, K. L., ed. 2007. The Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Transition and the Origins of the Aramaeans. Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Winona Lake. accagnini, C. 1973. o cam io dei doni nel icino riente durante i secoli III. Rome. ———. 1983a. On Gift Exchange in the Old Babylonian Period. In Studi orientalistici in ricordo di Franco Pintore, ed. O. Carruba et al., 189 253. Pavia. ———. 1983b. Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42/4:245 264. ———. 1987. Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East During the Late Second Millennium BC. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands et al., 57 65. Cambridge. armas, P. 1975. Studien zur Volksmusik Zyperns. Baden-Baden. ettler, R. 1987. Sealings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39:197 240. iegler, N. 1999. Le Harem du vaincu. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 93:1 26. ———. 2006a. Die internationale’ Welt der Musik anhand der Briefe aus Mari (Syrien, 18. Jhd. v. Chr.). In Hickmann et al. 2006:345 354. ———. 2006b. Les Musiciens de la cour de Mari. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 310:32 38. ———. 2010. Teachers and Students: Conveying Musical Knowledge in the Kingdom of Mari. In Shehata and Pru sins ky 2010:119 133. Zimmerle, W. Forthcoming. ‘Spices of All Kinds’: South Arabian and Arabianizing Censers in Cultural Motion from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. 714 Index Locorum I have distributed the sources into four broad groups: Near Eastern Sources; Cypriot Inscriptions; Greek/Latin; Medieval and Early Modern. The rst is subdivided by language and/or region, with classical authors included when relevant (Berossos resides in Mesopotamia, Josephus among Biblical/Judaica, and Philo of Byblos with Phoenician/Punic). Cypriot Inscriptions, in keeping with the book’s Cyprocentric outlook, consolidates Greek, Phoenician, and Eteocypriot’ material; further Phoenician and Greek examples are located respectively in Near Eastern Sources (Phoenician/Punic) and Greek/Latin (Inscriptions). Crossreferences are provided to help navigation. Professor Heimpel’s sources could not be not fully indexed; but my own citations of his Catalogue texts have been given in Near Eastern Sources (Mesopotamia). Near Eastern Sources Alalakh AT 172.7, 54n41, 98n54; 385.2, 440n108 Arabic and Arabia Arabian Nights 182, 543n32 CIS 2 268, 542n23 (Mada’in Saleh, Saudi Arabia, Nabataean) Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, 44n8 Ibn urd bih, 543n29 Ibn Salama, Al-Mufa al, itā al malāh (Book of Instruments), 301n127 I d al Far d, 183n196 al-Kalb , Hisham ibn, 312 al-Mas d , 60n88 Quran 17.55, 182n192; 21.79, 183n193; 21.81, 183n195; 27.15, 182n192; 27.16–45, 183n195; 34.10, 183n193; 34.12–14, 183n195; 38.18, 183n194; 38.36, 183n195 al-Tha lab , 183 Biblical/Judaica Acts 2:30, 175n153 Amos 5:21 23, 139n164; 6:4 7, 139n164; 6:5, 158n59 ‘Arakin 10a, 117n35; 10b, 155n39; 13b, 58n69, 117n36 Berakhot 3b 182n186 1 Chronicles 2:6, 152n23, 156n45, 715 Index Locorum (1 Chronicles, cont. ) 177n161; 6:1 32, 149n1, 155n38; 6:22, 174n147; 9:19, 174n147; 9:31, 174n147; 9:33, 116n25; 13:8, 116n25, 117n35; 15–16, 168n103; 15:16, 116n25; 15:16 22, 117n35; 15:16 24, 149n1, 155n38, 164n86; 15:19, 117n34; 15:19 21, 116n24; 15:22, 157n55; 15:26, 170n119, 171n124; 15:27, 169n116; 15:28, 155n38; 15:29, 169n108; 16:5, 117n33, 117n35; 17:1, 151n13; 17:6, 151n13; 22:4, 151n13; 23:5, 158n59; 25:1, 164n86; 25:1 31, 149n1, 155n38; 25:3 6, 164n86; 25:6, 117n35; 26:29, 157n57 2 Chronicles 5:3, 172n133; 5:11, 172n133; 5:12, 164n86; 5:12 13, 116n25; 7:6, 155n38, 158n59, 173n141; 20:19, 174n147; 20:21 23, 164n86; 20:22 23, 164n87; 29:21 28, 172n134; 29:25, 155n38, 173n142; 29:26, 158n59; 29:27 28, 172n135 Dead Sea Scrolls 1 33 4:5, 58n68; 1 H-a col. I , 301n128; 4Q162.6–10, 157n50; 4Q381 fr. 24.4, 178n168; 4Q381 fr. 31.4, 178n168; 4Q381 fr. 33.8, 178n168; 4 427 1:4 5, 301n128; 4 Sam, 168n105 Deuteronomy 31:19 22, 164n86; 32, 156n41 Ecclesiastes 2:8, 154n28 Exodus 15, 156n41; 15:2, 176n158, 177n161; 15:20, 126n90; 15:20 21, 164n86 E ekiel 8:14 15, 470; 26:13, 43n3; 27:7, 323n15; 33:32, 445n11; 40:44 46, 164n86 E ra 2:41, 155n38; 2:64, 155n38; 3:7, 151n13; 3:10, 117n35; 3:10 13, 155n38; 6:4, 151n13 716 Genesis 4:19 22, 44n5; 4:21, 129n104, 312n188; 4:21 (L ), 215n164, 312n188; 4:22, 454n73; 4:23 24, 312n187; 10:3 4, 514n124, 514n127; 10:4 5, 10n44; 10:22 31, 43n3; 11:11 26, 43n3; 25:20, 43n3; 31:20, 43n4; 31:27, 43n4; 38:12 30, 404n26 Isaiah 5:11 12, 138n164, 157n50, 293n79; 12:2, 176n158, 177n161; 14:10 11, 43n3, 146n206; 16:10 11, 301n125; 23:15 16, 43n3, 302n130, 538n9; 24:8, 300n120; 36:1 2, 154n30 Jeremiah 9:17 and 20, 293n77; 31:4, 126n90; 34:5, 283n25 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 3.12, 155n39; 5.180, 452n64; 5.183, 452n64; 6.166, 540n8; 6.168, 540n8; 7.12, 153n24; 7.78–89, 168n103 and 106–107; 7.80–81, 170n117; 7.85, 170n118, 540n8; 7.85–89, 169n108; 7.305, 158n59, 158n61; 7.306, 58n64, 540n8; 8.94, 149n1, 155n38, 158n61; 8.176, 149n1, 155n38, 158n61; 19.94, 284n35 Against Apion 1.106–127, 407n45; 2.38–42, 47n19 Judges 3:8, 452n64; 3:10 (and L ), 452n64; 5, 126n90, 156n41; 11:34, 126n90 Kelim 15 (BT 17.75) 302n131 1 Kings 4, 151n15; 4:22 28, 151n16; 4:30, 151n17; 4:31 34, 151n18; 5, 151n13; 5:6 10, 151n13; 5:18, 151n13; 6:15 16, 151n13; 6:37 38, 151n12; 7:2, 151n13; 7:2 3, 151n13; 7:11 12, 151n13; 7:27 37, 390n109; 8:2, 172n133; 9:10 14, 151n13; 9:11, 151n12; 10:1 3, 151n17; 10:11 25, 150n9; Near Eastern Sources 10:12, 158n61; 10:23 25, 151n16, 151n16; 11:1 3, 154n31; 11:4 8, 154n34; 16:9 20, 138n162; 18, 146n207 2 Kings 3:13 20, 165n88; 18:13 37, 154n30; 24:13 25:21, 150n7 1 Maccabees 4:54, 215n164 Matthew 1:1 17, 180n174 Midrash Rabbah Numbers 15.11, 58n69; 15.16, 182n186 Nehemiah 7:1, 301n123; 7:67, 301n123; 7:73, 301n123; 12:27, 181n184; 12:27 47, 155n38, 301n123; 12:36, 158n59 Numbers 9:14, 152n23; 10:1 10, 155n39; 16:1 11, 174n147; 23 24, 156n41; 24:17, 180n176; 25:14, 138n162 Philo Biblical Antiquities 2.8, 215n164 Proverbs 7:17, 283n27 Psalms 3 9, 178n166; 4:1, 162n80; 5:1 2, 162n80; 8, 161n76; 11 32, 178n166; 18, 174n147, 178n166; 29, 174n148; 33:1 3, 58n67, 162n80; 34 41, 178n166; 34:1, 162n80; 42, 174n147; 44–49, 174n147; 47:1, 162n80; 49:1 4, 162; 49:2 5, 164n86; 51 70, 178n166; 57:8 9, 444n7; 61:1 2, 162n80; 68:25, 116n26; 77:1, 162n80; 78:2 3, 162n81; 80:1, 162n80; 81, 161n76; 81:1 2, 129n104, 162n80; 83:1, 162n80; 84, 161n76; 84–5, 174n147; 86, 178n166; 86:1, 162n80; 87 88, 174n147; 88, 152n23; 88:1 2, 162n80; 89:1, 162n80; 92:1 3, 162n80; 95:1 2, 162n80; 96:1 2, 162n80; 98:1 2, 162n80; 98:4 6, 179n169; 101, 178n166; 101:1, 162n80; 102:1 2, 162n80; 103, 178n166; 105:1 2, 162n80; 108:1 3, 163, 181; 109 110, 178n166; 116:1 2, 162n80; 118:14, 176n158, 177n161; 120:1, 162n80; 122, 178n166; 124, 178n166; 130:1 2, 162n80; 131, 178n166; 132, 168n103, 175; 133, 178n166; 135:3, 129n104; 137:1 4, 300n121; 138 145, 178n166; 141:1, 162n80; 142:1 2, 162n80; 143:1, 162n80; 144 145, 178n166; 144:9, 58n67; 147:1, 129n104, 162n80; 148:7 10, 179n179; 149, 179n170; 149:1, 162n80; 149:3, 179n171; 150, 179n171; 150:1 6, 162n80; 150:4, 117n35; 151 L , 178n166, 194n43; 151:2 L , 58n66; 151:3 L , 158n59 Psalms of Solomon, 152n20 Revelation 18:22, 300n120 1 Samuel 8:20, 150n6; 10:5 6, 45n11, 157n48, 265n105; 10.5, 157n53; 16:10, 172n132; 16:14, 166n94; 16:14 23, 166n95; 16:16, 166n96; 16:18, 167n98; 16:23, 58n66, 158n58, 540n8; 18:6, 126n90, 126n92; 19:20 24, 164n86; 19:36, 154n28; 27:1 6, 161n76; 31:10, 378n48 2 Samuel 1:17 27, 175n150, 301n126; 3:33 4, 175n150; 6, 168n103; 6:5, 117n35, 155n38, 169n115, 170n117; 6:5 L , 169n115, 214n154; 6:13, 171n124; 6:13 14 L , 170n121; 6:13 17, 169n109; 6:15, 155n38; 6:15 L , 169n115; 6:16, 169n108; 6:16 L , 170n121; 6:20 23, 169n108; 6:21, 174n146; 7:2, 151n13; 7:7, 151n13; 18:33, 301n126, 312n190; 22, 174n147; 23:1, 129n104 105, 178; 23:1 2, 175n152; 23:1 7, 174n147, 178n166 Sanhedrin 16a, 182n186; 38b, 180n177 Shabbath 56b, 154n36 717 Index Locorum Sirach 45:9, 129n104 Song of Songs, 152, 154n34; 5:13, 283n27 Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3, 183n198 echariah 12:11, 485n154 Ebla ARET 3 44 .1, 66n28 ARET 11 1 11, 68n42; 1 13, 68n42; 1 32, 68n42; 1 63 65, 69n45; 1 75 77, 69n50; 1 85, 68n41; 1 88, 68n41; 1 91, 68n41; 2, 68n40; 2 16, 68n42; 2 66, 68n43; 2 66 68, 69n45; 2 79 81, 69n50; 2 89, 68n41; 2 92, 68n41; 2 95, 68n41; 3 11 14, 68n40; 3 12, 68n42, 69n50 ARET 12 709 I.3 4, 66n28; 773 I.1 2, 66n28; 874 I .11 12, 66n28 ARET 15.1 23 obv. II.14 15 ( 34), 66n24; 25 obv. II.1 ( 24), 65n23 Ebla Vocabulary 571, 66n32; 572, 54n35 TM.75.G.1672, 67n34; TM.75.G.1823 , 67n34; TM.75.G.1939 , 67n34; TM 75.G.2337 obv. II 47, 71n62; TM 75.2365 rev. II.17 20, 66n24 Egypt Aten Hymns, 110n127 El-Amarna Letters EA 23, 373n11; 31, 323n15; 33–40, 11n45, 323n11; 33.16–18, 324n20; 34, 323n15; 34.18, 324n20; 34.24, 50–51, 330n63; 35, 372, 396n134; 35.1015, 324n20, 372n1; 35.25, 330n63; 35.26, 373n8; 35.27–29, 326n34; 35.30–36, 12n58; 35.35-39, 372n1; 35.37, 324n20; 35.43, 323n11; 36.5–7, 12–14, 324n20; 37.9, 324n20; 39.10–20, 12n58, 326n34; 40.7–8, 13–20, 323n15, 324n20, 326n34; 77, 482n137; 84.33, 718 483n144; 101, 55n51; 114, 55n51, 481n134; 116, 55n51; 129.51, 483n146; 138.6, 55n51; 269.16, 199n71 Execration Texts 441, 452n62 and 64, 478n119 Medinet Habu Inscription (Ramesses III), 13n66 Papyrus Anastasi, 56n55, 106 Tale of Wen-Amun, 14, 105n101, 354, 481, 514n129 Emar h I.10 12, 78-79, 206n106 Installation of Baal’s High Priestess, 171 Hittite, Hurro-Hittite, Neo-Hittite/Luwian inek y inscription (Cilicia). See Phoenician/Punic CTH 105, 12n54; 121, 13n64; 141, 376n38; 147, 13n64, 348n63; 321, 98n51; 344, 97n50; 345, 92n10; 348, 92n10; 364, 103n88; 481 (Establishing a New Temple for the Goddess of the Night), 100; 483, 376n35; 716, 376n31; 718, 329n52, 330n60; 771, 102n80 Karatepe inscriptions. See Phoenician/Punic (KAI 26) KBo 1.52 obv. i.15–16, 98n55, 116n30; 2.9, 100n68, 376n31; 4.13, 94n21; 11.60 rev. 7’ 15’, 95n32; 12.38, 13n64; 12.39, 12n56, 376n38; 12.88.5–10, 32n92; 14.142 i.20–33, 103n86; 17.74, 94n23; 19.128, 94n23; 20.85 rev. iv.1–5, 95n27; 21.34 ii.9–10, 95n26; 23.42 27.119 rev. iv.24’ 25’, 94n25; 26.137, 2, 32n92; 33.109 right col. line 6, 99n60; 33.167 rev. iv.16’– 20’, 94n25, 101n79; 34.68, 95n31; 39.4.25, 95n31; 629, 99n58 Near Eastern Sources KUB 1.1 iii.28 30, 12n56; 9.31, 509n88; 10.82 rev. v.4 10, 94n21; 14.1 rev. 84–90, 13n64, 348n63; 14.14 obv. 16–22, 12n56; 15.34 i.48–65, 376n35; 15.35, 100n68, 376n31; 20.19, 95n26; 21.17 ii.5–8, 100n72; 23.1 iv.1–7, 12n54; 25.1 rev. v.11 16, 93n14; 25.37 , 102n80; 30.15, 95n35; 30.23, 95n35; 30.25, 95n31; 32.133 i.1–7, 100n71; 39.13 ii.5, 95n35; 39.19.17 20, 95n35; 39.71 obv. ii.18 30, 329n52; 39.71 rev. iv.9–21, 329n52; 45.45, 99n58; 47.40 obv. 10, 99n58; 51.87 rev. iv.12’ 14’, 95n26; 56.46 ii.3’ 7’, 95n28 Kumarbi Cycle, 92n10, 97, 103 Ritual and Prayer to Ishtar of Nineveh, 100, 474 Song of Hedammu, 92n10 Song of Silver, 103, 506 Song of Ullikummi, 92n10 Tale of Illuyanka, 98 Mesopotamia Abzu Pelam (The Defiled Apsu), 84n87 Amherst (Pinches 1908) 82 rev. 19, 483n141 An:Anum, 29n68; I 268, 35n114; II 343–344, 124n82; III 51, 36n118; III 153 158, 21n18, 507n72; 100 106, 29n68; 168, 485n159; 291, 21n18 ARAB 1 756, 300n119; 2 186, 353n88; 2 312, 154n30; 2 319, 328n41; 2 690, 14n73, 360n131, 546n9 ARM 13 20, 54n41, 76n25; 21 298, 76n28; 23 180, 76n26; 23 213, 76n28; 25 547, 76n27; 25 566, 84n81 Assyrian King List, 83 Babylonian Erra Myth, 25 Berossos FGH 680 F 4, 462n14 Curse of Agade, 41 Diri, 79, 122; III.43 45 (Assur), 79n49, 34n106; III.49, 36n115 Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary B2 = MS 2340 22:20’, 54n37, 87 Elum Gusun (Honored One, Wild Ox), 27n60 Enegi temple-hymn, 140n169 Enki’s Journey to Nippur, 34n107 Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, 474n96 Epic of Gilgamesh, 462n16; vi.24–79, 474n97 The Fashioning of the Gala, 29n72 FM 4 37, 82n69; 4 42.4 5, 77n29; 9 11, 74n10; 9 21, 75n22; 9 45–46, 75n21; 9 52.8’–9’, 82n68; 9 53, 76n25, 86n85; 9 59, 81n63 Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty, 83. Gudea Cylinders A 5.2 10, 393n123; 6.6–8, 393n123; 6.24–7.6, 28n64; 7.9–8.1, 28n64; 7.25, 30n81; 9.24, 27n55; 15.19–25, 27n56; 18.10–19.2, 393n123; 18.18, 532n10; 20.24 21.12, 393n123; 22.20, 27n57; 28.17, 534n16; 28.18, 532n9, 532n10; B 6.11–23, 27n58; 6.24–7.11, 27n59; 7.12–21, 27n57; 8.10–22, 30n82; 10.9–15, 28n67; 10.16–11.2, 29n70; 15.19–16.2, 28n67, 32n96; 15.20, 532n10; 18.22–19.1, 28n67; 19.1, 532n10; 24.17, 26n49 Heimpel, Balang Gods Catalogue 4b, 66n26; 4c, 54n37, 65n22, 77n35; 4d and 4e, 71n65; 4g, 531n2; 9 and 11, 20n5, 41n152; 12, 20n5; 13, 20n5–6; 15, 20n5; 17b, 21n19; 17f, 20n5; 20a–20b, 20n5; 23, 84n83–84; 23a1, 22n21; 23b, 485n158; 23f, 84n86, 102n81, 291n69, 380n62, 485n158; 23g, 76n27; 23g2, 84n81; 27, 414n81; 719 Index Locorum (Heimpel, cont. ) 34c, 76n27; 37, 41n152; 40, 36n119; 42a, 30n78; 42c, 76n27; 43, 41n150 and 152; 44, 84n78; 47, 84n85; 47a, 485n158; 49, 84n87; 53, 21n18, 29n68, 35n114, 36n118, 485n159, 507n72; 54, 30n79, 124n82 g 169 (MSL 6, 142), 36n115 h (HAR.ra/ur5-ra), 78n39, 79n50; 79–80, 36n115 Hymn to the Queen of Nippur, 78 Iddin-Dagan A, 37n125, 39n135, 39n136 Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld, 29n72, 145n197 In the Desert by the Early Grass, 140n170 Ishme-Dagan A , 81n61 Ishtar Ritual (OB Mari), 85n88 K 4806, 24n39 KAR 50, 24n34; 60, 24n37; 158, 97n47 Lilissu ritual, 23 24, 30n79 Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird, 474n96 Lugal-e (Exploits of Ninurta), 25n46, 380 Marriage of Martu, 80 Martu A, 80n58; Martu A/B, 80n57 Metal List, 19, 580n21 RIME 1 10.12.3, 73n3; 2 1.4.10, 33n101, 37n123; 3/1 1.1.7 CylA/B, 26n51; 3/1 1.1.7 (3), 21n19; 3/1 1.1.7 (6), 27n56; 3/1 1.1.7.StB v.1 4, 29n75; 3/1 1.1.7.StE iv.12 14, 22n20; 3/2 1.1.2 8, 393n123; 3/2 1.2.1 34, 393n123; 3/2 1.3.3 9, 393n123; 3/2 1.3.14 17, 393n123; 4 1.1.1 lines 13 14, 36n119; 4 2.13.1002, 84n78; 4 3.6.2, 506n70; 4 3.6.10, 8, 87n100; 4 3.6.11, 86n99; 4 3.6.12, 506n70 The Rites of Egašankalamma, 283n26 Shulgi A, 39n133, 382n72; Shulgi B, 34n107, 38n129, 38n130, 38n131; Shulgi C, D, 37n125; Shulgi E, 37n125, 34n107; Shulgi G, P, Q, R, 37n125; Shulgi X, 37n125, 39n132 720 Sumerian Temple Hymns (no. 14), 140n169 Šurpu, 21n14 TSA (de Genouillac 1909) 1 ix.12 14, 41n149 Ur-Nammu A, 37n121, 144n194 Uru’amma’irabi (That City Which has Been Pillaged), 84–85, 291, 585, 588, 594–595, 611, 614, 619, 623 Uruhulake of Gula (She of the Ruined City), 84n87 AT 8247, 24n34; 10101, 97n47 Phoenician/Punic Mokhos of Sidon FGH 784 F 4, 445n13 Philo of Byblos 790 F 1 (20 22), 123n75; F 1 (21), 446n16; 790 F 2 (11), 446n19, 510n106; F 2 (13), 509n95, 510n107; F 2 (14), 510n106; F 2 (15 16, 24), 123n74; F 2 (15), 314n203; F 2 (22), 481n133; F 2 (25), 510n108; F 2 (31), 378n48; F 2 (35), 472n84, 481n133; F 2 (38), 511n109; F 10, 477n114 Inscriptions (excluding Cyprus: v. infra) Cebel Ires Da i inscription, 202n90 Chabot 1940–1941 no. 232, 452n60 inek y inscription, 3n11, 199n67, 252n49 KAI 1, 315n209; 4, 483n146, 510n100; 5–7, 407n45; 10, 407n45, 510n100; 13.1–2, 407n45; 14, 407n45; 26, 252n50; 26 A.I.12–13, 512n116; 26 A.II.19–20, 507n75; 26 A III.2 3, 507n75; 26 C.I .20, 507n75; 46, 315n210, 344n38; 139.1 and 145.40, 452n60 Near Eastern Sources Syriac and Syria (including Aramaic) Anton of Tagrit Rhetoric 5.10, 542n23 Book of the Bee 18, 455n79; 19, 455n78 St. Ephraim Commentary on Genesis 4:21 (Armenian trans.), 454n76 Commentary on 2 Kings 3:15, 165n89, 219 Hymns, 61, 163n83, 182, 210, 216 Isaac of Antioch, 471n81 KAI 214.15–22 (Zincirli), 136n151; 222 (Sefire steles), 154, 300 Lassus 1935:33 no. 14 (Hama, Syria), 443n2 Meliton Apology 44.12–22, 470n73; 44.34–36, 496n7 Michael the Syrian Chronicle 1.6, 215n164, 454n76; 3.8, 378n52 Odes of Solomon, 152n21; 6.1, 542n23; 14.8, 542n23; 26.3, 542n23 Theodore Bar Koni Liber Scholiorum, imrā 2.97, 45n11, 455n78; 4.38, 471n79; 11.4, 471n79 Ugarit CTA 6.6.54–55, 152n23 KTU/CAT 1.1 iii.1 and 18 19, 447n23; 1.1 iii.27–28, 447n24; 1.2 iii.2–3, 447n23; 1.2 iii.7–11, 447n24; 1.1 iii.27–28, 447n24; 1.2 iv.11–15, 447n26; 1.2 iv.11–27, 122n71; 1.3 i.18–22, 117n31, 128n97; 1.3 iii.4–5, 126n88; 1.3 vi.14–16, 447n23; 1.4 i.23–43, 447n25; 1.4 v.41–vi.38, 447n24; 1.4 vi.16–33, 150n11; 1.6 vi.51–53, 447n22; 1.7.22–24, 126n88; 1.17 v.10–28, 447n26; 1.17 vi.20–25, 447n26; 1.17 vi.26–32, 131n120; 1.17 vi.32, 129n101; 1.17 vi.34–38, 131n126; 1.17 vi.45–1.18 i.19, 132n128; 1.18 iv.14, 133n129; 1.18 iv.19, 133n129; 1.18 iv.30, 133n129; 1.18 iv.39, 133n130; 1.19 i.5, 133n132; 1.19 iv.22–31, 135n140, 144n192; 1.23, 113n5, 115n16, 128n100; 1.41, 283n20; 1.47, 4n18; 1.101.16–19, 125n87; 1.101.17, 126n88; 1.106.15–17, 113n5; 1.108, 117n31, 135n142, 256n69, 265n105, 456n81; 1.112, 113n5; 1.113, 141n177; 1.118, 4n19; 1.119, 139n166; 1.123, 509n97; 1.141, 373n13; 1.148, 5n22, 97n48, 120n51, 377n42; 1.161, 143n191; 2.42, 12n58, 374n17; 4.102, 441n115; 4.168, 114n10, 383n77; 4.352, 330n64; 4.360, 115n14; 4.399, 115n17; 4.410, 115n14; 4.609, 114n9; 4.610, 115n18 RIH 98/02, 52n26, 102n82, 114n13 RS 1.003.20, 283n20; 1.017, 4n18; 2.002, 113n5, 115n16, 128n100; 2. 004 , 129n101, 131n120, 447n26; 2. 008 , 150n11, 447n24, 447n25; 2. 009 5.155, 447n22; 2. 014 3.363, 117n31, 126n88, 128n97, 447n23; 3.322 , 135n140, 144n192; 3.346, 447n23, 447n24; 3.361, 447n23, 447n24; 3.367, 122n71, 447n26; 5.180 5.198, 126n88; 11.857, 441n115; 13.006, 5, 283n20; 13.53, 121n59; 15.82, 114n10, 383n77; 17.352, 12n56, 377n43; 18.42, 330n64; 18.050, 115n14; 18.056.22, 283n20; 18.113A, 12n58, 326n34, 374n17; 18.119, 326n34; 18.138, 115n17; 18.250A B, 115n14; 19.16, 114n9, 167n100, 441n117; 19.017, 115n18; 20.18, 11n45; 20.19, 440n109; 20.024, 4n19, 235n100; 20.123 , 443n2, 449n35; 20.168, 11n45, 12n55; 20.238, 11n45, 721 Index Locorum (RS, cont. ) 12n55; 24.245, 125n87, 126n88; 24.250 , 113n5; 24.252, 117n31, 129n108, 134–135n142, 177n161, 256n69, 265n105, 374n17, 448n33, 456n81; 24.256, 113n5; 24.257, 134n139, 141–147, 177, 204n96; 24.264 24.280, 4n19; 24.266, 139n166; 24.271, 509n97; 24.274, 102n84, 374n15; 24.325, 373n13; 24.643, 5n22, 97n48, 120–121, 123n74, 139n166, 377n42; 26.142, 121n58, 121n61; 34.126, 143n191; 34.152, 12n58; 92.2004, 120n51, 121n56 58; 94.2177 , 12n62; 94.2475, 12n55; 94.2518, 139n166, 141n177 RSL 1, 11n45 Cypriot Inscriptions (‘Eteocypriot’, Greek, Phoenician) Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1, 57n58, 116n23, 262n98 DGAC 10, 349n70; 123, 349n70; 148–149, 349n70; 166.6, 412n70; 171.1, 284n30; 249, 349n70 ExcCyp 6, 402n5; 46, 409n54; 101, 421n119; 105, 420n116; 124, 234n88, 420n116 GIBM I .2 975, 287n46 HIOP 1, 409n54; 32, 418n100; 40, 418n102; 70, 420n111; 99, 205n102, 420n116; 103–104, 420n115; 105, 234n88 Honeyman 1938, 339n11 ICS 1, 409n49 and 51, 412n70; 2, 409n49 and 53, 422n126; 3, 409n49 and 53, 422n126; 4.1, 407n44; 6, 407n44, 409n49; 7, 407n44, 409n49; 8, 414n85; 16.2, 407n44; 17.1, 412n70; 17.4, 407n44; 39, 230n66; 40, 230n66; 41, 230n66; 43, 230n66; 44, 230n66; 90, 407n44, 409n49 and 52; 91, 407n44, 409n49; 183, 349n70; 190–196, 349n66; 194.4, 404n25; 216, 229n61, 372n6; 220, 372n6 722 IGRom. 3:941, 402n5 I.Kourion 4, 244n7; 6, 287n46; 41, 230n67; 104, 213n152, 318–319 I.Paphos 1, 409n54; 9, 418n102; 19, 420n111; 64, 412–414; 66, 418n100; 72–73, 420n115; 79, 420n116; 82, 234n88; 148, 402n5; 151, 205n103; 181, 421n119 I.Rantidi 2.1, 284n30, 413n76; 14, 230n66 KAI 32–34, 344n38; 37, 116n23; 39, 344n38, 372n6; 41, 344n38 LBW 801, 287n46; 2798, 418n100 Masson and S nycer 1972:p81 86, 271n129 Nicolaou 1964 23a, 412–414 SEG 13:586, 213n151; 18:578, 205n103; 18:586, 409n51; 20:114, 411n64; 20:225, 284n30, 413n76; 20:251, 409n51; 23:639, 412 414; 40:1365, 421n119; 51:1896, 205n103; 53:1747bis, 319n236; 55:1534, 205n103 Greek/Latin Greek/Latin Linear B Knossos (KN) B 800.3, 434n67; C 954.1, 435n68; Da 1134, 435n68; Db 1279, 434n67; Fh 347, 331n68; Fh 361, 331n68; Fh 371, 331n68; Fh 372, 331n68; L 588.1, 439n102; Mc 4459, 435n68; Sc 238, 432n49; U 736.2, 437n90; 52.2, 439n104; 60, 432n49; 831, 434n66; 831.1, 434n65; 1024.1, 435n69; d 7702, 432n49 Mycenae (M ) Ge 602.4, 429n16; Go 610 , 435n68 Pylos (P ) An 19.7, 435n69; An 340, 435n69; An 519.10, 439n102 and 104; An 654.14, 439n104; An 656, 439n102–104; An 724, 432n48 and 49; Aq 218, 431n42, 432n49; Aq 64.14, 431n42; Cn 131.4, 435n68; Cn 719.9, 435n68; Ep 705, 434n65; Er 880, 430n27; Fr 1225, 331n69; Jn series, 394n127; Jn 310.3, 435n68; Jn 320.3, 436n77; Jn 389, 437n92; Jn 829, 437n92; Jo 438, 435n68; Ma and Na tablets, 428n7; N- series, 437n86; Na 248 and 252, 437n87; Na 568, 437n86; Nn 228, 437n86; a series, 428n6; Qa 1259, 427n4; Qa 1289, 431n39; Qa 1290, 428n10, 432n51; Qa 1291, 428n12; Qa 1292, 432n51; Qa 1293, 432n51; Qa 1294, 428n10; 432n44; Qa 1295, 432n51; Qa 1297, 432n51; Qa 1298, 432n51; Qa 1300, 429n18, 431n39; Qa 1302, 428n12; Qa 1304, 428n10, 432n51; Qa 1305, 428n12, 431n37; Qa 1306, 428n12; Qa 1307, 431n37; Qa 1309, 428n12; Qa 1310, 428n12; Qa 1311, 428n12; Qa 1312, 428n12; Qa 1441, 427n4, 428n12; Sh 736, 322n9; Sn 64.4, 434n67; Tn 316, 423n129; Un 219, 431n36 and 38; Un 249, 331n67; Un 443.1, 436n78; Un 718, 431n36; Un 1482, 428n8; n 865, 436-438; a 1335, 429n23 Thebes (TH) Av 106.7, 434n62 Traditional Sources and Papyri Abydenos FGH 685 F 2b 3b, 462n14 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, 209n124 Ailianos On the Nature of Animals 9.36, 237n46, 290n63 Various History 9.38, 196n53 Aiskhylos Libation Bearers 609, 233n83 Persians 895, 355n103 Seven against Thebes 26n49; 835–839, 295n95; 866 870, 233n83; 122, 214n156 Suppliants 694–697, 227n50 Alexander Romance, 303 Alexandros of Aphrodisias, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics 3.2 (p220.22), 286n41 Alexandros Polyhistor FGH 273 F 31, 337n3 Alkaios 130.34, 411n68; 307c, 434n61; p507 oigt, 271, 274 276 Alkidamas Odysseus 20–21, 1n1, 343n32 Alkman 3.71 PMGF, 1n3, 220n7, 330n61, 432n52; 26, 192n32; 41, 255n59; 140, 434n61 723 Index Locorum Ammianus Marcellinus 14.8.3, 508n81; 19.1.10–11, 306n154, 311n184 Ammonios On Similar and Different Words 178, 310n177; 321, 209n125 Anakreon 361 PMG, 329n56, 515 Analecta Hymnica Graeca Canones Novembris, Day 30 Canon 44 Ode 7.8, 182n189 Canones Decembris, Day 26 Canon 51 Ode 5.16 17, 182n187; Day 26 Canon 51 Ode 8.56 58, 182n187, 209n127 Canones Januarii, Day 25 Canon 30 (1) Ode 6.46, 182n187; Day 27 Canon 34 Ode 4.3 7, 210n133 Androkles FGH 751 F 1, 337n3, 516n135 Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828– 1829) 1:278, 47n18, 188n7, 195n48; 1:304, 210n128 Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839–1841) 4:35.10 11, 197n55; 4:35.13 14, 197n55, 198n52; 4:36.20, 47n18; 4:274.5 6, 193n36; 4:183.15, 467n52 Antimachos fr. 92 Matthews (102 West IEG), 284n34, 290n63 Antiphanes fr. 200 PCG, 284n31, 491n14 Antoninos Liberalis Metamorphoses 34, 281n10, 284n37, 286n41, 287n47, 288n54, 467n56; 39, 281n10 Appendix Proverbiorum 4.68, 224n34, 504n59 Apion FGH 616 F 51 ( 48 Neit el), 197n55 Apollodoros FGH 244 F 277, 197n55 Apollodoros Epitome 3.4–5, 1n2; 3.9, 1n2, 343n32, 344n34; 3.12, 359n124; 6.15, 359n126; 6.17, 340n20 Library 1.3.2, 193n37; 1.3.3, 325n24; 724 1.6.3, 98n51; 1.9.5, 492n20; 2.1.2, 340n16, 558n8; 2.1.3, 343n30; 2.1.4, 354n100, 516n137; 2.1.5, 515n130; 2.5.11, 373n10; 3.8.1, 308n166; 3.9.1, 365n161, 511n115; 3.9.2, 343n31; 3.10.3, 492n20; 3.10.8, 359n125; 3.11.1, 333n81; 3.12.2, 434n67; 3.14.3, 250n41, 287n46, 290n63, 333n84 and 85, 344n37, 355n107, 356n109 and 113, 404n24, 477n113, 504n60, 511n115, 545n3; 3.14.3–4, 281n12, 288n56; 3.14.4, 284n32 and 37, 287n46, 313n194, 317n225, 467n50 and 52, 502n47 Apollonios of Rhodes 1.26 27, 193n37; 1.292, 200n77; 1.882–885, 200n73 and 75, 232n81; 3.259, 201n81; 3.664, 201n81; 4.611–618, 294n91; 4.1063, 201n86. Scholia ( ) 1.292, 188n6, 197n55; 1.882–885; 3.1186, 325n24 Apollonios Sophistes Homeric Lexicon s.v. θυμαρέα, 512n119; κινυρ , 188n7 Apuleius Golden Ass 11.2, 287n46 Aristokles of Rhodes On Poetry, 310n177 Aristonikos Grammaticus On the Signs of the Iliad p168 Friedlander, 208n116 Aristophanes Clouds 595, 233n84; 749–750, 103n91 Knights 8–12, 202n89, 214n156, 295n95. 9, 295n95 Lysistrata, 284 fr. 325 PCG, 315n213 Aristotle Constitution of the Athenians 26.3, 356n108 Metaphysics 388b18, 286n41; 389a14, 286n41 On the Soul 407b–408a, 210n129 Greek/Latin fr. 526 527 Rose (Constitution of the Cypriots), 382n70, 499n30 Aristotle Peplos fr. 640 8 Rose, 355n103; 30, 359n126 Aristoxenos fr. 80 Wehrli, 295n95; fr. 97, 275n147 and 150 Arkhilokhos 1 West IEG, 255n59; 54.11, 434n61; 93a.5, 434n61 Arnobius Against the Pagans 6.6, 289n58, 419n106, 561n29; 6.22, 289n58 Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 2.20.3, 491n16, 493n29; 5.6.5, 515n130; 6.22.4, 286n41 Events after Alexander FGH 156 F 10 6, 414n82 Artemidoros Interpretation of Dreams 4.72, 434n62 Asklepiades of Cyprus FGH 752, 337n3 Athenaios 174a 185a, 275n148; 174f, 145n200, 190n19, 225n40, 567n66; 180d, 293n75; 182f, 275n150; 255c–257d, 491n14; 256b, 355n103; 256b–c, 366n165, 458n88; 257d, 284n31; 337e–f, 212n144; 346e, 363n150; 349e–f, 212n142; 352d, 212n142; 456a, 290n63, 313n192; 515e, 222n16; 531a–d, 212n143; 574a, 286n41; 619c, 309n172; 619f, 305n147; 633f, 456n81 634c–637f, 275n148; 636b, 275n150; 637b, 274n144; 638a, 211n140; 638b, 234n93; 681d, 309n174 Augustine City of God 15.17.35, 215n164, 540n9 Commentary on Psalm 32, Sermon 1.4–5, 540n9 Confessions 3.8.32, 540n9; 9.12.25 and 10.33, 541n14 Ausonius Epigrams 62.7, 299n111 Letters 14.42–43, 299n111 Basilios of Caesarea Commentary on Isaiah 5.155 (Trevisan), 293n79 Berossos. See Mesopotamia Bion Lament for Adonis 24, 467n52; 42, 299n113; 65–66, 500n31; 91, 299n113, 432n52, 449n42; 91–95, 449n42 Boios Creation of Birds, 192 Carmina popularia 34 (Linos-song, PMG 800), 307n163 Catullus 68.51 52, 315n213; 95, 286n38 John Chrysostomus Exposition of Psalm 41, 540n5 John Chrysostomus On the Adoration of the Precious Cross PG 62:752.72, 214n155 Cicero On the Laws 1.5, 346n50 Cinna Zmyrna, 334n91, 386n38; fr. 6 Courtney FLP, 286n40, 502n49; fr. 8, 286n40 Clement of Alexandria Tutor 2.4.43, 540n5; 3.11.80, 540n6 Exhortation 1, 210n130; 1.5.4, 210n131; 2.13.4–5, 222n15, 312n2; 2.14, 219n1; 2.15.3, 102n80, 540n6; 2.24.1, 540n6; 2.33, 219n1, 474n99; 3.45, 321n2, 419n106, 561n29; 4.49.2, 319n236; 4.57.3, 561n28; 12.119.2 120.2, 540n6. 2.13.4, 321n2 Miscellanies 1.21, 321n2, 449n43 Clement of Rome Homilies 5.15.2 (PG 2:184C 185D), 227n53 Columella On Agriculture 10.1.1, 286n41 Constantine Mannases Chronicle 4687– 4688, 193n40 Constantine Porphyrogenitus On the Themes 1.15, 350n74, 516n134 On Virtues and Vices 1 (55.16–22, B ttner-Wobst/Roos), 170n118 725 Index Locorum Curtius Rufus 4.1, 490n6, 491n12 Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Isaiah (PG 70:440C), 284n37 John of Damascus Sermon on the Birth of Christ 9, 216n167, 538 Damaskios Life of Isidore fr. 348 int en, 511n111 On First Principles 125c (1.323 Ruelle), 445n13 Demetrios of Salamis FGH 756 F 1, 337n3 Demodokos fr. 1 2, 497n17 Demodokos fr. 3 PLG/IEG, 497n15 Demosthenes 12.10, 353n92 Derveni Papyrus col. 6.1–11, 449n39 Digenes Akrites 4.396–435 (cod. Grottaferrata), 255n59 Diktys of Crete Journal of the Trojan War 6.8, 334n93 Dio Chrysostomus 8.28, 323n10; 33.47, 509n93 Diodoros Siculus 2.16.6, 327n35, 328n40, 547n13; 2.49.2, 286n41; 4.37.2, 365n163; 5.74.5, 229n56; 7 fr. 11, 327n36; 14.39, 347n56; 14.98, 347n53, 352n84; 15.2.4, 347n55, 493n26; 16.46.3, 493n28; 17.47.1–6, 490n6; 19.59.1, 416n94; 19.62, 416n94; 19.79.4–5, 416n94; 20.21.2–3, 417n96, 491n17; 20.47.2, 545n5 Diogenes Laertios 1.4, 308n165; 2.57, 566n65; 2.59, 566n63 and 65 Diogenianos 8.53, 323n10 Dionysios of Halicarnassus On Thucydides 5.1, 356n113 Dionysios the Periegete 508 509, 327n36, 403n16, 498n20 Scholia ( ) 509, 290n63, 321n2, 333n84, 350n74, 355n107, 356n114, 404n24, 406n49, 468n59, 498n23 726 Dionysios the Periegete fr. 1 (Heitsch), 545n4; fr. 2, 545n2 Dioskourides On Medical Material 1.24.1, 1.64.1, 1.66.1, 286n41; 3.39.1, 332n75 Ephoros FGH 70 F 4, 274n144 Epikharmos in Athenaios 681d, 309n174 Eratosthenes Amathousia (FGH 241 F 25), 337n3, 340n19, 546n8 Hermes, 340n19 fr. III B 91 Berger (130 Roller), 327n35 Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. ῶιος, 356n114; ἀμφικινυρ μεναι, 200n73, 232n81 Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. κ θαρις, 197n55; κιν ρα, 200n78, 334n94; μνος, 232n76 Etymologicum Magnum s.v. ἀμφικινυρ μεναι, 200n73, 232n81; φακα, 464n28; ῶος, 356n114, 467n52, 500n33; Κίρρις, 315n211; Κ προς, 516n135 Etymologicum Symeonis s.v. ἀμφικινυρ μεναι, 200n73, 232n81 Euripides Alkestis 445–447, 298n104; 583, 231n73 Cyclops 489–490, 233n83 Helen 144–150, 355n103; 167–178, 311n180; 371, 233n83; 1469–1470, 294n90 Herakles 348–351, 309n172; 694, 232n80 Hippolytos 454–455, 505n64 Iphigeneia among the Taurians 1089– 1093, 233n83; 1129, 232n80 Iphigeneia at Aulis 1211–1212, 193n37 Medea 190–200, 311n180; 668, 412n69 Greek/Latin Orestes 1395–1399, 311n182 fr. 759a.1622 1623 TGF, 255n59 Eusebios Chronicle 1:35 Schoene, 520n161; 1:177, 558n8; 1:225, 327n36, 2:34, 378n52 Commentaries on the Psalms PG 23:73A, 170n123 In Praise of Constantine 8.5–9, 465n39 Life of Constantine 3.55.1–3, 465n39 Preparation for the Gospel 1.9.20–22, 123n75; 1.10.11–12, 446n19; 2.3.12, 222n15; 2.3.15, 222n15; 2.6.6, 419n106 Eustathios on Dionysios the Periegete 11, 348n60; 498, 478n121; 508–509, 323n13, 327n36, 403n16; 508–512, 350n74; 912, 466n48, 516n134 on Homer Iliad 2.780–785, 503n56; 3.24, 196n53; 3.54, 196n53; 10.269, 478n121; 10.409, 514n124; 11.20– 23, 1n1, 3n13, 187n3, 321n2, 322n6, 323n10 and 13, 343n32, 345n41, 346n47, 432n52, 466n49; 17.5, 188n7, 292n70; 18.613, 1n1; 19.129, 295n95. on Homer Odyssey 17.442–443, 342n28 on Lykophron Alexandra 447, 516n135 Festus On the Meaning of Words, 404n19. FGH 755, 337n3, 565n60 Firmicus Maternus On the Error of Profane Religions 10.1, 222n15; 18.1, 102n80 Fulgentius Mythologies 3.8, 283n27, 284n37, 286n41, 288n53 Gorgias DK 82 B 11 11a, 343n32 Greek Anthology 5.237.1 (Agathias Scholasticus), 191n27; 5.289.8 (Agathias Scholasticus), 299n109; 6.25 (Julian of Egypt), 329n55; 6.26 (Julian of Egypt), 329n55; 7.210.5 (Antipatros of Sidon), 191n27; 7.365.3 4 ( onas of Sardis), 299n110; 7.407.7 (Dioskourides), 299n109; 11.236 ( Demodokos ), 497n15; 11.347.4 (Philip of Thessalonica), 554n30; 16.49 (Apollonides), 335n99 Gregory of Na ian us Orations 14 (PG 35:873B), 295n95; 43 (PG 36:596B), 182n188 Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomios 11 (PG 45.865D; 3.9.25 Jaeger), 295n95 Harpokration Lexicon of the Ten Orators s.v. ἄνακτες καὶ ἄνασσαι, 382n70; τροι, 341n23 Herodian De prosodia catholica 89.20 Lent , 378n52; 200.2, 350n74, 558n11, 559n12; 204.4, 350n74, 516n134; 242.34, 349n68, 350n74, 406n49, 559n12; 294.4, 349n68; 358.19, 350n74, 558n11, 559n12 Hellanikos FGH 4 F 5b, 345n43, 356n113; F 31, 348n60; F 36, 343n30; F 57, 337n3, 356n113, 506n67, 545n3, 553n28, 559n12; F 154a, 506n67; 756 F 1, 337n3, 506n67 Herakleitos 22 B 51 DK, 229n56 Hermesianax 7.2 CA, 325n24; 7.45 46, 284n34 Herodotos 1.105, 378n48, 478n121; 1.131, 378n50; 1.132.3, 449n39; 1.199.5, 222n16; 2.48–49, 305n142; 2.79, 304n141; 2.116–117, 467n55; 2.141, 154n30; 3.107.1, 275n146; 3.111.2, 275n146; 4.154.1–155.1, 333n82; 4.192, 274n144; 5.58, 348n60; 5.113, 340n16; 6.47, 379n54; 7.90, 340n15, 355n103, 359n126, 365n160, 506n67; 7.91, 727 Index Locorum (Herodotos, cont. ) 253n53, 340n18; 7.134, 423n128; 7.158, 224n28 Hesiod Theogony 31–32, 411n68; 94–95, 310n175; 134–135, 288n52; 188–200, 330n59, 376n37; 191–193, 480n127; 192–193, 476n107; 194–195, 396n133; 371–374, 288n52; 986-991, 505n64 fr. 139 M-W, 313n194, 317n225; 141.16, 342n27; 305, 211n135, 316n218, 306n153; 306, 307n159 Hesykhios s.v. βώβας, 145n201, 502n46; γ τωρ, 420n116; ἀερία, 403n13; ἀοῖα, 502n50; φρ διτος, 315n213; ἀχαιομ ντεις, 405n34; ῳοι, 503n53; γῆς μφαλ ς, 204n99, 412n69, 416n91; αματρ ειν, 234n87, 287n46; γχειος, 375n22; ἐντροπίδες, 437n91; ἐντροπῶσαι, 437n91; οί ν, 502n47; θαμυρί ει, 235n98; θάμυρις, 235n98; κ ρπωσις, 287n46; κιναρ εσθαι, 198n63; κιννυρίδες, 191n28; κινο ρας, 197n55; κιν ρα, 47n18, 195n48, 302n133; Κινυράδαι, 214n158, 420n111; Κιν ρας, 227n54, 321n2, 504n59, 512n117; κιν ρεσθαι, 188n6; κινυρ , 188n7, 214n158; κινυρίδες, 214n158; Κίρις, 315n211; κιχ τ ς, 413n76; Κ βαβος, 462n16; λυροφοίνι , 274n144; μυρίκ , 284n37; νάβλα, 52n26; υγμαίων, 315n210; οίκου κριθοπομπία, 546n8; αμιράδαι, 404n23; φοιβ τε ειν, 430n31; χλουνά ειν, 188n6 Hippokrates On the Sacred Disease 1.69 and 1.77, 103n91 Homer Iliad 1.30, 340n16; 1.38, 342n27; 1.79, 340n16; 1.119, 340n16; 1.328, 728 411n68; 1.452, 342n27; 2.107–108, 340n16; 2.557–558, 355n102; 2.572, 339n14; 2.599–600, 411n68; 2.603–614, 359n124; 3.54, 196n53, 458n90; 3.82–83, 340n16; 3.187, 322n7; 4.228, 333n85; 5, 403n16; 6.478, 342n27; 8.114, 333n85; 8.498, 411n68; 9.114–161, 317n221; 9.185–189, 141n176; 9.189, 255n59, 318n233; 9.413, 318n233; 9.485–495, 317n227; 9.494–495, 317n227; 9.497–501, 316n219; 9.561–564, 191n25; 9.603, 317n221; 9.612, 207n112; 11.19–23, 1n1, 220n7, 322n5; 11.19–28, 409n47; 11.20, 321n2, 432n52; 11.24–28, 322n8, 447n25; 11.154–155, 340n16; 11.620, 333n85; 12.100–108, 322n7; 13.730–731, 255n59, 316n218; 14.172–174, 331n69; 17.4–6, 188n7; 17.5, 197n55, 318n234; 17.211, 439n104; 18.51, 293n75; 18.316, 293n75; 18.486–492, 308n167; 18.567–572, 308n168; 18.570, 306n151, 309n172; 19.301– 302, 298n103; 22.254–255, 21n17, 211n136; 23.12–13, 292n72, 293n75, 411n68; 23.296–297, 322n6; 23.740–750, 322n9; 23.743, 199n71; 24.128, 207n112; 24.720– 722, 292n73; 24.723, 293n75 cholia 2.494–877, 355n102; 9.612, 208n116; 11.20, 321n2, 322n6, 323n10, 466n49; 17.5, 188n6; 18.570, 306n153 and 155, 308n169, 309n173; 19.5, 286n41 Odyssey 1.159, 316n218; 1.243, 208n119; 2.23, 207n112; 3.267– 272, 74n13; 4.10–12, ß33n81; 4.81–85, 104n98; 4.81–89, 323n12; 4.83–84, 339n8, 506n67; Greek/Latin 4.100, 207n112; 4.477, 515n130; 4.581, 515n130; 4.602, 342n27; 4.615–619, 322n9; 5.247–248 and 361–362, 211n136; 8.224–228, 190n17; 8.267, 232n78; 8.285–288, 476n106; 8.359–366, 474n95; 8.360–366, 331n69; 8.362–363, 413n76; 9.13, 208n119; 11.134, 535n6; 11.214, 208n119; 11.305, 423n129; 12.158, 411n68; 14.40, 207n112; 14.258, 515n130; 15.103, 333n81; 15.115–119, 322n9; 15.242, 435n69; 15.425, 199n71, 322n9; 16.195, 208n119; 17.427, 515n130; 17.442–443, 342n26; 19.109–114, 387n99; 19.407–409, 333n81; 21.406, 211n135, 316n218; 21.406–413, 229n56, 255n59, 387n99; 21.411, 309n173; 24.58–61, 293n76 and 81 Scholia ( ) 17.442 443, 342n28 Homer Margites fr. 1.3 West IEG, 434n61 Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 58–59, 413n76; 59–62, 331n69; 69–74, 396n133; 80, 208n120; 112, 342n27; Homeric Hymn to Apollo 131, 229n56; 181, 342n27; 194–203, 231n73; 201, 208n120; 388–544, 190n17; 514–517, 308n171; 515, 208n120. Homeric Hymn to Demeter 385, 413n76 Homeric Hymn to Hermes 17, 208n120; 38, 6n32; 39–51, 449n43; 54, 309n173; 420–421, 6n32, 411n68; 422, 434n61; 424, 208n120; 432, 208n120, 316n218; 442, 6n32; 447, 6n32; 449, 294n88; 455, 208n120; 475, 208n120; 480–482, 294n88; 482–484, 6n32, 307n159; 502, 309n173; 510, 208n120; 515, 229n56 Homeric Hymns (Lesser) 6.18, 477n111; 7.1–2, 232n78; 10.1, 476n106, 477n111; 10.4–5, 345n42, 410n62, 477n111; 19.1, 232n78; 22.1, 232n78; 33.1, 232n78 Horace Epistles 1.7.28 and 1.14.33, 537n1 Odes 3.9.9–10, 537n3; 4.1.3–4, 537n1; 4.13.7, 537n3; 4.13.21–23, 537n1 Satires 1.2.1, 454n76, 538n5 Hyginus Astronomica 2.6, 287n46 Fabulae 56, 373n10; 58, 190n19, 284n37, 288n54, 467n51, 507n76; 242, 284n37, 288n54, 350n74, 467n51; 248, 284n37, 514n127; 251, 284n37, 288n56; 270, 335n99, 350n74, 467n51; 271, 284n37; 275, 284n37, 350n74, 406n39 Isidore Origines 4.12.8, 332n73; 15.1.48, 503n54; 17.9.14, 332n73 Isidore of Pelusium Epistles 1.90 (PG 78:244D 245A), 542n20 Isokrates 2, 358n123; 9.1, 212n143; 9.18, 355n103; 9.18–19, 354n94; 9.19–20, 351n80; 9.30–32, 347n54; 9.54, 353n92; 9.57, 353n90; 10, 343n32 Istros FGH 334 F 45, 350n74, 480n128, 516n134 Jerome (Eusebios Chronicle), 378n52, 551, 558 Josephus. See Biblical/Judaica Juba FGH 275 F 15, 274n144; F 16, 145n198 Julian Epistles 82, 323n10 Justin Epitome of Pom eius ro us 11.10.8–9, 490n6; 18.5, 222n16, 281n13; 21.3, 221n13; 44.3, 366n165 Juvenal Satires 3.62–65, 538n8 Kallimakhos Hymns 2.18–21, 235n101, 318n233; 2.20, 201n86; 2.42–46, 229n56 729 Index Locorum Khariton 8.2.8–9, 413n77 Kharon of Lampsakos Laws of Minos, 357n120 Klearkhos fr. 19 Wehrli, 355n103, 491n14; fr. 43a, 222n16 Kleitarkhos FGH 137 F 3, 284n36, 492n23; F 9, 335n99, 467n52 Kollouthos 216, 201n86 Konon Narrations FGH 26 F 1 (45), 193n37 Kreon FGH 753, 337n3 Ktesias FGH 688 F 1b, 328n40, 547n13; F 30, 547n14 Kypria T 3 4 EGF/PEG 1 and 3, 211n139; T 7 9 EGF/PEG 7 9, 211n139; T 11 EGF/PEG, 211n139; fr. 4.1 6 EGF/PEG, 331n69; fr. 16 EGF/21 PEG, 317n226 Lactantius Placidus Summaries of Ovidian Tales 6.1, 281n7; 10.9, 288n54 Lexica Segueriana s.v. κιν ρα, 195n48 Libanios Epistles 503.3, 323n10; 515.4, 323n10; 571.2, 323n10; 1197.5, 323n10; 1221.5, 323n10; 1400.3, 323n10 Orations 1.273, 323n10; 25.23, 323n10; 47.31, 323n10; 55.21, 323n10; 63.6, 323n10; 61.20, 295n95 Linos-song, PMG 800 (Carmina popularia 34), 307n163 Lucian The Ignorant Book-Collector 3, 464n30; 11, 295n93 On Dancing 58, 284n37, 466n46, 467n52 On Funerals 20, 293 On the Syrian Goddess 1, 461n8 and 10–11; 2, 462n19; 3–5, 463n20; 6, 298n101, 463n24; 6–9, 463n21; 7, 316n214, 516n136; 9, 464n26; 11, 461n11; 12, 462n14; 14, 237n109; 730 14–15, 461n8; 15, 315n213; 32, 461n8; 33, 237n109; 35–37, 495n2; 49, 509n93; 54, 237n109; 60, 461n10–11 Professor of Public Speaking 11.9, 323n10, 335n99 A True Story 2.25, 335n99; 2.26, 348n60 John Lydus On the Months 4.65, 221n10 Lykophron Alexandra 97–101, 196n52; 139–140, 196n54; 447, 516n135; 448, 286n38; 450–478, 355n103; 479–493, 359n126; 484–485, 364n151; 494–534, 340n20; 586–587, 340n18; 586–591, 340n17; 828–830, 284n37, 467n57; 831–832, 467n58; 859, 317n228 Scholia ( ) 447, 516n135; 450, 354n93, 511n115; 484–485, 364n151; 586, 340n17; 829, 283n28, 284n37, 467n52; 831, 284n37, 321n2, 467n52; 831–832, 467n58 Lyrica Adespota 37 CA, 224n33, 323n10 Macrobius Commentary on the Dream of Scipio 2.3.8, 193n38 Saturnalia 1.17.66–68, 496n8; 3.8.2, 315n213 Makarios 7.100 (CPG 2:214 215), 325n29 Makhon 156 162 (11 Gow), 212n142 John Malalas Chronography 5.29 (Thurn), 355n103 Manilius Astronomica 4.579–581, 476n106 Martial 8.28.13, 236n108 Menandros of Ephesus FGH 783 F 1, 407n45; F 4, 337n3; FHG 4.448 fr. 7, 337n3 Mnaseas FHG 3.155 fr. 32, 363n150 Mokhos of Sidon. See Phoenician/ Punic Greek/Latin Moskhos Lament for Bion 26, 294n91; 37–44, 191n27; 43, 191n30, 201n87, 298n107; 46–49, 191n27; 51–56, 298n108; 116–126, 298n108 Mythographi Vaticani 1.34, 332n73; 1.60, 284n37; 2.182, 332n73 Neanthes FGH 84 F 31 (191), 348n60 Nemesianus Cynegetica 26–29, 284n37 Nikandros fr. 64 (Gow/Schofield), 192n35 Nikephoros Basilakes Orations 1.608, 182n189 Nikephoros Kallistos Carmina 4, 214n155 Nikolaos of Damascus FGH 90 F 18, 363n150 Nikomakhos Manual of Harmonics 4 (MSG 243.15 17), 543n25 Nikomakhos Excerpts 1 (MSG:266), 295n93, 306n150, 492n21 Nonnos Dionysiaka 1.485–505, 492n21; 2.157, 201n86; 2.663–666, 492n21; 3.109–111, 476n106, 477n115; 4.199, 201n86; 5.614, 498n21; 13.432–463, 351n76; 13.432–433, 339n10; 13.441, 498n21; 13.444, 545n4; 13.451–452, 432n52, 545n5; 13.455, 545n4; 13.456–460, 501n36; 13.459, 286n38; 13.460, 284n37; 13.461–462, 355n103; 13.463, 345n42; 29.372, 498n21; 32.30, 284n37; 32.220, 284n37; 33.4–8, 331n69; 42.346, 284n37; 48.267, 284n37 Nymphis FGH 432 F 5, 305n147 Oppian Halieutika, Scholia ( ) 3.403, 467n52; 3.407, 467n52 Oribasios Collectiones medicae 12 35 and 57, 286n41 Origen Selecta in Ezechielem PG 13.797D–800A, 470n77 Orpheus Argonautika 261–262, 193n37 Ovid Amores 3.9.23–24, 294n91, 312n186 Art of Love 1.285–288, 282n17, 286n41; 2.607–608, 238n112; 3.315–316, 538n10 Ibis 361, 282n17 Metamorphoses 5.294–678, 191n31; 6.83–85, 280n4; 6.98–100, 280n5; 6.392–394, 295n95; 8.534–546, 191n31; 10.40–49, 294n92; 10.141– 142, 294n91; 10.196–219, 294n90; 10.220, 396n133; 10.220–237, 498n20, 516n135; 10.238–242, 281n8; 10.243–297, 289n58; 10.270–273, 554n34; 10.295, 554n33; 10.297–298, 350n74, 499n28; 10.298–502, 2n8, 282n17; 10.299, 322n10; 10.311–314, 288n56; 10.354–355, 334n90; 10.360, 287n44; 10.361–362, 287n44; 10.369, 288n51; 10.387, 287n44; 10.396–399, 288n56; 10.400, 323n10; 10.406, 287n44; 10.419, 287n44; 10.435, 190n19; 10.476–480, 287n50; 10.478, 286n42; 10.500–501, 287n44; 10.509, 287n44; 10.514, 287n44; 10.531, 396n133; 10.717–720, 476n106; 11.44–53, 295n93; 11.410–748, 286n43; 13.600–622, 191n30; 14.698–764, 281n10 Remedy for Love 99–100, 282n17 Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Pap.Oxy.) 1795.32, 224n33, 323n10; 2688.4–13, 350n74, 499n30; 3000 with , 505 Paion of Amathous FGH 757, 337n3; F 1, 315n213; F 2, 471n82 Palaiphatos of Abydos FGH 44 T 3, 337n3 Panyassis fr. 22ab EGF (27 PEG), 284n32, 467n50, 467n52, 502n47; fr. 25 Kinkel, Matthews (fr. 22c EGF, PEG), 502n47 731 Index Locorum Parthenios fr. 29 (Lightfoot) 316n214, 500n33, 500n35; fr. 42, 516n136 Paul of Aegina 7.3.10, 286n41 Paulinus Carmina 20.30–61, 210n133; 20.41–42, 180n175 Paulus Diaconus Epitome of Festus 18.23 (Lindsay), 404n19 Pausanias 1.3.2, 353n91, 355n103; 1.14.7, 378n48, 378n50; 2.19.8, 308n164; 2.27.7, 492n20; 3.1.3, 492n20; 3.12.9, 434n67; 4.33.3, 325n24; 6.20.18, 193n38; 6.23.3, 298n102; 7.3.1–2, 353n89; 7.23.7–8, 511n112; 8.1.3, 359n124; 8.5.2, 359n126, 359n127, 365n157; 8.5.3, 364n154, 364n155; 8.32.4, 409n51; 8.34.5, 230n64; 8.53.7, 359n126, 365n157; 9.29.6, 307n161; 9.29.6–7, 304n141, 306n151; 9.29.7, 308n169; 9.29.7–9, 305n143; 9.29.8, 307n156, 310n179; 9.29.8–9, 307n162; 9.29.9, 306n150; 10.12.11, 345n43; 10.14.6, 345n43; 10.24.3, 345n43; 10.26.4, 317n226, 333n81 Pausanias of Damascus FHG 4:469 fr. 4, 514n124 Petronius Satyricon 74.13 538n5 Phanokles 1.11 22 CA, 295n93 Pherekydes FGH 3 F 21, 325n24 Phileas fr. 7 12 (Gisinger), 503n57; fr. 12, 356, 500 Philip of Side Christian History fr. 3.2, 216n167, 538 Phillis of Delos FHG 4.476 fr. 2, 275n150 Philo . See Biblical/Judaica Philo of Byblos. See Phoenician/Punic Philokhoros FGH 328 F 92, 356n115; F 207, 306n151, 307n162, 307n163; F 214, 192n35; F 226, 551n16; F 228, 551n16 732 Philostephanos FHG 3:30 31 fr. 1, 348n60; fr. 10–14, 337n3; fr. 11, 350n74, 516n134; fr. 12, 340n17; fr. 13, 289n58, 561n28 Philostratos Imagines 1.11.3, 295n95 On Heroes 53.10, 317n228 Photios Lexicon s.v. φρ διτος, 315n213; κιν ρα, 47n18, 195n48; κιν ρεσθαι, 188n6; κινυρ , 188n7; μουσικά, 210n128 Library 12b30, 348n60; 72a33, 348n60; 72b20–42, 547n14; 120a6–14, 346n51; 120a20–22, 2n7, 347n58; 120b8–13, 347n57; 120b17–18, 346n52; 121a35–41, 346n50; 146a40–153b29, 535n1; 146b41–147a2, 535n5; 147b34–36, 535n6; 148a410–411, 536n7; 149a5–8, 536n7; 150a12–19, 535n6; 151b5–7, 315n213, 535n5; 152b20–25, 536n7; 152b32–36, 536n7; 153a1–5, 196n53, 536n7; 153a11–23, 535n5 Pindar Isthmian 1.52–54, 232n78; 5.47–48, 232n78; 8.56–62, 293n76 Nemean 4.46–47, 355n103 and 105; 8.1–18, 224n30; 8.17–18, 2n4, 223n27, 323n10, 329n53, 334n88; 8.19–22, 220n9; 9.54, 232n78; 9.7, 411n68 Scholia ( ) 4.76 77, 355n103; 8.32c, 227n48 Olympian 1.1–12, 255n59; 1.9–10, 232n78; 2.1–2, 232n76, 78 and 80; 6.88, 232n78; 7.10–12, 227n50; 8.31, 333n85; 10.79–81, 232n78, 232n80 Scholia ( ) 6.158a, 223n22 Pythian 1.1–4, 235n101; 1.92–98, 225n36; 2.13–20, 2n4, 221n11, Greek/Latin 321n2; 334n87, 409n46; 2.56, 224n31; 2.58, 223n24; 2.58–61, 224n32; 2.62–63, 226n43, 232n78; 2.67–71, 225n37; 2.72–82, 220n4; 2.80, 226n44; 2.89–92, 220n4; 3.47–53, 510n108; 11.10, 232n78 Scholia ( ) 2.27 (Abel 1891), 223n25, 323n10; 2.27a, 227n54, 350n74, 499n29; 2.27b, 206n110, 222n20, 421n122; 2.27d, 231n75; 2.27e, 225n41; 2.28, 333n85, 350n74, 406n39, 499n25; 2.30g (Abel 1891), 229n55, 448n27; 2.31b, 231n70; 2.36bc, 221n13; 2.38, 221n13 fr. 52g.1, 411n68; 105 106, 226n44; 122.3, 286n41; 128c5–6, 310n179; 128eb.7, 233n83; 129, 296n98 Plato Laws 656e–657f, 104n95; 659d–e, 449n40; 660e, 323n10, 432n52; 804d, 255n59 Kratylos 404e–405d, 229n56 Republic 364b, 449n40 Symposium 202e, 449n40 Plato Comicus fr. 3 PCG, 290n63, 313n192, 321n2 Pliny the Elder Natural History 5.31.35, 516n135; 5.35.129, 349n68; 5.35.130, 545n1; 7.48.154, 329n56, 561n32; 7.56.195, 325n26, 450n45; 7.56.209, 327n39; 7.198, 552n20; 10.121, 451n51; 13.2.4–18, 330n61; 13.10, 553n26; 13.19, 332n77; 21.93.163, 332n75; 21.163, 553n26; 34.2.2–4, 324n23, 404n19; 36.60, 332n77 Pliny the ounger Letters 17.3, 434n62 Plutarch Alexander 15, 196n53; 29.1–6, 212n144 Aratos 53, 296n97 Cato the Younger 35, 420n117 Lykourgos 21.4, 255n59 Moralia 238b, 255n59; 310f, 286n43, 432n52; 310f–311a, 286n43, 432n52; 331d, 196n53; 340c–e, 490; 357b, 407n45; 357e–f, 305n145 and 148; 384b, 286n41 Perikles 37.2–5, 356n108 Solon 26, 340n20 Plutarch On Music 1136c, 295n95; 1145f, 255n59 Pollux Onomastikon 4.54–55, 305n147–148; 4.72–75, 295n95; 4.76, 202n92, 317n229; 4.78–79, 295n95; 6.105, 489n1 Polyainos Stratagems 8.48, 417n96, 491n17 Polybios 15.25.14 15, 419n105; 18.55.6–9, 419n105 Pompeius Trogus. See Justin Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food 2.5, 413n76; 2.5.1–2, 286n41; 2.5.3–5, 284n29; 2.6.4, 286n41 Posidonius FGH 87 F 114, 286n41 Pratinas PMG 708, 231n73 Probus on ergil Eclogues 10.18, 290n63, 460n4, 467n50 on ergil Georgics 1.399, 192n35, 286n43 Proklos Chrestomathy 80 (EGF:31.25 27, PEG:39.18 20), 1n2; 277 (EGF:67.23 24, PEG:95.15 16), 317n226 Prokopios On the Wars 4.6.30–31, 215n162, 303n134 Propertius 4.1.99 102, 538n6 Ptolemy of Ascalon (Heylbut 1887) 402.11–12, 209n125 Ptolemy Khennos Novel History, 192, 196n53, Appendix B Ptolemy of Megalopolis FGH 161 F 1, 419n106 733 Index Locorum Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 10.4.4, 286n38 uintus Smyrnaeus 6.81 and 7.335, 201n86 Religionsgespräch am Hof der Sasaniden, 216n167, 538 Sappho 5.1 and 18, 330n59; 44.26 27, 411n68; 44.30, 275n146; 44.33, 434n61; 103.9, 434n61; 140a, 307n156, 476n106; 140b, 307n156; 168, 307n156; 208, 434n61 Seneca Hercules Furens 569–572, 193n37 Hercules Oetaeus 196, 286n41 Medea 228–229, 193n37 Servius Auctus on ergil Aeneid 1.28, 551n10; 1.693, 331n71, 552n18; 5.72, 284n37, 289n57 on ergil Eclogues 8.37, 237n110, 290n65; 9.35, 286n38 10.18, 250n41, 281n14, 284n37, 288n52, 321n2, 465n36, 498n22, 500n31, 513n120, 560n24 on ergil Georgics 1.288, 502n49; 2.64, 499n30; 3.5, 373n10 Skamon FGH 476 F 4, 274n144 Skylax 103 (GGM 1:78), 339n11, 349n65 and 69 Sophokles Ajax 582, 449n42 So omenos Ecclesiastical History 2.5.5, 465n42 Stephanos of By antium s.v. δανα, 508n85; μαθο ς, 316n214, 349n68, 350n74, 406n39, 516n136, 559n12; πολλωνία, 308n166; σκάλων, 363n150; βλος, 316n214, 516n136; ολγοί, 339n14; ρυμέδων, 499n27; δάλιον, 339n13; Καρπασία, 545n2–3, 553n28, 559n12; Κο ριον, 350n74, 558n11; 734 Κ θ ρα, 478n121; Κ προς, 350n74, 516n134 135; άριον, 350n74, 502n45, 559n12; φ κεια, 516n135; τροι, 341n23 Stesikhoros 278.2 PMGF, 434n61 Stobaios Anthology 3.7.52, 196n53; 4.10.1, 432n52; 4.20.71, 286n43; 40.20.73, 284n36, 335n99, 467n52, 492n23 Strabo 1.2.32, 1n1, 12n59, 204n98; 14.4.3, 252n51, 340n18; 14.5.1, 507n76; 14.5.4, 565n58; 14.5.8, 356n110, 520n161, 520n161; 14.5.10, 356n110, 405n33; 14.6.3, 340n16–17, 340n20, 355n103, 359n126, 416n92, 565n55; 14.6.5, 327n35 and 39; 16.1.2, 3n11; 16.2.18, 466n47 Suda s.v. ἀμφιανακτί ειν, 232n79; ἄνακτες καὶ ἄνασσαι, 382n70; ε δωρος, 286n43; στρος, 515n133; καταγ ρ σαι, 224n34, 321n2, 323n10; 504n59 κιν ρα, 47n18, 195n48, 197n55, 302n133; Κιν ρας, 334n94; κινυρ , 188n7; κινυρ μεθα, κινυρομέν , 188n6; ενοφῶν, 284n37, 337n3, 565n60, 566n61; υναυλ αν πενθ σωμεν, λ μπου ν μον, 295n95; κου κριθοπομπία, 546n8; αρδανάπαλος, 323n10 Suetonius Caligula 57, 284n35 Nero 27, 538n5 On Grammarians 18, 286n38 Titus 5, 401n1 Synesios Epistles 4.14, 295n95 Hymns 9.1–15, 541n13 Synkellos 185.14 Mosshammer, 378n52 Tabula Peutingeriana, 204n100 Greek/Latin Tacitus Annals 3.60, 402n4; 3.62, 355n103, 402n3 Histories 2.3, 99n62, 393n124, 401n2, 413n75, 449n43, 481n129 Terpandros 2 (Gostoli), 233n84; 4, 232n80; 5, 255n59 Themistios Orations 4.54a and 16.201c, 1n1 Theodontius. See Boccaccio (under Medieval and Early Modern , below) Theodoros SH 749, 284n37, 286n43, 288n56; SH 750, 192n35, 286n43 Theodoros Hyrtakenos Anecdota Graeca, Boissonade 1829 1833 1:263, 1n1 Theodoros Metokhites Philosophical and Historical Miscellanies p304 Müller, 295n95 Theodoros of Stoudios Great Catechism 91, 539n2, 541n17 Theodoros II Doukas Laskaris Epistles 195.19, 215n163 Theokritos Idylls 15, 308n170; 15.100– 143, 293n78; 15.106, 403n16; 17.36, 403n16; 22.24, 226n44, 480n126 Scholia ( ) 1.109, 227n54, 284n37, 287n46, 288n55, 290n63; 3.48, 287n46 Theophrastos On Piety fr. 2 P tscher (584A Fortenbaugh), 284n29, 286n41, 413n76 History of Plants 4.4.12, 286n41; 5.8.1, 327n35; 7.6.3, 286n41; 9.1.2, 4, 286n41 Theophylaktos Simokates Epistles (p19.1 anetto), 295n95 Theopompos FGH 115 T 28a, 346n49; F 25 26, 346n49; F 75, 346n50; F 103, 2n7, 191n23, 214n158, 328n47, 347n53 and 57–58, 546n6, 564n51; F 114, 212n143 Thomas Magister Anecdota Graeca, Boissonade 1829 1833 2.212, 323n10 Thucydides 1.9, 359n124 Timomakhos FGH 754 F 1, 211n140; F 1–2, 337n3 Tragica Adespota 5d TGF, 284n35; 53, 295n95 Triphiodoros 430, 201n86 Tyrtaios 12.6 West IEG, 2n6, 323n10, 432n52 John T et es Exegesis of Homer’s Iliad, 435.5 15 (Papathomopoulos), 335n99, 467n50 Khiliades 3.77–88, 215n162, 303n134; 7.99, 215n161; 8.195, 535n2; 11.380, 191n27 ergil Aeneid 1.416–417, 413n76; 1.619– 622, 323n13, 354n99, 355n103, 379n57; 1.677–678, 331n70; 1.692– 694, 331n72; 2.64, 289n57; 5.72, 284n37; 10.186, 537n2 ergil Ciris 237–238, 286n42; 238–240, 286n42; 258–262, 288n56; 524–526, 334n91 Vita S. Theodori A (PG 99:167B C) and B (PG 99:273C), 541n16 anthos FGH 765 F 8, 363n150; F 17a, 363n150 enophon Anabasis 1.2.15, 348n60; 4.1.1, 348n60 Hellenika 4.3.10–12, 347n56 enagoras FGH 240 F 26, 516n135; F 27, 341n23 o los of Kedasa in Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. ῶιος, 500n33 onaras Epitome Historiarum 1.116.3:58n64, 155n38 735 Index Locorum onaras Lexicon s.v. ἰθι πιον, 508n82 osimos New History 1.58, 465n42 Greek/Latin Inscriptions (excluding Cyprus: v. Supra) Calder 1928 319 (G lu, Galatia), 201n87 Carratelli 1939 1940 19 (Ialysos, Rhodes), 234n91 CIL 6 1826 (Rome), 334n95 Her og 1899 133 (Cos), 335n96 Hicks 1891 24 (Corycian Cave, Cilicia), 501n37 I.Thess.I 15 (Kierion), 334n95; 43B (Ktiri), 201n87 IG I 113, 353n92; II 20, 353n92; II 716, 353n92; I 382, 334n95; I .1 880, 412n71; II.1, 680, 234n91; II.3 1190, 412n71 Mitchell et al. 1982: 149e (Meyildere, Galatia), 202n87 Nemea Inv. I 85 (Miller 1988), 213n149 Parian Marble A 26 (FGH 239), 355n103; B 17, 492n18 Peek 1955 694 (Thessalian Thebes), 202n87 Priene inscription (FGH 115 F 305), 347n57 SEG 6:290, 201n87; 17:599, 335n100; 20:200, 566n65; 28:515, 201n87; 29:1202, 201n87; 32:503, 234n95, 235n98, 405n31; 34:24, 353n92; 49:697, 234n91; 55:562, 234n96 Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre, 402n8 Medieval/Early Modern John Adorno, 348n62, 362n139, 563n41. Boccaccio Genealogy of the Pagan Gods Preface 1.4 5, 10, 560n22; 2.2 59, 554n31; 2.47–49, 550n4; 2.50–53, 3n10, 280n5, 281n7, 288n53, 350n74, 467n51, 550n5, 559n17; 2.55, 560n24; 2.269, 559n18; 3.19, 553n24; 4.20, 551n16; 4.23, 503n55; 8.8, 555n38; 10.7, 552n22; 10.11, 552n23; 13.1, 550n9; 15.6, 549n2, 552n22 Florio Bustron Historia overo commentarii de Cipro p7, 559n15; p12, 559n15 16; p14, 280n5, 281n7, 559n17–18 Ludolf of Suchen, 348n62, 563n42 tienne de Lusignan Chorograffia (et breve historia universale p2 ( 1), 325n27, 404n19, 736 558n7; p6 ( 4), 560n21; p6a ( 6), 361n137; p7 8 ( 9 10), 562n34; p8 ( 10), 562n35; p9 ( 12), 349n68, 547n12; p10 ( 15), 558n7; p12 ( 20), 559n12; p12a ( 22), 558n8; p13a ( 28), 325n24, 325n28, 450n45; p14a ( 37), 325n28, 450n45; p16a ( 42), 339n13, 558n11; p17 ( 43), 547n16, 558n11, 560n21; p17 ( 45), 565n55; p17 ( 47), 558n8; p19a ( 66), 332n79, 558n11, 561n27, 565n56; p19a 20 ( 67), 558n8, 561n28; p19a 21 ( 67 76), 560n20; p20 ( 68), 453n66; p20a ( 69 70), 560n24; p20a ( 71 72), 325n28, 361n134, 558n11, 560n21, 562n34 35, 563n40; p20a ( 73), 361n134, 560n24; p20a 21 ( 74 75), 561n26 and 29; p21 ( 76), Medieval/Early Modern 332n79; p22 ( 87), 565n56; p28a ( 157), 335n99, 558n7, 560n23; p35a 36 ( 180), 361n133, 340n17, 349n68, 558n7, 558n8, 560n20 and 23, 561n30 and 32, 562n33; p87 ( 590), 325n28, 450n45; p91 ( 608), 558n10; p123a 124 ( 610 611), 558n6 escri tion de tout l isle de re p1 1a, 558n7; p2a, 404n19; p15a, 361n138; p16, 403n11; p20a, 547n12; p27a, 450n45; p28, 325n28, 563; p30a, 450n45; p33a, 547n16, 565n55; p34 34a, 339n14; p37a 38, 339n14, 453n69, 558n8; p38a-39, 332n79, 361n134, 558n11, 560n24, 562n37; p39a, 558n7; p42a, 565n57; p80, 325n28; p91, 547n12; 91a 92, 339n13; p92 92a, 563n46; p213a, 561n32; p224a, 450n45; p468, 325n28; 557n2, 561n32 Paul of Perugia, 549 Theodontius. See Boccaccio 737 General Index Abdalonymos/Abd-elonim of Sidon, 334, 488–494; transfer of tale to Paphos, 491–492 Abdastart: see Straton Abd-elonim of Sidon: see Abdalonymos Abdymon of Tyre/Kition, 347, 351 Abel, 454 Abî-shar, 44 Absalom, lament for, 301, 312 Ab al b , 19 Achaeans/Akhai(w)oí, 1, 10, 187, 317, 339–340, 342, 356, 363, 369; akhaiománteis, 405; beach of, 355; embassy to Kinyras, 211, 343–346; Half-Achaeans, Cilicia, 253, 520; receive lyre, 492n23. See also Ahhiyawa; Hiyawa Achilles: laments for, 293–294, 298, 317; Linos, 318; lyre, 141, 254, 318; lyre silenced, 294; Patroklos, 292n72, 293n75, 333; Phoinix, 207, 280, 316–318; shield, 308, 318, 322; wrath, 316 Adana, 508, 519; Adanos, eponym, 508 Adonis: ‘Assyrian’, 467; A as, 502; Ad ni , 145, 221n10, 312–313, 505; alter ordo fabulae, Donatus/ Servius, 513–515; alternative Cypriot names, 315, 467, 500–502; anointing rites, 283, 287; Antinoos, 319; Aoios, 500–502; Aphaka, 463–465; Aphrodite, 145, 287n46, 290, 299, 313, 473–474, 498, 501–502; as honorand in Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 145, 293; as storm-god, evidence limited, 465, 473, 484, 514; beauty, 335, 382, 484; birth, 2, 287; Byblos, 290, 298, 459–487, 501; —Byblian Baal, 473; —tomb at, 468, 498; Cyprus, 313–316; death while hunting, 290, 463–464, 470–471, 498, 504, 514; death while hunting, Levantine mytheme, 314, 466, 514n158; divine abduction, 499; etymology, 314, 464, 484; Gingras, 145, 202; Kinyras doublet, 313–316; Kinyras father, 233, 284, 289–290, 299, 312–316, 418, 447, 464, 468, 496, 504; lamentation, 289–290, 299, 312–317, 463–464, 468–473, 482–485, 514; —as incantation, 449; —traced to BA at Byblos, 485–486, 594; Levantine pastiche, 314, 464, 503; lyrist, 145, 313; metamorphosis into flower, 500; Osiris, 316, 516; Persephone, 287n46, 299n112; Phoinix father, 313, 317, 464n29; reigns on Cyprus, 500, 515, 560–562, 739 General Index (Adonis, cont. ) 564; resurrection, 290, 298, 314, 463, 484, 515; Sappho, 293, 307; sepulchral epigrams, 299; slain by Muses, 467; Tammuz equated, 464, 467, 470; Theias father, 464, 466–468, 502. See also Ao, Aoios, Dumuzi, Gauas, Kirris, Osiris, Tammuz. Aegean migrations, 2, 4, 13–16, 98, 250–253; archaeological record —Cilicia, 250n44, 251–253, 405, 520; —Cyprus, 14, 253–258, 341, 368; —Philistia, 250, 255; circular migration, 230n64, 365–366, 378n49; confrontation with preGreek gods, 230, 250, 255, 363 and n147, 364, 367, 378, 380n58, 399, 405, 459, 503; Cyprocentricity, 204; duration, 14; involvement of western Anatolia, 13, 252, 341, 457; metals as stimulus, 339, 363–364, 475; migration/foundation legends, 8, 321, 337–369; — coexistence with Kinyras’ family, 350–351. See also Great Collapse; lyres and lyric iconography Aegina, 355 Aeneas, 287 Aeolian harp, 181 Aeos: see Aoios, hero Aerias, 401–404, 406, 475–476. See also Ingot God African parallels, 22, 23n25, 57, 62, 456n81. See also Ethiopia afterlife, 134–141, 144, 296, 305, 328. See also underworld Agamemnon: Achilles, 207, 311, 317; Aegean migrations, 2; Agapenor/ Arcadians, 359; breastplate of Kinyras, 1, 322, 341, 344, 369, 409, 447; Great King, 11, 322, 409; invasion of Cyprus, 190, 310, 346–349, 359; singer of, 74; terra740 cotta fleet, curses Kinyras, 187, 190, 328, 343–346, 369 Agapenor, 253, 329n57, 340–341, 343, 348, 350n75, 359–368, 406; as Kinyras, 364, 367; founds New Paphos, 359, 361–362, 364; Laodike, daughter, 364–368; metal-hunter, 364; old Cypriot legend, 359–360; Old Paphos, 362–363, 406; temple-builder, 359, 362–363, 406; vis-à-vis Kinyradai, 360–364, 367–368 Agenor, 317, 325n24, 354, 492, 516, 550 Agriopa or Argiope, mother/father of Kinyras, 325, 558n9, 563n39 Ahaz, 172 Ahhiyawa, 11, 251, 322. See also Achaeans/Akhai(w)oí; Hiyawa; Half-Achaeans Aiakos, 224n30 Aigyptos, 515n130 Aithiopia (legendary), 505, 508; Cyprus, 506 Ajax son of Telamon, 354–355 Ajax son of Teukros, 356n110, 405 Akamas: hero, 340–341, 355, 498; peninsula, 501 Akhenaten, 107–111, 247, 250 Akitu-festival, 171 Akkad, 33, 41, 86, 101, 150, 393 Alalakh, 63; Alashiya, 324, 440; harp, 90, 392; Hurrians, 96, 98, 435, 440; lú innāru uli 98; PNs, 98, 435, 440; —Kin(n)ar[-, 54, 98, 435, 440, 452; —resident Alashiyans, 440 Alashiya, Alashiyan, 10–14, 326; Ahhiyawa/Mycenae, 348 ; — PN A-ra-si-jo, Lin. B, 435, 440; Alalakh, 324, 440; —PN A-laši-ia, 440; Alashiya texts, 11–12, 104, 323–324, 326, 371, 399, 440; Alassa, 11, 399, 400; Apollo Alasi tas, 229, 372; Babylon, 324; General Index Byblos, 481–482; copper, 10–11, 323–324, 326, 372, 396n134, 397, 473–479, 482; decline and fall, 13, 321, 335, 400, 476; Egypt, 11–12, 104, 323–324, 326, 330, 371, 440; Elisha, son of Javan, eponym, 10n44; emulation of Mesopotamian music ideology, 392; exiles to, 12, 377; extent, 11; gods, 102, 372–375; —‘all the gods of Alashiya’, 374; —‘god of Alashiya’, 374; —Astarte/Ishtar, 104, 374–382, 392, 473–482; — engagement with mainland cults, 371–400; Great Kingdom, 10–14, 322; Hittites, 12–13, 104, 371, 376–377, 400, 440, 474; identified with Cyprus, 10–11; Kalavasos, 11, 399; Kushmeshusha, king, 12; Mari, 324; Paphos as religious center, 11, 400; PNs, 245, 350, 374, 440–441; Sargon legend, 324; scribal culture, 12; seafaring, 326–327, 479; Ugarit, 11–12, 104, 330, 372–375, 399–440, 459; —Alashiyan residents, 441. See also Astarte; Cyprus; Bomford Goddess; Great Goddess of Cyprus; Ingot God; Kinyras; Kothar; Kythereia; PNs Alassa, 350, 399–400 Albright, W. F., 5, 124, 152, 166n92, 478n119 Alea (Athena), 364 Aleppo, 64, 74–75, 82, 96, 99, 103, 300, 461 Alexander the Great, 198, 212, 284, 303, 328, 409, 414, 542; Abdalonymos of Sidon, 488–494; Cyprus, 491 Alkaios, 271, 274–276 Alkidamas, 343n32, 357 Alkman, 1, 191, 330–331, 345, 436 Al-Mina, 199, 519 Amaracus, 289, 331–332, 350n75, 552–553 Amarna, 11, 92, 104, 107–111, 154, 507; Amarna letters, 12, 106, 150, 154, 373; —Alashiya, 10, 104, 245, 324, 326, 372, 399; —Byblos, 481, 483 Amar-Suen, Ur, 36, 393, 483 Amathous, Amathousian, 236, 287n46, 337n3, 340n19, 350, 402, 404, 406, 414, 420n116, 440n110, 471n82, 564n48; Amathousía, 349, 546; Aphroditos, 315, cf. 535; Cerastae, 498n20, 516n135; eponymous founders, 350, 402, 406; Kinyras, 328, 347–349, 358, 360–361, 557, 564; Kinyreia, ‘lost site’, 546–547; model boats, 328; Osiris, 315, 516; Persia, 352, 506n67; Phoenicians, 16; pre-Greek character, 14, 316n214, 328, 349, 352, 360; resists Euagoras, 352, 358–359. See also Eteocypriot; Kerastis/ Kerastia; Propoetides ambubaiae, Syrian pipe-girls, 454n76, 537–538; Akk. em u/Ebl. na-bubù-um, 55n44, 145n201 Amenhotep II, 106 Amenhotep III, 373, 374n17 Ametoridai, Crete, 234, 423n128 Ammianus Marcellinus, 508 Ammistamru II, Ugarit, 377 Ammon, 154, 164 ‘Ammurapi of Ugarit, 35, 119, 144, 383 Amorites, Amorite, 79–87, 96; divinized instruments, 83–88, 122, 482; in Mesopotamia, 73, 80, 87, 482; —Mesopotamian cult, 80, 86–88, 482; musical traditions, 82–83; PNs, 80–81, 138, 441, 452, 509; prophecy, 88n106; Ugaritian dynasty, 377; use of term, 73n2. See also Martu 741 General Index Amphion, 193, 210 Amuq, 199, 440n107; Amyke, princess, 440n107 Amurru, 12–13, 374, 376 Amyklai: Amyklas, eponym, 365; Apollo Ámyklos, 294n90, 372n6 Amyntor, 317 AN.TA . UM festival, 94 An/Anu, 80, 403 Anakreon, 329, 515 Anat, 55n52, 135, 461; Anatugoddesses, 450; Aqhat, 131–134, 140; —laments Aqhat, 133; gods of Alashiya, 374–375; sings to lyre, 125–126, 129–130, 133–134 Anatolia, Anatolian, 96, 119, 366, 499; Aegean migrations, 13, 252, 341; Apollo, 230; cymbals, 117; harps, 90, 92; interfaces, Cyprus, 104, 457, 500–501, 503; —Greece, 97, 252, 457–458; —Mesopotamia/ Kanesh, 324; Ishtar cults, 375; lamentation, 201–204, 303n137, 305, 311; — in resthai, 204n97; Mopsos problem, 251–253; PNs, 202, 440, 508, 511; veneration of cult-objects, 101n77. See also Attis; Bormos song; Cilicia; Hittites; Hurrians; Kizzuwatna; Kybele; Lesbos; Lydia; Phrygia Anaxarete, 281 Andromakhe, 275, 292, 293n75 anger: see grief or wrath, divine angle-harps: see harps Anglo-Saxon burials, lyres in, 3n14, 141 aniconism, 236, 481 animals: adorning instruments, 60, 269, 390n108; animal musicians, 153, 301; communication with, 151, 161, 183; lyrist and, 72, 126, 153, 159–160, 165, 179, 192–194, 229–230, 517, 522–528; parts used 742 for instrument, 23, 248, 258n76, 274–275n144, 326, 449n43, 595; piper and, 144–145n197. See also birds; bull-lyre; lion; Orpheus Ankaios, father of Agapenor, 343 Ankhises/Anchises, 287, 434n67, 474 anointing rites, 68, 94, 101–102, 283, 287; myrrh, 282 Antigonos, 416 Antimakhos of Colophon, 284, 313 Antinoos, 318–319 Antioch, 503 Antoninus Liberalis, 467, 468 Ao, 315, 502. See also Aoios Aoia: wife of Theias, 502 Aoios (hero), 315, 356, 498–503, 512; Adonis doublet, 500–502; dialect forms, 502–503; first king of Cyprus, 500; Kephalos father, 498; Levantine kingship, 503, 505; Paphos doublet, 500–501, 503, 505; solar etymology, 145n201, 500–501, 503, 505; Typhon father, founder of Paphos, 503 Aoios (mountain in Cyprus), 500–501 Aoios (river), 503 Apamaea, 508 Aphaka, 456n80, 461–466, 464n28; Adonis, 463–465; —tomb, 468; Balthi, Tammuz, Kauthar, 314, 468–473; divination, 465; history of site, 465–466; Kinyras, 314, 461–466; lamentation, 468–473; oral tradition, 464–466; Theias, 467 Apheidas, 343, 365 Aphrodite (sometimes used loosely for Great Goddess of Cyprus, q.v.): apples, 290; birth, 376, 401, 480, 564; doves, 236, 290; dressing scene, 323n15, 331; grief/wrath, 281n13, 288, 291, 313, 315, 473; — anger at Kinyras’ daughters, 250, General Index 281, 288–289, 504; Julio-Claudians, 205, 402; Lyros son, 434n67; master-god to Kinyras, 291, 398; mother of Kypros, 480, 515–516; muse, 39, 307, 310, 313, 345; myrtle, 289; mysteries, 238n112; patroness of divination, Paphos, 383, 412, 414; patroness of sailors, 330, 375, 481; Pygmalion, 289; ‘sacred prostitution’, 221–222; Sappho, 310; th miat rion, Paphos, 413; Venus, 281, 331, 402, 513–514; Zeus, 403n16 —Aphrodite, cult locations: Amathous, 287, 402; Aphaka, 463; Baths of Aphrodite, 501–502; Byblos, 464; Idalion, 331; Locri, 221; Kythera, 478; Paphos, 2, 124, 206, 222, 226, 284, 350n74, 366, 393, 401, 404, 411–412, 420; Salamis, 345, 410n62; Tegea, 230n64, 365 —Aphrodite, lovers: Adonis, 145, 287n46, 290, 299, 313, 473–474, 498, 501–502; Ares, 474; Kinyras, beloved priest, 1, 7, 36, 40, 89, 93, 102, 115, 219, 221, 223–224, 226, 291, 313, 375, 380, 382, 403, 409, 475; Phaethon, 474, 505; polyamorous, 474 —Aphrodite, parallel figures: Astarte, etymology, 380n58, 464, 481; Baalat Gebal, 463; Dione, 403, 481, 498; Ishara, 375; Syrian Goddess, 461 —Aphrodite, titles: Akraía, 205; Énkheios, 375; Kýpris/Kypría, 403; Kythéreia, 396, 404, 476–479; Ourania, 307, 378, 403, 463, 478 Aphroditos, 315, cf. 535 Apollo, absorption of rival cults, 189, 226; as sun, Sidon, 511; bearded, Samaria, 495; bow and lyre, 229–230; Delian, 290n65; Delphic, 204, 230; ithar id s, 210–211n135, 230, 232–233, 496; —enacted by ithar ido , 233; —patron of singers, 6, 232, 310; Hyakinthios, 226n46, 227, 294; Jesus, 180, 210; Kadmos, 492n21; lamenting, 210, 294, 296, 312; Linos, 306, 308–309, 312; lyre invoked, 235, 318n233; Marsyas, 189–190n19, 212n146, 536; Nabu, 495–496; Paiawon, 190; Pharnake, 512; Seleucids, 415n88, 495; Sydyk, Eshmoun/Asklepios, 511–512; Syrian, Hierapolis, 462, 464, 495–496, 507 —Apollo, Cyprus: antiquity of cult, arrival to island, 190, 230; Cypriot cult-titles, 229, 230n64; —Alasi tas, 229, 372; —Ámyklos, 294n90, 372n6; — l t s, 205, 229n62–230, 260n80, 386n91, 409–410, 415n86, 422n126; — en rist s, see below under Apollo, Kinyras; —Kereátas, 396n134; Kourion hymn, 319; —Lýkios, 308; Nikokles of Paphos, 410, 415; Resheph, 229, 372 —Apollo, Kinyras: Kinyras beloved, 1, 219, 221, 223, 226–231, 314, 448; Kinyras better referent in Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 527; Kinyras slain, 187, 189–192, 289, 306, 310; Kinyras son, 227, 314, 410, 512; en rist s Apollo, 8, 98, 204–206, 210–213 and n135, 217, 226, 230–236, 241, 274, 319, 371, 402, 410, 423, 438 Apollodoros, pseudo, 250, 337, 354, 356, 359, 504–512; Achaean embassy to Kinyras, 343; Arcadian royal house, 343, 365; Egyptian Detour, 512–517 743 General Index Apollonios of Rhodes, 200–201 Aqhat, 128, 131–134, 140, 142, 144, 172, 229, 443, 447 ‘Aqiba, 180 Arabic, Arabic tradition, 61n89, 129, 137–138, 543; Arabian Nights, 182; David and Solomon, 160, 181–183, 301; djinn, 61, 183; Herodotos, 378n50; Lamk, 312, 454; linguistic points, 138n160, 434n67, 443n2, 448n28, 460n3; mi afa, 301; myrrh, 282; Myrrha flees to Arabia, 286n42, 287, 467n54; ān n, 544; Quran, 182–183; Quranic exegesis, 183; Saudi Arabia, 62; Tammuz lament, 471n79. See also knr, innāru m Arachne, 280 Aramaean, Aramaic: Amuq, 199; Aram, Biblical eponym, 43n3; Bardaisan, 61; Cyprus, 272; dialects, 60; Kothar/Khauthar, 441, 443n1, 460n3; Laban, Bible, 43; linguistic points, 3n11, 138n160, 199, 202n93, 434n67, 460n3, 511; loyalty oaths, 300n119; parallelism, 156n41; PNs, 441, 443n2, 452; Sam’al/ Zincirli, 136; targums, 216, 302. See also nr innāru m Sefire steles; St. Ephraim; Syria; Syriac sources Arcadia, Arcadian, 230n64, 253, 308, 359–360n129, 364n154, 365n159, 409n51, 465; Agapenor, 359–368; Arkas, eponym, 329n57n16, 343, 365; Cyprus, 359–368; royal house (myth), 343, 365 Arcado-Cypriot dialect group, 14, 253, 340, 360 archery: see bow Ares, 470, 474; Aphrodite, 474 Argos, Argive: ‘conquest’ of Cyprus, 744 343, 558n8, 561n32; Argos, eponym, 340n16, 343; Iasos, 343; Kourion foundation, 340, 350n74; Linos, 308; Mycenae, 340, 343 Ariadne, 471 Arion, 210, 233 Aristarkhos, 207–208, 309, 318 Aristonikos, 207, 316 Aristophanes, 202 Aristotle, 286, 334 Aristoxenos: on foreign instruments, 275 Ark, 40, 155, 167–175; Ark-narrative, 169, 172 Arkhòs tôn Kinyradôn, Paphos, 418. See also Kinyradai; Kinýrarkhos Armenian, 61, 454n76 Arnaud, D., 121n58, 485–486 Arnobius, 419 Arpad, 300 Artaxerxes, 352–353, 547 Artemis, 226n46, 461, 504; Agrotéra, 409, 412n70; Artemides, 123n74, 445n11, 477, 510; Diana, 191, 513–514 Artists of Dionysos, 296n97; Cyprus, 212n148, 213 Asaph, 117–118, 156n46, 164n86 Ascalon, 378; Askalos, eponymous hero, 363n150; Mopsos, 364 Ascanius, 331 Ashdod, 157, 250 Asherah, 60, 375, 447n23, 461, 481 Ashlakka, 76 ashlar, 324, 330 Ashtoreth: see Astarte Ashurbanipal, library, 23 Asklepios, 423n128, 492n20; calque for Eshmoun, 510–511; shrine, Achaea, 511 Assur: city, 23, 79, 121n61, 245; god, 38 Assurnerari V, 300 General Index Aššuwa, 458 Assyria, Assyrian, 160n71, 266n115, 273, 326, 378, 461; Assyrian King List, 83; Kinyras, 3, 122, 281n7, 284, 288, 406, 467; lexical texts, 79; merchant colony, Kanesh, 92n10, 93n16, 324, 508; musical processions, 171; N-A expansion to West, Cilicia, 520; —Cyprus, 16, 327, 353, 407n43; —Israel/ Judah, 146, 154, 178, 301; —Lydia, 275n147, 357n119; —palace musicians, 154, 178, 301; —peripheral responses, 407n43; —Syria/ Phoenicia, 3n11, 153, 262; N-A prophecy texts, 38, 383; Theias, 284, 467; versus Syria, 3n11, 461, 467 Astarte, 135n145, 378, 461, 463, 481; Alashiya/LBA Cyprus, 104, 374–382, 392, 473–482; Aphrodite, etymology 380n58, 464; as form of Ishtar, 376, 486; as honorand in Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 115, 145, 262, 293, 486, 523; Byblos, 407, 463, 471, 481, 486; Karkemish, 462; Kition temple, 116, 262, 315; mythological contexts, 7, 114, 377; Paphian, 270n129; patroness of sailors, 330, 481; royal cults, 7, 40, 114, 154, 376–377, 381–383, 407, 473–479, 492; Sidon, 376, 382, 407, 462n16, 463, 492; Solomon, 154, 382; Tyre, 376, 407; Ugarit, 7, 114, 374, 376, 407; —Astarteof-the-Hurrian-Land, 376, 377; —Astarte-of-the-Steppe, 120, 377; —Singer(s) of, 40, 114, 383. See also Inanna/Ishtar Asterias or Asteria, child of Teukros, 514n125 Astynoos, 504, 506, 511 Atargatis: see ‘Syrian Goddess’ Aten, 107, 110; Aten-hymns, 110 Athena, 226n46, 280, 281n7, 461; Alea (Tegea), 364, 366; Ialysos, 520; Lindos, 520n161; Minerva, 513; Tarsus, 520n161 Athens, Athenian: Ad ni , 312; Ajax and Trojan War, 355; Atthidographers, 356, 497; Cypriot foundation legends, 341, 498, 506n67; Euneidai, 234; Kinyras, 355–356, 358, 497–498, 504; New Music, 190n19; Pamphos, 307n156; political relations, Cilicia, 497; —Cyprus, 341, 355, 497; —Cypriot Salamis and Euagoras, 353–356; —Saronic Salamis, 354–356; royal house (myth), 355, 498, 504; threnodic legislation, 294 Athienou, 378 ’Attanu, Chief Priest, Ugarit, 152n23 Attis, 102, 315n213 aul s: see double-pipes Axiothea, wife of Nikokles, 416 Ayia Irini, 378, 390 Azag, 25 Azatiwatas, Karatepe, 251, 507n75, 512 Baal: Adonis, 314, 473, 482–485; Anat, 125–126, 129, 132–133; Aqhat, 128, 131–134; Byblos, 314, 407n45, 473, 482–485; Damu, 482–485; death and return, 143, 484–485; Emar, priestess, 171; Haddu, 483; Kothar, 122, 443–444, 447–448; Krntryš, Karatepe, 507n75; lamentation, 143, 482–485; Marqod, 152n22; mountaintops, 374, 465, 467, 484, 514; praise-singing, 125–134, 137, 152; R p’iu, 135; royal cult, 135, 468, 503; singer of, 126–131, 745 General Index (Baal, cont. ) 137, 152, 176; Ugarit, 4, 120n53, 125–132, 135n145; weapons of, 122, 443–444, 448; Yahweh, 158, 169, 484; Yamm, 122, 125, 128, 153, 447. See also Aoios; Belos Baalat Gebal, 463, 483, 486; as Astarte/Ishtar, 463, 485; Balthi, ps.-Meliton, 470; Cypriot goddess compared, 375, 480–481; patroness of sailors, 375, 481; royal cult, 481 Babylon, 30n83, 74, 83, 86, 101, 313, 326, 495, 496; Akitu festival, 171; Alashiya, 324; Babylonian Exile, 181, 300; Crete, 479; sack of (1595), 96 Bakkhylides, 219 Balaam, Oracles of, 156n41 balang, 55, 83; BALA dedicated by Hammurabi, 86 87, 152; BALA . DI, 66–71, 92n10, 124, 304, 435; bull/GU4.BALA , 30 31, 36, 84, 531; compositions, 81, 84, 380; destruction as lamentative trope, 84, 291, 596; divinized, 9, 20–21, 24, 26–33, 35–36, 88, 122, 167, 279, 291, 380, 388, 390–391, 423, 450, 485, 507; function and use, 26–33, 42, 84–85, 118, 279, 391, 414; hall/shrine, 30n83, 84, 531, 534; in PNs, 98, 435; instrument of NAR/NAR.BALA , 28, 66, 163, 531; lamentation, 22, 29–30, 29n75, 65, 81, 84–85, 279, 291, 485, 486; L .BALA , 65–66; lunar/solar cult, 41n152, 584–585; lute?, 20, 576; sevenmagic, 29n68, 41, 585; stringed instrument, 19, 20n4, 65, 87, 121, 531–534, 573–580; use of term outside Mesopotamia, 54, 65–67, 121, 486; —Byblos, Ur III period, 486; — = innāru m , 54, 65–67, 746 71, 77, 87, 121, 435, 486, 531; year names, 21–22, 28. See also divinized-instruments: as counselors; master- and servant-gods; Lugaligi- u ; Ninigi ibara; Ur- ababa/ ur a a tum; U umgal-kalama; royal ideology Balthi, ps.-Meliton, 468–473; as Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte type, 473–479; conflates Baalat Gebal and Cypriot goddess, 470, 472, 480–481; Syrian phonology, 470 Bar Kokhba revolt, 180; coins, 59, 180–181; Davidic precedent, 181 Bar Koni, Theodore, 454–455, 470–475, 480, 486 Barama, 63, 68 bárbitos/n, 319, 543 Bardaisan, 61 Barnett, R. D., 384, 386 Baruch, 181 Baths of Aphrodite, 501–502 Bau: balang of, 22n20 Baurain, C., 3, 6, 438–439 beauty: Adonis, 335, 382, 484; ancient ‘god-men’ of Cyprus, 335n99, 560–561; David and Solomon, 382; Dumuzi, 35, 382; goddess, 281, 288, 471; king, 35, 382; Kinyras, 335, 382; Theias, 335 Beckman, G., 377 begena, 58n65, 111, 167, 456n81 Beirut, 510–511 Belisarios, 303 Belos, 354, 357n119, 379, 467–468 Beni Hassan painting, 44, 82, 105, 454 Benjaminites, 75, 82 Bes, 246–247, 248 Biga, M. G., 67 bi-musicality, 71, 215 birds, 100, 134, 151, 179, 183, 328, 521–522, 526n191; adorning instruments, 178, 247, 390n112; General Index doves, 100, 236, 284, 290; eaglediviner, 373; goddess, 236, 521; halcyon, 187, 191–192, 289, 330; Iÿnx as ‘melodious kinýra’, 191n27; lamentation, 191–192, 289; lyrist and, 126, 159, 183, 192, 246, 517, 522–528; Memnonides, 191n30; metamorphoses, 192; peacock, 514–515; sacrifice, 102n83, 144; symbolizing epiphany, 126, 192, 517. See also Erinoma; Meleagrides; Memnonides; Peleia/Pelia; Pierides Bit Bachiani, 153 Bithynia, 378 Blegen, C. W., 427 blindness, 110, 234, 312, 318, 405 Blinkenberg, C., 518 Boardman, J., 238, 519–522, 527 boats, model, 211, 328–329, 343–346; Hurrians, 328; Mesopotamia, 328–329. See also Kinyras: terracotta fleet Boccaccio, 199, 499, 503, 517, 549–555, 559–562 Bömer, F., 283 Bomford Goddess, 394–396, 404, 475, 479. See also copper: divine protection; Ingot God Book of Jashar, 175 Bormos song, Mariandynoi, 305n147 Bousiris, 373 bow, 190n17; and lyre, 131–134, 196n54, 229–30, 255, 387n99, 415; Aqhat, 131–134; Kinyras, 229, 447; Kothar, 131, 229, 443, 447; Resheph, 229; royal symbol, 131n118, 255, 387n99 Bowra, M., 225 Braisia, daughter of Kinyras, 281, 333, 504, 513 brothers motif, 43–46, 130, 229, 445–456, 480, 509–511 Brown, E. L., 196, 274 Brown, J. P., 4, 189, 443, 447, 456, 509 Buchner, G., 519, 521, 527 bull, 170, 172, 229; balang, 30–31, 36, 84; bull-lyres, 52, 72, 78, 125; in lilissu ritual, 24, 595 Bustron, Florio, 549, 554, 559–561, 563 Byblos, 105n101, 130, 283, 452; Adonis, 290, 298, 314, 459–487, 501; —laments traced to BA, 485–486, 594; —tomb, 468, 498; Astarte, 407, 463, 471, 481, 486; Baal of, 314, 482–485; Balthi/ Tammuz/Kauthar, 9, 453, 468; Canaanite Shift, 55, 459–461; copper, 473–479, 482; Ebla, 63, 483; Egypt, 481–482; —Amarna letters, 481–483; eponym, father of Kypros, 480, 515–516; Ibdâdi/ Abd-(H)addi, 483; Ishtar, 486; Kinyras, 57, 88, 123, 290, 358, 380, 406, 459–487, 496; —fused with Kothar/Khousor, 472–473, 486; —Byblos his most ancient capital, 466, 473; Myrrha, 283–284, 460, 466–468, 492, 502; Osiris, 316n214, 516; Rib-Hadda, 481, 485–486, 485; royal cult, 481–485, 484; Yahimilk, 510. See also Baalat Gebal; Aphaka; Philo of Byblos. —Byblos and Cyprus, 354, 372, 459, 468–482, 486, 515–516; Alashiya, 481–482; Byblos not distinguished in IA Phoenician colonial movement, 476; ‘gods of Byblos’ inscription, 476n103; Paphos, 460; —agreement of Paphian and Byblian legend about Kinyras/ Kauthar/Khousor, 475–476, 487 —Byblos and Mesopotamia, 482–483; cuneiform texts, 483, 485–486; theological influence, 482–485; —Byblian Kinyras and, 485–486; 747 General Index (Byblos, cont. ) —Damu, 482–485; —mi2-nar, female balang-player, Ur III period, 486; Ur III dynasty, 88, 483 Cain, 43, 454; Abel, 454; folk etymology, 44n5 Cainan, 454–455 Cainites, 46n11, 454 Calcol, 151–152, 177n161 Canaan, Canaanite, 82, 160, 376, 378; cultural background, Biblical world, 43, 56, 152, 154n34, 155–159, 163, 166, 173; dialect zone, 55–57, 441, 459; —Canaanite Shift, 55–57, 273, 445n12, 456n84; —other linguistic points, 199n71, 273, 344n38, 434n63, 478n118; frame-drumming, 126n91; LBA Aegean and, 326, 379; LBA Cyprus and, 104, 369n179; material culture, 159–161, 246, 248, 255, 322; musical traditions, 105n101, 106, 152, 155–161, 173, 248, 250, 257, 260n80, 315, 386n91; — Canaanite orchestra, 46, 157, 250, 272; New Year ritual, 169; other cult, 465, 467, 477, 480; PNs, 44, 138, 273n138, 440–441, 452; under Egypt, 104, 106, 138, 481–483; use of term, 12n61, 55, 378; words in Egyptian sources, 55–56, 106, 273. See also brothers motif; lyres; Kinyras: Canaanite derivation of name; kinýra: Canaanite derivation; knr; Astarte: royal cults Capomacchia, A. M. G., 67, 283 Cappadocia, 216, 508 captive musicians, 76, 106, 154, 178, 249, 300–301, 384n87 Caria, Carian, 4n15, 225n40, 457; Gingras, 202–204; Mopsos, 347, 353 Cassio, A. C., 360, 476 748 Cassuto, U., 129 Catalogue of Ships: see Homer catharsis: see purification rites Catling, H., 384, 386, 394, 396 Cato the Younger, 420 Caubet, A., 383 Cayla, J.-B., 8, 205, 233, 410, 412–413 Cebel Ires Da i, 405, 512 Cenchreis, 190n19, 287–288n54 Censer: see Divine Censer center and periphery, various points: 37, 79, 92, 104, 121, 224, 276, 347, 371, 387, 416 Cerastae: see Kerastis/Kerastia Ceres, 287 chariot, chariotry, 19, 27, 131, 219, 323–333, 388, 427, 431, 506 Chenaniah, 157, 169, 173, 381 Chief Singer, 28n65, 31, 158; David and Saul, 158; Leader of the Kinyradai, 418, 421–424; Mari, 35, 74–75, 114, 422. See also Agamemnon: singer; Chenaniah; Ibbi-Ilabrat; nar/NAR/nâru; Rishiya; singers; Warad-Ilishu Chnumhotep, 45 chorus, choral, 294; Ark procession, 170; Biblical world, 152; circular, 231, 233; Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 191, 222, 232, 262, 289, 293; Cyprus —Cypriot figurines, 231, 237, 398; — Kinyras, 222, 225, 231–236, 289, 525; —lyric choruses, 212n143, 222, 225, 231–236, 256, 398, 525; female, 95, 191, 222, 232, 262, 265, 289, 293; funerary/mortuary, 256, 293, 294n90, 298n104, 299n113, 306; Hittites, 95; lamentation/ threnody, 29, 289, 293–294, 299n113, 306, 308, 311n180; led by lyrist, 191, 211n135, 231–237, 294, 298n104, 308, 398; Pindar, General Index 225, 231–236, 525; seven-magic, 170. See also dance Christian: contexts, 210n129, 215; —continuity of pagan cult, 466, 563–564; —lyre, 4, 180, 182, 189, 193–194, 209–210, 215–217, 539–544; hymnography, 61, 182, 210n133, 541; polemic, 123, 222n15, 465n39, 469, 474; reception of David/Solomon, 181, 193. See also Jesus: lyrist Chronicler, 116–118, 149, 156, 169–170, 173 Cilicia, Cilician, 95–96, 98, 199, 334, 347, 375, 386, 405; Aegean migrations, 250, 356, 405; Aoios, 498–503; Half-Achaeans (Hypakhaioí), 253, 520; Hurrian influence, 96, 495; Kinyras, 3, 9, 57, 98, 104, 123, 199, 355–356, 367, 404, 406, 459, 461, 496–512, 517; Mopsos, 251–252, 508, 520; Paphian extispicy, 99, 373, 401, 405, 497; Paphian Zeus, 501; Phoenicians, 5n27, 9, 199, 202, 405, 461, 512, 517; revolt from Assyria, 705, 520; Rhodes, 356, 520; Sandas el sim 508–509; Tamiras, Tamiradai, 404–406, 497. See also Cilix; Hiyawa; Karatepe; Kizzuwatna; Lyre-Player Group of Seals; lyres and lyric iconography Cilicia, Rough, 405, 500, 507 Cilix, eponym: Appendix F, 559–560 Cinara, courtesan-muse in Horace, 199, Appendix C Cinaras, Étienne de Lusignan, 2, 325, 332, 351, 361, 450, Appendix G; anonymous brother, 452–453; Cinaras II, 361, 561–564; Khousor compared, 452–453, 455; numbered among the gods, 289, 561–562; Syrian phonology doubtful, 199, 554–555; when this form used in study, 3n10 Cinna, 286, 288, 334 Cinyras, slave of Acastus, Diktys, 334 Cinyria: see Kinyreia circumambulation rites, 84, 171 citharodes: see kithára clarinets, double, Egypt, 104 Clement of Alexandria, 419 coins: as propaganda, 180, 415–416; Bar Kokhba revolt, 59, 180–181; Byblos, 481n129; Cyprus, 221n10, 230, 236, 403n16, 413, 415, 481n129; —Nikokles of Paphos, 414–416; —Salamis, 410n62; Samarian, 495; Sidon, 493; Tarsus, 508 Collon, D., 52n30, 522 colonization: Aegean, Cyprus, use of term, 14, 368; British, Cyprus, 349n65; Egyptian, Cyprus (legendary), 512–517; Greek, western, 338; Phoenician, western, 262, 274, 378. See also Aegean migrations; Cyprus: Greek conquest myths; Phoenician colonization of Cyprus Colophon, 353 Community of Cyprus, 205, 402 concubines: see harem Constantine, emperor, 465 Cooper, A., 159 copper: Aegean migrations, 339, 363–364, 475; Aerias, 403, 475; Agapenor, 364; Alashiya/LBA Cyprus, 10–11, 323–324, 326, 372, 394, 396–397, 473–479, 482; Byblos, 473–479, 482; deforestation, 327; divine protection, 330, 363–364, 394–396, 473–479, 482; Kinyras, 2, 323–326, 394, 447, 450, 452; name of Cyprus, 749 General Index (copper, cont. ) 403; Ninhursag, 396n134; oxhide ingots, 326, 394; —ingotbearer, 384, 392; —talents of Kinyras, 326, 392; —votive, 396; Phoenician colonization of Cyprus, 16, 270, 475–476; Ugarit/ Crete, 479. See also Bomford Goddess; Ingot God Coptic, 60 Corycian Cave, 500–503 cosmogony, 23, 103, 124, 169n114, 445. See also theogony cosmopolitanism — cosmopolitanism, general: LBA Cyprus, 12, 104, 245, 326, 371, 382, 460, 487; Mycenaean world, 440; Ugarit, 119; United Monarchy, 150-151. See also Uluburun wreck — cosmopolitanism, musical, 43, 301; Alalakh, 392; Ebla, 63; Hittites, 90, 392; LBA Cyprus, 245–250, 382; Mari, 73–75, 77, 82, 154, 155; NK Egypt, 104–111, 137, 154, 391; Solomon, 155; Ur III, 36–37, 73, 152; women, 106, 108, 249. See also harem — cosmopolitanism, theological, 101, 372, 374, 396, 459, 464, 481, 483, et passim. See also syncretism, theological counselor: see divinized instruments craftsman-musician twins mytheme, 43–46, 453–456 craftsmen: see mobility Crassicius Pansa, 286 Crete, 190, 204n101, 234, 262, 333n82, 478n120; bronze stands, 384; Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 260–261, 266, 268; Kommos, 271; Kothar, 447, 478; Linos, 308; Ugarit, Mari, and Babylon, 479 750 Croton, 317n228 cult-objects: see divinized cult-objects cult-transfer: see mobility culture drift, 52 Cureton, W., 469, 470 Currie, B., 221–222 Curtius Rufus, 489 cylinder seals, 21, 71, 131n118, 160, 241, 250, 256, 393, 396–397, 517 cymbals, 32, 93–95, 115–118, 128–130, 134, 144, 155n39, 157, 164, 168, 170, 172, 241, 397, 444; Heb. me ilta m, 116, 155; Hitt. galgalturi, 100–101; Sum. sim, 32; Ug. m lm, 115, 117n31 Cyprocentricity, 204, 211, 348, 373, 436, 440. See also Cyprus Cypro-Minoan script, tablets, 12–13, 327n38, 349n66, 404n21; Hurrian?, 440. See also CyproSyllabic; Eteocypriot Cypro-Phoenician (ethnicity), 204n97, 229, 275, 315n210, 322n9, 345, 352, 358, 368–369. See also Phoenician colonization of Cyprus Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 46, 57, 77, 105, 115–116, 134n139, 143n189, 145, 157, 191, 222, 232, 244, 248–249, 258–274n144, 276, 279, 289, 302, 486, 521–522, 525; analysis of lyre morphology, 244–245, 267–272; Astarte/‘Adonis’, 115, 145, 262, 293, 486, 523; lyric threnody, 145; North Syrian versus Phoenician traditions, 260, 267–268, 272, 458; production centers, Cyprus, 262, 269, 272; —Phoenicia, 260; temple orchestras, 145, 249, 279, 314, 422 Cypro-Syllabic script, 13n63, 262, 270, 404n21, 410n63; digraphic inscriptions, Paphos, 410. See also General Index Cypro-Minoan; Eteocypriot Cyprus: Adonis, 313–316; Alexander the Great, 491; Anatolian interface, 104, 457, 500–501, 503; ancient histories of island, 337n3; Arcadia, 359–368; as seen from Aegean, 9, 345, 359–360n129, 365, 368, 409–410, 438, 474; Byblos, 354, 372, 459, 468–482, 486, 515–516; control claimed by Ramses III, 14, 354; early forests and smelting, 327; earthquakes, 361, 362n139; Greek conquest myths, 342–343, 346–349, 360–361, 368; Hurrian influence, 12, 96, 98, 104, 349n66, 386, 440; intermarriage of Greeks and pre-Greeks, 365–366, 368, 514; lyric threnody, 304–316; model boats, 328–329; musical interaction with Aegean, 211–213, 276, 476 (see also epic poetry, Greek: Cypriot branch); name connected with copper, 403; oil industry, 330–332; oral tradition, 3, 348, 360–362, 364–365, 378, 380, 404, 406, 419, 453, 475, 501, Appendix G; production centers, symposium bowls, 262, 269, 272; Ptolemaic period, 416–420; Roman period, 205, 401–407, 420–421, 499; seafaring, 326–330, 491; strategic location, 414, 417; thalassocracy lists, 327; wealth, 2, 323, 327n36, 345, 414, 418. See also Aegean migrations; Alashiya; copper; Eteocypriot; lyres and lyric iconography; Phoenician colonization of Cyprus; preGreek languages; syncretism, theological —Cyprus in LBA: as Golden Age, 223, 321, 335, 369, 476; —center of maritime networks, 326–327, 479; —cosmopolitanism, 12, 104, 245, 371, 382, 460, 487; —music iconography, 371, 383–391, 393; —political configuration, 10–14, 399, 475; —sanctuary design, 377, 394 Cyrus the Great, 151n13, 490 D’Albiac, C., 390 Dada, 30n79, 631 Dagan, Dagon, 4, 63, 65n18, 78, 84n81, 120n53, 123n74 Damaskios, 511 Damu, 485; as dying-and-risinggod, 484–485; balang counselor of, 485; Dumuzi, 484; greater Levant, 485n154; lamentation, 485; royal cult, Byblos, 482–485; —Mesopotamia, 485; Ur III–OB zenith, 485 dance, 64–65, 77, 92, 105, 119n45, 135n140, 152–153, 156, 169–170, 173–174, 183, 191, 222, 231 and n73, 232–238, 241–242, 244n12, 246–248, 250, 253, 265, 294n90, 310, 315n209, 386, 397 398; B, Ebla, 63; NE.DI, Ebla, 63. See also chorus Danel, 144 Danunians, 251 Darda, 151–152, 177n161 David, 3, 8, 63, 149–184, 193, 490; Arabic tradition, 160, 182–183; builds instruments, 158, 173; controls natural world, 182–183; covenant with Yahweh, 177, 179, 468; cult-leader, 40, 118, 167–174, 381; dying words, 175–178; enacts Yahweh, 169, 173, 175, 177; epitome of Jewish musical tradition, 149; Ethiopian tradition, 62; Great Kingship, 751 General Index (David, cont. ) 150–155; harmonious realm, 153, 383, 387; Kinyras compared, 3, 36, 119, 150, 166n92, 381–382, 393, 468; lamentation, 175, 301, 312, 381, 393; legacy, 174–184, 543–544; legends reflect period propaganda, 169, 393; lyre, kingly virtue of, 166–167, 176, 381; —role of in rise to kingship, 165–174, 381; —seven-stringed, 58–59; —shelters ideas about Divine Lyre, 165, 178, 381–182, 393; messianism, 179; Michal, 169, 173–174; musical guilds, 116–117, 149, 155–158, 164–165, 168; n m, 129, 142, 175–178; Orpheus, 193; performing role, 172, 178, 381; praise-singer of Yahweh, 36, 129, 149, 176, 382; prophetic, 161, 167, 178, 182, 383; psalms, 152, 161, 166, 174–175, 178, 182–183, 383; Saul, 31, 126, 135n145, 158, 166–167, 169, 173; shepherd motif, 194n43. See also enactment inn r Dea Syria: see Syrian Goddess de Moor, J. C., 450 Dead Sea Scrolls, 43, 58, 157n50, 168, 178, 301 Deborah, song of, 156n41 Deger-Jalkotzky, S., 244, 256 Deinomenes of Syracuse, 222 Delos, 290 Delphi: as center of world, 204, 411, 416; contests, 211–212n148, 223, 536; Cypriots at, 211, 212n148, 230; hexametric oracles, 450 Demeter, 223; Adonis, 284n35; Ceres, 287n46, 396n133; Cypriot, 223n22, 234, 287, 396 Demodokos of Leros, 497 Demokrates son of Ptolemy, 418 Demophon, 340, 355 752 Derketo, 461 descriptive: see rituals Deukalion, 462 Devale, S. C., 22 diatonic: see heptatonic/diatonic; tuning: Mesopotamian system Digenes Akrites, 255n59, 564 Dijkstra, M., 144 Dikaios, P., 245, 247 Diodoros, 337, 352, 357–358, 365, 493; Abdalonymos, 489–490; demise of Nikokles, 416–417 Dione, 403, 463, 481, 498 Dionysios the Periegete, 498 Dionysos, 213n150; Adonis, 313n192; Artists of, 212n148, 213, 296n97 Dioskouroi, 206, 225, 226n44, 232n78, 510–511; as ‘the Castors’, 451; Cypriot, 205, 480n126; kitharistaí, 226n44, 480n126; Kastor-song, 225–226 distribution lists, 64, 67, 74, 114–115, 330, 427 Dit nu/Did nu, 83 divination, 23, 446; divination-priest, 98, 115, 401, 417, 429–430, 449, 508; —lú AL, 376; Ea/Enki, 449; eagle-diviner, 373; extispicy, 99, 120, 373, 383, 401, 405, 413–414, 418, 449n43, 497; incense, 413; Kinyras, 99, 383, 393, 412; lamentation, 38, 99; liver-models, liveromens, 99, 120, 373, 383, 414; lyre, 99, 383, 414, 449; Shulgi, 35, 38, 393; water, Aphaka, 465. See also prophecy; Kinyradai of Paphos Divine Censer (u atu), Ugarit, 5, 103, 120n53, 121–122, 124, 512n119; Myrrha, 124, 283 diviners: see divination: divinationpriest divine couples: Aerias/*Aeria?, 401, General Index 475; An/Antu, 403n15; An/Inanna, 403; Aphrodite/Aphroditos, 315; Aphrodite/Zeus, 403n16; Baal/ Baalat Gebal, 483; Bomford Goddess/Ingot God, 396, 474–476, 479; Khousor/Khousarthis?, 511; Kothar/Kythereia, 396, 404, 476; Ugaritian god-pairs, 450–451, 454, 509–511; Zeus/Dione, 403, 481 divine determinative, 4–5, 19, 21n12, 71, 101, 123, 141, 468, 486 Divine Heptad, 25n45, 26, 40 Divine Kings, Ugarit, 5, 124, 136, 139, 141–146, 423 divine kingship: see royal ideology Divine Lyre: see Kinnaru; Kinyras; divinized musical instruments divinized cult-objects, 6, 19–26; as familiars of master-gods, 27, 282, 291; divinization rituals, 22, 279, 445; Hurro-Hittite, 102, 122, 495; Kinyras, 279–291; lamentation, 27; manifestation of divinity, 20; mythogenic, 25, 282, 382; naming rituals, 23, 25, 122, 444; narrative contexts, 7, 25, 26–33, 103, 113, 122, 380–381, 444; nature of, 20; offerings to, 19–20, 22–23n29, 41, 71, 84, 94, 97, 101–103, 119–122, 139n166, 291n67, 377 (see also anointing rites) divinized instruments, 7, 507; Amorite world, 83–88, 482; as counselors, 30, 36, 102, 485, 521–527, 593; best evidence BA, 57, 321; Byblos, Ur III period?, 486; communication with divine, 26–33, 41, 84–85, 158, 163, 173, 382, 450; construction rituals, 22–25; Damu, 485; Dumuzi, 84, 485; Ebla?, 71–72; Egypt?, 60, 390n112, 485; epiphany in guise of musician, 32, 163, 167, 388, 390, 444, 522–528; Hittites, 94, 101–102; Hurrian, 101–102; international phenomenon, 43; lamentation, 22–25, 28–30, 32, 84–85, 143, 279, 291; names, 23, 25, 29–30, 35–36, 86, 94, 122, 124; not played?, 32, 85, 102, 291; oaths on, 20, 21n14, 211n136; self-activated, 32, 85, 182n186. See also balang divinized cultobjects; inn r; Kinnaru; Kinyras; Ninigi ibara; U umgal-kalama; year-names djinn, 61, 183 Dmetor, 342–343, 358n121 Donatus/Servius, 513–515 double-pipes, 105n101, 106, 111n129, 115, 117n35, 134, 141, 143n188, 144, 157, 169n115, 190n19–191, 202n89, 210, 212n148, 231, 242n1, 265, 269n121, 293n79, 295n95, 303n136, 311, 398, 444, 445n11, 454, 525, 540, 542; Ad ni , 145, 313; Akk. em u/Ebl. na-bubù-um, 55n44, 145n201; and lyre (Gk. synaulía), 295 (see also Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls); central musician, 242; Dorion, 212n144; gíngras, 190n19, 202, 317; Ismenias, 303; lamentative, 143–145, 294, 296, 298, 303; Libyan, 310; Odysseus, 536; Olympos, 202, 295; spirits in, 455; Ug. tlb/Akk. šulpu, 134n139 doves: see birds Dravidian dialects, 61 drinking rituals, 83, 94–96, 118n40, 131, 134, 136, 138, 144, 147, 160, 254, 256, 265n101, 266n107, 270–271, 302, 305, 338, 388, 525n183, 541; Mesopotamian iconography, 525. See also mar ea mar i u 753 General Index Dryopes, 365 Dumuzi, 39, 77n31, 140, 291, 382, 467, 483n144, 484–485; Damu, 484; death, lamentation, 84, 140n170, 144–145n197, 484–486; Inanna, 35, 37, 39; pre-Sargonic antiquity, 485; royal cult, Mesopotamia, 35, 37, 485. See also Adonis; Tammuz Dura Europos, 496 Dussaud, R., 348 dying-and-rising gods, 140, 290, 314; influence on Baals of Ugarit and Byblos, 482–485 Ea/Enki, 23, 30n83, 63, 92, 509; creates lamentation-priest, 29, 291, 451, 591; divination, 449; Ea-Creator string, 451; incantations, 449n35; Kothar, 5, 448, 451; music, 5, 449; Zannaru, goddess, 78n45 Eanna complex, 19, 393 Early Iron Age (EIA), defined, 10n40 Eastern Wandering, Greek epic motif, 1, 204, 323, 338–339n8, 343n32, 355, 409, 467, 506n67 Ebla, 8, 45, 54, 63 73, 172; BALA .DI, 66–71, 124, 304, 435; BALANG as innārum, 54, 65–67, 71, 77, 87, 121, 435, 486; Byblos, 63, 483; É.NUN, cultic chapel, 66–67; Ebla king list, 71; Ebla Vocabulary, 65, 67, 435; lamentation, 66, 145, 304; management of musicians, 63; Mari, 63, 74; royal ancestor cult, 67–71, 83; Ugarit, 63; Ur III dynasty, 483; women, 64 Edom, 154, 165 Egypt, 245, 282, 318, 327, 354, 373, 478; afterlife, 137, 328; Alashiya, 12, 104, 323–324, 330, 371, 440; anointing rites, 283; Byblos, 463, 481, 482; divinized instruments?, 60, 390n112, 485; foreign musi754 cians/instruments, 104–111, 249; harp-songs, 304–305; Helen and Menelaos, 204, 310, 339; Herodotos, 304, 461; Illahun, ‘Asiatic’ musicians at, 105; Kinyras’ daughters, 281, 497, 504, 512–517; Kothar, 478; lamentation, 145, 280, 304, 311, 316; Lucian, 462; lutes, 248; MK, 56, 105–106, 110, 137, 305, 441; modern lyres, 62; NK, 11, 56, 61, 77, 92, 104–111, 354, 372; Odysseus, 342; OK, 104; Solomon, 151, 154; surviving lyres, 106; Tentnau, songstress, Byblos, 105n101; women, 56, 61, 105n101, 106–108, 110–111, 154 Eichmann, R., 248 Ekhepolos of Sicyon, 322 El, 4, 102, 120n53, 132, 135n145, 374, 445, 468, 481, 511; Elioun, 123n74; el-ku-ni-ir-ša, 5n27, 447n21; Elos, 123n74 Elam, Elamite, 75, 92n8, 101, 328; ‘Elamite orchestra’, 384n87. See also Susa Elatos son of Arkas, 329n57, 365–368, 514 Elis, 298, 317n228 Elisha, prophet, 165 Elisha, son of Javan, eponym, 10n44 Emar, 54, 63–64, 78, 137, 172, 206n106; lexical texts, 79, 121n59; priestess of Baal, 171; processions, 171–172; seven-magic, 40, 171; singers, 171 and n126 embodiment: see enactment Emesal, 29, 99, 103, 171, 289 Emeslam, 86 enactment, instantiation, embodiment, mimesis: of Aphrodite, 310; of Apollo, 233; of divine lyrist by priest or king, 142, 173, 381–383; of divinized instrument by priest General Index or king, 32–33, 35–36, 381–383, 388, 522; of Kinyras, 231–236, 282, 291, 298–299, 319, 381–383, 423, 473, 522 (see also Kinyras: lamentation/threnody); of Linos, 308–310; of master-gods by divinized cult-objects, 20; of mourning by lamentation-priest, 24n40; of Yahweh by psalmodist, 163 Enegi, 140 Engel, W. H., 145, 190n19 Enki: see Ea/Enki Eninnu, 25n46, 27–28 Enkherr’awon (king of Pylos?), 430–431 Enkomi, 378, 394, 396; Alashiya problem, 11, 348, 399; Horned God, 230n64, 396n134, 516n135; Salamis, 349, 354, 398, 460; sanctuary, 378, 394; —west adyton for goddess, 394, 398, 474; —votive figurines, 242, 250, 398. See also Bomford goddess, Ingot God. Enlil, 24n39, 28, 36, 38, 41, 80 enthronement, 67, 92, 143–144, 146, 171, 256; musician, 72, 143, 153, 177, 229, 383–391, 495, 522–528. See also throne entry ritual, 114, 120, 377 Enyalios, 439 Eos, 288n52, 499–500, 504–505, 507 Ephraim, St., 61, 182, 210, 216 epic poetry —epic poetry, ANE: Amorite (?), 83; Gilgamesh, 474; Hebrew, 156; Hurro-Hittite, 103; Neo-Sumerian, 474; Ugarit, 122, 140, 447. See also Baal Cycle in Index Locorum —epic poetry, Greek: Cypriot branch, 211, 253–255, 333, 338–339, 341–342, 345, 359–360, 368, 409, 476; —Salamis, 345, 477; diction, 6, 133, 201n86, 229, 316, 318, 338, 411, 476, 498n51; —lyre vocabulary and parallel lyric traditions, 6, 234, 318, 433, 457–458; —the os aoid s, 6, 238, 309, 468, 527; epic cycle, 337–338, 369; figure-eight shield, 254; formulaic theme, 343; imperishable fame, 141, 227, 318; kypriaká, 323, 331, 339, 343–346, 359–360, 403, 474, 476–477, 481; —Kinyras versus Dmetor, 342–343; n stoi, 204, 253, 323, 338–342; —‘returns of Odysseus’, 338; warrior-singer, 254–255n59. See also Achaeans/Akhai(w)oí; Eastern Wandering; Homer; Kinyras; Kypria; Kythereia; Nostoi; Troy/Trojan War Epidauros, 492n20 Epigeios Autokhthon, 123n74 epiphany, 32–33, 39, 126, 167, 192, 235, 517, 522–528 epitaphs and sepulchral epigrams, 201n87, 298–299, 334–335n100 Epiuotasterius (corrupt), 514 Eratosthenes, 326, 337, 340, 364; Hermes, 505 Erekhtheus, 226n46 Eremboi, 506n67 Ereshkigal, 29, 140, 484, 591 Eridu, 393 Erinoma, 513–515 Erra, 25 Esagil, 30n83 Esarhaddon prism inscription, 14, 360, 407, 546 Eshmoun, Esmounos, 511 Eshnunna, 74, 140, 479 Essenes: see Dead Sea Scrolls Eteocypriot: culture, 281, 316n214, 344; language, inscriptions, 14, 274, 328, 349–350, 360, 404, 434n63; use of term, 349. See also pre-Greek languages 755 General Index Ethan, 117–118, 151–152, 156, 177n161 Ethiopia, Ethiopic, 61–62, 111; David, 58n65, 62, 167. See also African parallels; begena ethnomusicology: bi-musicality, 71, 215; ‘museum effect’ (i.e. ‘temple effect’), 93n13; musical syncretism, 272, 314; parallels for divinized instruments, 22 Étienne de Lusignan, 2, 199, 289, 325, 332, 351, 359–360, 450, 452–453, 480, Appendix E, G Etruria, 260–262, 270, 519–521 Euagoras I, Salamis, 221n10, 346–347, 351–359; Athenian citizenship, 353–354; Athenian Kinyras, 355–356, 497; career, 346–347, 547; daughter of Kinyras, 321, 353–359, 362, 365, 493; in Cilicia, 347, 356; philhellenism, 351–352, 358; Phoenicia, 321, 347, 358, 493 Euagoras II, Salamis and Sidon, 410n62, 493 Euboea, Euboean, 255, 308, 519, 521 Eue, Eune, Eunoe, daughter of Kinyras, 354, 511, 514n125 Euhemeros, euhemerism, 123, 289, 419, 469, 499, 550, 553, 560 Euklees or Euklous, Cypriot prophet, 345, 356n113 Eumolpidai, Eleusis, 234, 423n128 Euneidai, Athens, 234 Euripides, 310–311 Europa, 378–379n52, 463, 492 Eurydike, 141 Eurymedon: hero, 333, 499; region near Tarsus, 499; river, 499 Eusebios, 123, 170, 378, 446, 487 Eustathios, 3, 4, 187–193, 280, 292, 298–299, 322–323, 342–343, 345, 466, 473, Appendix B Execration Texts, 441, 452n62, 478n119 756 Ezekiel, 470 faience, 245–250, 323, 326 F ra, 19 Fariselli, A. C., 244 Fates, 461 feasting, feasts, 23, 39, 63, 106, 108, 128, 131–133, 177, 252, 265, 293n79, 296, 305–306, 387n99– 388, 525 festivals, 63–64, 67, 90, 93–94, 105, 107–108, 171, 212, 222, 231, 249, 262, 265, 279, 287, 294, 296, 298, 306, 308, 312, 318, 416, 461–462; AN.TA . UM, 95; KI.LAM, 95, 171n130, 387 figurines: basket-bearers, foundation deposits, 393n123; bull-masked, Amathous, 516n135; goddess, 375, 377; ritual use, 23, 103. See also Bomford Goddess, Ingot God —figurines, musicians and dancers: Canaanite, 126n91, 134n139, 260n80; Cyprus, 126n91, 134n139, 231, 237, 241–242, 258, 269; —Enkomi, 242, 250, 393, 398; —Cypriote lyre shapes, 258; Egyptian tombs, 137n154; Philistia, 251; Ugarit, 134n139 Finkelberg, M., 366 First Temple: see Jerusalem fish, fishing, 151, 159, 246, 329, 330n60, 384, 387n99, 446, 447n23; lyrist and, 330, 526 flutes, 37n121, 104, 144n194, 145 Follet, S., 412 foreign musicians: see mobility: musicians foundation deposits, 393n123 foundation legends: see Aegean migrations frame-drum, 77, 94–95, 115, 118, 126n92, 141, 143, 147, 157, General Index 168–169, 242n1, 265, 293n79, 444, 525; duo with lyre, 77, 95, 525; Sem. tp and cognates (including Gk. týmpanon), 126n91, 157, 434n67, 538n8; women’s art, 46, 61, 92, 126, 145, 191, 242, 265, 313, 525. See also CyproPhoenician symposium bowls; figurines Frazer, J. G., 3, 38, 283, 309, 367, 382, 467, 484 Fronzaroli, P., 69 funeral rites, 29n75, 64, 95, 143–144, 146–147, 175, 256, 308; Achilles, 293; double-pipes, 143–145; gala, 29, 70; Greek world, 306; — r thesis, ekphorá, oi, thrênoi, 292–298; Hektor, 292–293, 306; Hittite world, 95, 304; lamentation, 70, 145, 207; lyre, 95, 143; Minoan, 295; versus mortuary cult, 70n53. See also lamentation; threnody, lyric Furies, 286, 288n56, 294 Gabbay, U., 24, 30–31, 291 Gaia/Ge, 123n74, 508 gala/kalû: see lamentation-priests Gallavotti, C., 436 Galloi, 315, 462 Gantzert, M., 78 Gauas, 315, 467, 502 Gaza, 105n101, 193 Gelaw, Melaku, 167 Gelimer, Vandal king, 302 Gelon of Syracuse, 223 gender-blurring, 111, 126n94, 265n99, 315, 535. See also third gender Gerginoi, Gergina, Gergitha, 366n165, 457 Gibeath-elohim, 156 Gibil, 124 gift, 37, 81, 131, 151, 316; gift- exchange, 1, 12, 64, 75, 150, 225, 262, 270, 272, 322, 344, 409 Gilgamesh, 462n16, 474 Gingras (name of Adonis and doublepipes), 145, 190, 202, 299, 567 Ginsberg, H. L., 456 Girsu, 41, 485 Gjerstad, E., 266n109, 338, 341, 355, 365 Goddess of the Night, 100–102, 329. See also Inanna/Ishtar god-lists, 20, 28n68, 30, 35, 84, 86, 119–122, 373, 485; Hurro-Hittite kaluti, 102, 124. See also An:Anum in Index Locorum; Heimpel gold, 322–323, 326; adornment, instruments, 76, 84–85, 106, 235, 309n172; Canaanite loanword in Greek, 273, 478n119; Kinyras, 325, 450 The Golden Bough: see Frazer Goldman, H., 518 Golgoi, 236, 260n80, 266, 269, 345n46; Golgos, eponym, 339; undeciphered language, 270, 339, 350 Gorgias, 343n32 Graces, 220; dressing Aphrodite, 323n15, 331; lamenting Adonis, 299n113, 449n42 Great Collapse, 4, 13–16, 400 Great Dragon of the Land: see U umgal-kalama Great Goddess of Cyprus, 7, 236, 239, 270, 279–280, 315, 365–366, 375, 380n58, 411, 470, 477, 480; as honorand in Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls, 262, 293; Baalat Gebal compared, 480–481; Bomford Goddess, 404; Demeter, 223n22, 287, 396n133; reinterpretation as Ishtar-type, LBA, 380, 392; Wánassa, 380, 382n70, 407, 472. See also Aphrodite; Inanna/ 757 General Index Ishtar: Alashiya; Kythereia Great Kingship, 1, 10–14, 110, 150, 322, 373; Aegean world, 387n99; Agamemnon, 409; David and Solomon, 150–155; Kinyras, 321–324, 333, 341, 409; poetics of, 11n50 grief or wrath, divine, 289; Achilles, 316; Alexander, 303; Aphrodite/ Venus, 250, 280–281, 288–291, 313, 315, 504, 513–514; Apollo, 289, 306; Artemis/Diana, 504; Astarte/Baalat Gebal/Cypriot goddess, 468–473; Athena, 280; Hera/Juno, 514; Inanna/Ishtar, 29, 84–85, 291, 485–486; Kauthar, 473; Kinyras myth-cycle, 280, 289, 315; —Kinyras himself, 282, 291, 310, 473; lamentation soothes, 23, 25, 279, 282, 291, 593–594; Muses, 467; Nintu, 68, 69; Sun, 288, 506; Thetis, 317n228; Yahweh, 168, 169; Zeus/Jupiter, 514 grief, human, 70, 144, 292–293, 299, 486; lyreless (ályros), 294, 296, 298, 301, 304, 313 Grottanelli, C., 283 gryphon: see sphinx or gryphon Gudea, 21, 26–33, 86, 113, 382, 393; Cylinders, 22, 26–33, 118, 279, 282, 380, 391, 393, 450; steles, 26 guilds, musical, 115–118; Artists of Dionysos, 296n97; —on Cyprus, 212n148, 213; Bible, 45, 116–117, 137n159, 152, 155–158, 168, 174, 381, 397, 422; Canaanite, 149, 152, 173, 250; cymbalists, 115–118, 155, 168, 397; implied by CyproPhoenician symposium bowls, 157, 249, 265–266, 422; kinship, 45, 115, 117, 155, 422; Kinyradai, Paphos, 421–424; Kition temple singers, 116, 262, 315; lyric, 758 Greece, 234, 405; names derived from eponymous ancestors, 234, 423; Philistines, 157; prominence of lyres, 93, 115–118, 164–165, 265, 421–424; prophecy, 156–157, 164–165, 422–424; Saul, 156–157; singers as umbrella term, 28, 115–118; Ugarit, 46, 113–119, 149, 155, 157, 249, 265, 381, 397, 422 Guzana/Tell Halaf, 153, 301 Haas, V., 103 Hadda, Hadad, Haddu, etc., 63, 135n145–136, 483, 485n154; as Damu, Byblos, 484 Hadrian, 180, 318–319 halcyons: see birds Half-Achaeans (Hypakhaioí), Cilicia, 253, 520. See also Achaeans/ Akhai(w)oí; Ahhiyawa; Hiyawa Hamath, Hama, 63, 441, 460n3 Hammurabi of Babylon, 73, 86–87, 152 harem, 64, 74; Akhenaten, 107–108, 110, 247; Mari, 75–76; Solomon, 154; use of term, 74n8. See also women Harmonia (heroine), 492 harps, 21n14, 90; Alalakh, 47n21, 90; angle-harps, 92, 107–108, 391; bow-harp, 26n52; Cycladic, 435n73; defined, versus lyre, 3n14; Egyptian curved, 104, 107–108; Gk. paktís, 275; Gk. tr nos, 275; harp-songs, Egypt, 304–305; Hittite, 47n21, 95n35, 390n112, 392; horizontal, 76n28; LBA Cyprus, 47n21, 245, 383–391, 405; Mesopotamianizing, 47n21, 90, 108, 245, 388, 391–392; —as vehicle for Mesopotamian music ideology?, 90, 392; Nuzi, 92n8. See also balang General Index Harran, 63, 471n81, 496 harvest song: see vintage or harvest song Hathor, 463 Hattian, Hattic, 90; cultic substrate, 93–94, 101; cult-music, 90, 93–94. See also lyres and lyric iconography; inar Hattusha, 93–94, 99, 245. See also Hittites Hattusili I, 93 Hattusili III, 100 Hazor, 55, 74, 82 Hazzi: see mountains Hebrew psalmody, 35, 44n6, 161–164, 178–179, 301, 310; Qumran, 178, 301 Hedammu, 103 Hegesandros, 502 Hegesias or Hegesinos, Salamis, 211, 345 Heimpel, W., 9, 20, 29–31, 41, 486 Hektor, 275, 292–293, 306 Hekuba, 292 Helen, 1, 292, 310, 339, 359, 467; at Paphos, 348; Gorgias, Isokrates, 343n32; Kinyras, 1, 329, 335n99, 409 Heliopolis/Baalbek, 463 Helios: see sun Hellanikos, 337, 343, 350, 356, 506n67, 545n3, 553, 559n12 Heman, 117–118, 151–152, 156, 164n86, 177n161 endursanga, divini ed scepter, 25 Hepat, 103 hepatoscopy: see divination Hephaistion, Companion of Alexander, 491 Hephaistos, 308n167; Aerias, 475–476; Aphrodite, 474; as Khousor in Philo of Byblos, 446; calque for indigenous Cypriot metals-god, not Kinyras/Kothar, in Syriac sources, 404, 470–471, 473–476; early absence from Cyprus, 473 heptad: see Divine Heptad heptatonic/diatonic, 40, 58–59, 171, 225. See also tuning: Mesopotamian system Hera: Babylonian/Assyrian, 216, 461; Juno, 281n7, 514; Paphos, 409 Herakles, 357n119, 414, 471; Linos, 306; Melqart, 471; Sandas, 509 Hercher, R., 507 Hermes, 499, 501, 504; Eratosthenes, 340n19, 505; lyre, 6n32, 235n101, 307n159, 411n68, 449n43, 492n21; Mercury, 514 hero-cult: see mortuary cult Herodotos, 312, 459; Cypriot lore, 222n16, 340n15, 365n160, 378, 506; Egypt, 304–306, 311, 461; Half-Achaeans (Hypakhaioí), Cilicia, 253; Kinyras and Adonis, 312; Linos-Song, 8, 145, 279–300, 304–316; Magi, 449; Maneros, 304–306, 311; model for Lucian, 461; Phoenician lyre, 274; ‘sacred prostitution’, 222n16 Herse, 355, 498, 504 Hesiod: Adonis, 313, 317; Kythéreia and Kythera, 476, 480; Linos, 306–308, 311; Phaethon, 505; succession myth, 97, 376 Hesione, 354 e ti temple (Hittites), 94 Hezekiah: cult-music, 172–173; Davidic precedent, 172–173; palace musicians, 154, 178, 301; psalms attributed to, 178, 383; restores Temple, 172 Hierapolis, 126n91, 236, 460n2–464, 495–496, 507, 509n93 hierogamy: See Sacred Marriage (so-called) 759 General Index Hieron of Syracuse, 219–226, 227 Hiram of Tyre, 150 Hittites, Hittite, 89–96, 457; adopted cults, 90, 93, 99, 154; Ahhiyawa, 12, 252; Alashiya, 12, 104, 371, 376–377, 440, 474; —control of Alashiya, 13, 400; AN.TA . UM festival, 95; anointing rites, 283; dammara > Tamiradai?, 405; divination-priest (lú AL), 376; funeral rites, 95, 304; Great Collapse/Sea Peoples, 13; Great Kingdom, 10–11; HurroHittite contexts/sources, 43, 90, 92n10, 96–104, 116, 124, 373, 375–376n36, 380, 448, 506, 508; incantation-priest (AZU), 98; Ishtar goddesses, 100–102, 375–377, 474; KI.LAM festival, 95, 171n130, 387; king and queen in cult, 94–95, 98, 118n40, 166, 381, 387, 422; —king as high priest of Ishtar-Shaushka, 383; lamentation-priests, 95; mortuary cult, 95, 304, 509; musical cosmopolitanism, 47n21, 392; —multilingual cult-music, 90; processions, 96, 171–172, 501; ritual silence, 95, 144, 304; royal ancestor cult, 94; royal succession, OK, 367; seven-magic, 26n49; singers, 95, 329, 509; Solomon, 154; sun in royal ideology, 175, 507; Ugarit, 12, 115; Ura, 507; Zarpiya ritual, 508–509. See also Hurrians; Inanna-instrument; lyres and lyric iconography; neo-Hittite sphere; inar Hiyawa, 251, 252n49, 508, 514n127, 520. See also Achaeans/Akhai(w)oí; Ahhiyawa; Cilicia; Half-Achaeans Hoffman, G., 447, 470 Homer, 10, 213, 232, 405; Apollo, 189; 760 bow and lyre, 133; Catalogue of Ships, 322n7, 339n14–340, 355, 359–360, 362; Cypriot birth, 345; —descendant of Cypriot prophet Euklees/Euklous, 356n113; Eastern Wandering motif, 204, 338; halcyon, 191; Kinyras, 1, 3, 187, 318, 321–322, 345, 409, 475, 480; in r n, variant, 207–208, 316–318; lamentation, 292–293, 306; Linos, 307–310, 312; lyre kings, 141, 254, 387; Panhellenism, 211, 348; Paris as lyrist, 196; Phoenicians, 275, 317, 345; scholia, 188; Solon, 355–356; Teukros, 354. See also epic poetry, Greek; Troy/Trojan War Homeridai, Chios, 234, 423 Hubbard amphora, 232, 256, 258, 269, 525 Hugo IV of Cyprus, 503, 549, 559–560 Humbaba, 462n16 Hurrians, Hurrian, 96–104; Alalakh, 96, 98, 435, 440; Cilicia/ Kizzuwatna, 96, 104, 375, 495; Cyprus, 12, 96, 98, 104, 349n66, 386, 440; divinized cult-objects, 102, 122, 495; god-list, Ugarit, 373; Hurro-Hittite contexts/ sources, 43, 90, 92n10, 96–104, 116, 124, 373, 375–376n36, 380, 448, 506, 508; language, 96; Mesopotamian influence, 97, 375; model boats, 328; PNs, 440; succession myth, 97, 376; SyroHurrian contexts, 7, 9, 96–104, 329, 400, 444, 495, 517; Ugarit, 96, 104, 120 —Hurrian musical traditions, 76, 96; hymnography, 90, 97–98, 103, 119–120, 377; —hymns from Ugarit, 35, 59, 97, 383, 392, 451; incantations, 96, 98, 100, 376; General Index —lyres, innāru, 96–104, 414; in a u i a (song-genre), 100 Hurro-Hittite: see Hurrians Hyakinthos, 226n46, 227, 294, 296, 335, 492n20 hybridity, 14, 53, 97–98, 194, 255, 258, 260–261, 341, 358, 363–364, 366, 368, 375, 384, 435, 460, 469–471, 484 Hyksos, 105 l t s see Apollo Hyon, 498, 504, 513–515 and n127 Hypakhaioí: see Half-Achaeans Hyria, 504, 507, 512. See also Ura Iacovou, M., 14n72, 363 Iapetos, 508 Iasos: Arcadian, son of Lykourgos, 343; Argive, son of Phoroneus or Argos, 343 Iawium of Kish, 84 Ibbi-Ilabrat: Chief Singer of ShamshiAddu, 74n7 Ibbi-Sin, 22, 84, 86 Ibdâdi/Abd-(H)addi of Byblos, 483 iconography, musical (methodological points), 242; (un)reliability, 47, 57, 59, 273; correlating with lexical evidence, 46; variability, 47, 59 Idalion, 14n68, 16, 206n106, 236, 248, 262n92, 266, 269n122, 270, 331–332, 339, 349–350n75, 515; folk etymology, 339, 364; Kinyras, 350n75 Iddin-Dagan of Isin, 39–40 Ig-Alima, divinized door, 27, 282 Illahun, ‘Asiatic’ musicians at, 105 Illuyanka, 98 Ilshu-Ibbishu, musical instructor, Mari, 75 Immerum of Sippar, 83 Inand k vase, 90, 93, 105, 108, 111, 381–382 Inanna/Ishtar, 22, 37, 78; Alashiya/ LBA Cyprus, 104, 375–382; Astarte as 376, 486; cult-music, 100–102, 373, 380–381, 574; —cult/divinized instruments, 100–102, 104, 380–381, 486 (see also Inannainstrument); —playing harp, 92; Hittites, 100–102, 375–376; international profile, 101, 375–377, 380, 486, 584; Ishtar of amu a, 100; lamentation, 29, 84–85, 94, 291, 451, 482–485; muse, 38–39, 383; other forms of, 94, 100–102, 329, 375–376, 462, 486; prophecy, 38; royal cults, 37–40, 84–85, 93, 104, 375–376, 381–383, 386, 392, 473–479, 482–485; Ugarit, 376–377, 486; Zannaru, 78. See also Astarte; Goddess of the Night; Great Goddess of Cyprus; Ishara; Ninigizibara; Shaushka; Syrian Goddess Inanna-instrument, 89, 100, 102, 381, 574(?); = innāru/ annāru, 55, 77–79, 88–89, 92, 99, 121–122, 291, 380, 391; gi za.dInanna, vel sim., 78; harp, 92, 391; Kinyras, 291, 380–381; large and small, Hattian/Hittite, 90; theological implications, 88; variability of reference, 90, 92, 391–392. See also Ninigizibara incantations: Asklepios, 510n108; Ea/Enki, 449n35; Ebla, 63; Greek conception, e ida , 210, 448–449; Hittite, 94, 98; Hurrian, 96, 98, 100, 376; incantation-priest, 94, 98, 329; Kothar/Khousor, 446, 448–449, 473, 510; lamentation as, 24, 449; Mesopotamian, 21, 23–24, 63, 329; Shaushka, 100 761 General Index incense, 19, 23, 102, 124, 144, 145n197, 249, 275, 282–283, 316, 373n9, 512n119; balang, 414; divination, 413; Paphos, 124, 413, 418. See also Divine Censer incest, 220, 282–283, 288, 367, 404n26 India, Indic, 328; dialects, 61; Kinnara gods, 61n93 Ingot God, 242, 394–396, 398–399, 404, 475, 479; consort at Enkomi, 394, 398, 474; Resheph, 372. See also Aerias; Bomford Goddess; copper: divine protection instantiation: see enactment instruction, musical, 34, 75–76, 82 instruments, construction: David, 158, 173; Mari, 74, 76, 158; Solomon, 158. See also lilissu instruments, various (by language of source): Akkadian: em u, 55n44, 145n201; — A A A , 101; — ara situ/parašitu, 76; —sammû, 34, 40, 537; —šulpu, 134n139; —tilmuttu, 76; Arabic: mi afa, 301; ān n, 544; Eblaitic: na-bu-bù-um, 55n44, 145n201; Egyptian; d d t, 106; Greek: an n, 544; Hebrew: alil, 157; Hittite: arkammi, 101–102; — galgalturi, 100–101; — u u al, 101; Sumerian: adab, 34; —ala, 32, 84, 532; al ar, 28, 34, 39; gudi, 34; ar ar, 34, 81; miritum, 28, 34, 36; —sabitum, 34, 36, 81; sa-e , 34, 81; sim, 32, 532n9; —tigi, 28, 34, 39, 41; —ub, 19; —zami, 34, 40; Syriac: a a, 145n201; Ugaritic: tlb, 134n139. See also balang; bárbitos/n; begena; cymbals; double-pipes; framedrum; harps; Inanna-instrument; innāru; kinýra; kissar; kithára; knr; krar; lutes; lýra; lyres and 762 lyric iconography; nbl; panpipes; percussion; h rmin ; sam ai; trumpets; Ur-zababa/ur aa tum; annāru; inar international style: see cosmopolitanism invocation: citharodic formula, 232–233n84, 311; of divine lyrist, by lyrists, 232–234, 306–309, 319; of gods, by lyrists, 162, 232, 310; —of Ishtar, by lyrist, 100; of R p’iu, by lyrist, 139; of lyre itself, 163, 231–236, 318n233 Ionian: ANE usage, 10n44, 514n127; Hyon?, 513–515; Ionian revolt, 352, 355; Javan, 10n44, 514 Ipemedeja (Mycenaean goddess), 423n129 Iphis, 281 Isaiah, 146–147, 157n50; harlot of Tyre, 61, 77, 302; Moab oracle, 301; Rephaim, 146–147; Targum, 302 Ishara, 375 Ishbi-Erra, Isin, 36, 81n62 Ishme-Dagan, Isin, 35, 80–81, 113, 178, 387, 391–393; annāru, 81, 391 Ishtar: see Inanna/Ishtar Ishum, servant-god, 25 Isidore of Seville, 503 Isin, Isin dynasty, 33–37n121, 39, 80–81n62, 83, 485. See also IshbiErra; Iddin-Dagan; Ishme-Dagan Isis, 145, 305, 375, 463 Islam, Islamic, 61, 126n91, 182–183, 214, 466, 543 Ismenias, Theban aulete, 303 Isokrates, 343n32, 351, 353–354, 358 Israel, Israelite, 43–46, 156, 158, 165, 168, 174–184, 260, 456n81 Issos, battle, 489, 491 Istros, 480, 515–516 Italy, 260–262, 270, 519–521 Iter-Pi a, Isin, 83 General Index Ithaca, 387 Itkalzi series, purification rites, 98 Itur- ama of Kisurra, 83 Ixion, 220 Jabal, 44 Jacob, 44 Jacobsen, T., 37 Jahaziel, 164 James, P., 506, 509 Jan, K. von, 456 Jason, 200 Javan, 10n44, 514 Jebusite hypothesis, 156n43 Jeduthun, 156n46, 164 Jehoram, 165 Jehoshaphat, 164 Jeremiah, 181 Jerusalem, 3, 157n50, 265, 485n154; First Temple, 45, 149–150, 155–158, 164, 172; —instruments hidden, 181; —sack (586), 150, 158, 181, 300; —Jebusite hypothesis, 156n46; Second Temple, 58, 149, 155n38, 181, 302; —sack (70CE), 155, 180, 401; Tammuzlaments, 470; transfer of Ark, 40, 155, 167–174 Jesus: birth celebrated by muses and kinyrístriai, 216, 538; Davidic descent, 180n174; kinýra of the mysteries, 210n133; lyrist, 180, 209–210; the ‘new song’, 210 Jirku, A., 159 Jonathan: lament for, 175, 301 Josephus, 149, 168, 194; David, 153, 169; Solomon, 158; strings, 58 Jubal, 43–46, 82, 155, 312, 453–456 Judaea, 401 Judah, 43, 147, 158, 164–165, 175, 178–179; eponym, 156n45, 404n26 Jupiter temple, Jerusalem, 180 justice, 21, 27, 282, 333, 366, 387n99; solar associations, 506–507, 509–511 Justin, 221, 489 Kabeiroi, 511 Kadmos, 378–379, 463, 550; lyre, 492 Kaineus, 454n75 Kalavasos, 11, 330, 350, 399 Kallimakhos, 515 Kaloriziki, 255, 258 kalû/gala: see lamentation-priests kaluti (Hurro-Hittite divine-circles), 103 Kanesh: Hittite homeland, 93; OA merchant colony, 324, 508; — as conduit for Mesopotamian music and/or cult, 92n10, 93n16; Sandas, 508; Sargon legend, Alashiya, 324 Kapara of Bit Bachiani, 153 Kaptara (Crete), 447, 478 Karageorghis, J., 377; —V., 328, 363 Karatepe, 5n27, 199n67, 251, 253, 272n132, 507n75, 512, 514n127, 519–520 Karkemish, 13, 63, 74, 462, 508n83 Karnak, 108 Karpass, Karpasia, 6, 355–356n113, 545, 553, 548 Kasios: see mountains Kassandra, 196, 364 Kassites, Kassite, 326, 384n87, 388n104 Kastor: see Dioskouroi katábasis: see underworld Kauthar, ps.-Meliton: at Aphaka/ Byblos, father of Tammuz, 314, 447, 460, 464, 468–473; controls Cyprus, 404, 460, 469, 473–479; doublet of Kinyras in Paphian/Byblian foundation myth, 475–476; glosses Kinyras/ Khousor fusion at Byblos, 465, 763 General Index (Kauthar, cont. ) 472, 486; Khousor compared, 470; Kinyras compared, 404, 447, 460, 470; lamentation compared with Philo’s musicalized Khousor, 473; metals, 475, 482; Syrian phonology, 470. See also Kothar; Khousor; Khousoros Kebede, A., 167 Kelenderis, 504, 507, 512; Baal Krntryš, Karatepe, 507n75 en rist s: see Apollo Kephalos, 355–356, 497–500, 504–505, 514, 517 Kepheus, 340 Kerastis/Kerastia, 498, 513, 516; Cerastae, 498n51, 516n135 Keret, 142 Keryneia, 205, 345n46, 416, 564n48 Kettes, eponym for Kition, 498, 514–516; emendation, 498n22 key-system, Greek, 58, 540, 542 Khalkanor, Idalion, 339, 364 Khauthar, PN, Hamath, 441, 443n2 Khousarthis, 477, 511 Khousor —Khousor in Philo of Byblos: anonymous brother, 450–451, 480, 510; Cinaras compared, 452–453, 455; Kauthar compared, 470; Kinyras compared, 445–452, 470; Kothar of Ugarit compared, 445–452, 470; —less musical than Philo’s Khousor, 450; mariner, 446–447, 510; musical and mantic qualities, 130, 448–450, 477, 510–511; phonetic shape of name, 445n12; Zeus Meilikhios, 448 —Khousor beyond Philo of Byblos: connection with Byblos consolidated by ps.-Meliton, lamentation added, 472–473; fused with Kinyras at Byblos, 472–473, 764 479–482. See also Kauthar; Kothar; Khousoros Khousoros, Mokhos of Sidon, 445. See also Kauthar; Kothar; Khousor Khytroi, 14n73, 345n46, 355, 498; eponym Khytros, 341 Kimon, 341 kínaris, 198, 457–458 inar esthai, 198, 209n125, 458 Kinesias, 284 king: see Great Kingship; royal ideology King James Version, 47, 176 King of Kish instrument: see Ur-zababa/ur a a tum Kinnara gods, Hindu mythology, 61n93 Kinnaru, god/divine —Ugarit: discovery, 4–5, 348, 438, 456, 527; Divine Censer grouped with, 103, 121, 124, 283; divine determinative, 5; —Theias, 123, 468; Divine Kings grouped with, 139; formally indistinguishable from other gods, 122; Kothar, 139, 443–445; (lack of) Mesopotamian equivalent in pantheon texts, 121–122, 451; narrative contexts?, 7, 113, 130, 139, 443–445, 517; offerings to, 97, 119–122, 377; only instrument divinized at Ugarit, 102, 118, 130–131, 139, 266, 391; servantgod, 161, 451 —implied beyond Ugarit: Amorite period?, 87, 122, 441; compared with Biblical inn r, 159; craftsman-musician twins mytheme, 453; epitome of SyroLevantine lyric culture, not limited to Ugarit, 7–8, 57, 103, 131, 148, 184, 371, 391, 439, 495, General Index 517; Hierapolis, 462, 495–496; Kothar, coalescence with, 136, 441, 451, 453; Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 522–528; Ugaritian god not exclusive ancestor of Kinyras, 459–461, 482, 486, 517 —possible functions, 7, 130, 143, 165, 382, 392, 485; lamentation of Baal, 143; musical director, 118, 131, 391, 444; praise-singer of Baal, 130; projection by professional musicians, 423 innāru m : see nr innāru m inn r (Heb.), 149–184, 273, 301; Bar Kokhba coins, 180; Canaanite ancestor, 56; divine qualities, 158, 167–174; folk etymology, 44n5, 454n75; hereditary guilds, 45, 117, 155, 164, 169, 265; implied in psalms, 152, 179, 301; ‘instrument of song’, 116; invocation of, 163, 181; Jubal inventor, 43–46, 82, 312, 454; lyre not harp, 43, 46–53; mediation with divinity, 161, 164–165, 173; musical cognition, 161–165; musical prophecy, 157, 161, 164, 178, 383, 422, 450; narratological device in Samuel, 165–174; of lamentation, 301; of salvation, 301; overview, 43; plucked/picked, 58, 196n54; problem of stringing/tuning, 58–59; purification rites, 159, 165–166, 174, 381, 422; Rephaim, 147; royal ideology, 149, 153, 165–174, 381, 393; self-activated, 181; silence of, 300–301; songacts, 164–165, 167–174; threnodic contexts, 300–302; transition to lute-class, 543; translated by kinýra, 3, 170, 182, 193–194, 213, 215; —by kithára, 47, 215–216; — by salt rion/psalterium, 58n66, 182, 194n43, 215n164–216, 275n147; vocalization, 55. See also innāru m ; kinýra; knr, lyres and lyric iconography; annāru; inar kinnyrídes (birds, poetic), 191, 214n158 kinýra (Gk.): absence from Phoenician contexts in Greek sources, 274–276; am hi in r menai, 200; ancient etymological associations, with Kinyras, 3, 5, 140, 187, 217, 298–303; —with in resthai, 145, 188–189; — false, 197n55; Canaanite derivation, 57, 196, 199, 274, 276, 438, 440, 459; Christian contexts: ‘kinýra of the holy spirit’, 182; —‘of the mysteries’, 210n133; cognate with lýra?, 434n63; currency/ peripheral presence at Myc. Pylos, 433; joyful contexts, 210, 231–236; kinýras = ‘kinýra-man’, 255, 422, 432–436, 438; kithára conceals, 211; kithára glosses, 195; kithára replaced by in SyroLevantine contexts, 215; pròs kynoûra, Lykophron, 196; threnodic contexts, 201, 207–208, 233, 279, 291–292, 298–303, 316–318; translates Heb. inn r, 3, 170, 182, 193; umbrella term concealing linguistic variety, 189, 213–216, 292n70, 461; variants with -nn-, 210, 213–215. See also innāru m ; inn r; in r ein; knr, lyres and lyric iconography; annāru; inar — in ra historical link with Cyprus, 8, 53, 194–199, 204–206, 213, 241, 257, 291, 319, 435; —distinguished from Gk. kithára, 211, 276; — Cypriot lyre morphology, 276; —Kinyradai of Paphos, 421–424; —Kinýrarkhos, 421; kinýra765 General Index (kinýra, cont. ) players celebrate/enact Kinyras, 232–234; predates Septuagint, 194–199, 216; pre-Greek prototype proposed for LBA, 272–276, 433, 438; short upsilon versus in resthai and Semitic cognates, 199, 274, 298–303. See also Arkhòs tôn Kinyradôn; Apollo: en rist s in radai in rar hos Kinyra, maenad, 334n94 Kinyradai of Paphos, 401–417; Archaic period, 407–409; descent from Kinyras, 2, 124, 140, 223, 341, 360, 421–422, 468; divination, 383, 412–414, 420, 422, 449; — Cilician extispicy, 99, 373, 497; dynastic link to Apollo?, 227; end of monarchy, 416; high priests of goddess, 124, 239, 345, 380, 407, 410, 417, 422; islandwide prestige, 345, 416; Leader of, 418, 420–424; —role of king, 422–423; mortuary cult, 124, 136, 140, 310, 419, 423; musical function reflected in en rist s Apollo, 234; musical implications of name, 265, 291; —connection with kinýra, 421–424; nature of continuity from LBA, 8, 363–364, 407, 423–24; —from monarchic period, 413, 417–419, 421, 492; Nikokles, 407–417; Paphian patriotism, promotion of virtuous Kinyras, 324, 345, 400; priestly costume, 407n43; Ptolemaic period, 413, 417–420; Roman period, 420–421; self-conception in thyapolía inscription, 412–414; Sostratos, Kinyrad diviner, 401; synchronic versus diachronic implications of name, 421–422; tombs in sanctuary, 136, 310, 382, 419; vis-à-vis Agapenor, 360–364, 766 367–368; vis-à-vis Tamiradai, 367, 401, 404–406. See also Nikokles; Paphos Kinýrarkhos, Paphos, 421 Kinyras —Kinyras, linguistic points: Canaanite derivation of name, 57, 214, 440, 459–461, 465, 468; form conceals linguistic variety, 213–216; shape in Greek, 366, 422; —Greek dialect forms, 432; —variant with -nn-, 213–215. See also Cinaras —Kinyras, musical qualities: ancient etymology, 3–5, 187–188, 193, 214, 217, 280, 299, 432–436; Apollo, musical contest with, 189–192, 227, 289; —Kinyras son, 227, 314, 410, 512; —Kinyras beloved, 221, 226–230; David compared, 3, 36, 119, 150, 166n92, 381–382, 393, 468; kinýras = ‘kinýra-man’, 422, 432–436; Inanna-instrument, 291, 380–381; en rist s as gloss, 210, 410, 438; lamentation/threnody, 143, 188, 191, 197n55, 279–319, 335, 472–473; Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 522–528; metamusicality develops, 6, 187, 329, 371, 388, 392–400, 427, 438–441, 447, 451, 480; musician, 3, 8, 187–194, 231–236, 298, 321, 512; outplays Orpheus and Thamyris, 192–194; performing role, musical, 231–236, 279, 298–299, 381–383, 388, 422; PN at Pylos, cultic agent, 427–432. See also Apollo: en rist s; Kinyradai; threnody, lyric. —Kinyras, divine or cultic qualities, 9, 204–206, 231, 291, 410–411, 419, 423, 468, 517–528; Aphrodite’s beloved priest, 1, 7, 36, 40, 89, General Index 93, 102, 115, 219, 221, 223–224, 226, 291, 313, 375, 380, 382, 403, 409, 475; as master-god, 291, 391; as servant-god, 36, 102, 239, 279, 291, 380–382, 391, 398, 401, 526; cult-objects in myth-cycle, 280–291; Cypriot cult-narratives, 226, 231–236, 279–291, 304–316; divination, 99, 312, 383, 393, 403, 412, 414, 449 (see also Kinyradai); dwindling from divinity, 423; fused with Kothar/Khousor at Byblos, 472–473, 479–482, 486, 510; hieratic dimension not secondary, 409, 438–439; Kauthar compared, 404, 447, 460, 470; Khousor compared, 445–452; Kinnaru of Ugarit not exclusive ancestor, 459–461; Kothar of Ugarit compared, 4, 9, 229, 323, 396, 443–458; mortuary cult, 124, 140, 310, 419, 423; mysteries, 238; nature of continuity from LBA, 392–400, 423–424; performing role, royal, 348, 364, 381–383, 388, 400, 422; ram?, 221n10; roses?, 500; secondary stratum in Paphian cult, 401–407, 473–479, 473–479; sexual rites (real or alleged), 222n15, 238n112, 281; temple-builder, 222, 363, 380, 381, 393, 401, 439, 447, 464, 505; tomb in Paphos sanctuary, 2, 136, 310, 382, 419 —Kinyras, family and familiars: Adonis, doublet, 313–316; —son, 233, 284, 289–290, 299, 312–316, 418, 447, 464, 468, 496, 504; Amaracus?, 289, 331–332, 350n75; anonymous brother of Cinaras, 453; Apollo father, 227, 314, 410, 512; daughter marries Teukros, 351–359; daughters metamor- phosed into temple steps, 280, 298; halcyon daughters, 187, 191–192, 289, 330; Kypros, son/ daughter, 350, 515–517; Laodike, daughter, 365–368; Melus and Peleia/Pelia, 290; Myrrha, 2, 282–289, 367, 506; Pygmalion grandfather, 289, 369, 499; Pygmalion father-in-law, 344, 356, 358, 367, 369, 404, 497, 498, 504, 512, 517; Sandokos father, 367n170, 477, 504, 507–512; solar descent, 288, 504–512; son of Skintharos, 329, 335n99; speaking-names of children, 333, 366, 511; Theias, doublet or father, 123, 187, 284, 288n52, 335n99, 460, 464, 465, 466–468, 467n50, 486, 492, 502. See also Braisia; Cenchreis; Eue; Koureus; Laogore; Marieus; Metharme/ Thymarate; Myrrha; Orsedike; Oxyporos; Paphia; Paphos, eponym —Kinyras, extra-Cypriot associations: (As)syria, 3, 9, 57, 98, 122, 281n7, 284, 288, 406, 461, 467, 495–496, 504–512; ‘Athenian’ Kinyras, 356, 358, 497–498, 504; Cilicia, 3, 9, 57, 98, 104, 123, 199, 355–356, 367, 404, 459, 461, 496–512; Egypt, 250, 281, 497, 504, 512–517; multiformity of traditions, 57, 459–461; Phoenicia, 3, 57, 88, 369, 459–487, 493; — Aphaka/Byblos, 9, 57, 123, 284, 290, 358, 380, 406, 459–487 (Hellenizing gloss?, 464), 496; —Phoenician colonization of Cyprus, chronological implications, 313–316, 369, 476; —Sidon?, 9, 57, 334, 358, 406, 488–494, 496; —virtual Phoenician in some Greek myths, 225, 345 767 General Index —Kinyras, Cypriot cultural associations (general): Amathous, 328, 347–349, 358, 360–361; immigrant to Cyprus, 336, 369, 371–400, 406, 459–487, 475, 495–528, 512; Kinyrad toponyms, 349–351; Lapethos, 325, 563, 350n75; Paphos, founder, 504; — Nikokles of Paphos, 407–417; — secondary stratum in cult, 401–407, 473–479, 473–479; proposed for LBA Cyprus, 8, 9, 16, 241, 321, 349, 369, 371–400, 380, 400, 476, 480; —Alashiyan ideology, 16, 321–324, 358, 371–400; PN at Pylos, Cypriot connotations, 435–436; Salamis, Euagoras, 351–359, 493; Tamassos, 325, 350n75, 563; totalizing cultural symbol of pre-Greek period, 8, 10, 321, 335, 349, 368–369, 371, 392–393, 400; —pan-Cypriot, 223, 324, 358, 369, 460; —popular character, 393. See also Appendix G —Kinyras, industry and wealth (especially Cyprus): Alashiyan industries, 321, 323; building materials, 323–325, 393, 447, 450, 452; ceramics, 323–325, 330, 450, 452; copper/metallurgy, 2, 322–326, 364, 394, 447, 450, 452; gold, 325, 450; mariner, 223–224, 226, 323, 326–330, 439, 447, 510, 526; — fishing?, 329, 446, 526; —PN at Pylos, shipwright, 436–438; oil, 1, 283, 323, 330–32, 436; talents of (oxhide ingots), 326, 392; wealth, 1, 2, 187, 223–225, 226, 322–323, 334, 448; —poverty, 329, 490, 491. See also Appendix G —Kinyras, in Greek and Greco-Cypriot epic and myth: Achaean embassy, 211, 343–346; Aegean migra768 tion legends, 8, 10, 337–369; Agamemnon’s breastplate, 1, 322, 344, 409, 447; Agamemnon’s curse, 2, 187, 190, 343, 369; Agapenor, 359–368; Alkidamas’ ‘Defense of Kinyras’, 343n32, 357; Homer, 1, 3, 187, 318, 321–322, 345, 409, 475, 480; Liar King, 329, 333, 343–346, 357, 400; mythcycle, 7, 227, 279, 280, 290, 291, 315, 380; terracotta fleet, 187, 190, 211, 220n7, 328, 343–346, 369, 439 (see also model boats); Trojan War, 1, 187, 343–346; unthroning by Agamemnon, 2, 190, 310, 346–349, 351–359, 360, 361, 369. See also Appendix G —Kinyras, other: archer, 229, 447; beauty, 335, 382; Great Kingship, 321–324, 333, 341; Hellenistic tragedy, 284, 334; Hieron of Syracuse, 219–226; kháris, 1, 219–222, 225–226, 322, 330, 436, 448; longevity, 329, 365, 515; pantomime, 466; PN, 329, 334–335, 427–442, 452, 497; —at Pylos, 9, 274, 323, 392, 443, 451, 480; —relationship to mythical Kinyras, 438–441; virtuous, 223–225, 358, 369, 400, 491, 493, 497. See also Appendix G Kinyreia, ‘lost site’, 351, Appendix E in resthai, 191; am hi in r menai, 200; Anatolian associations, 201–204; ancient etymological association with kinýra, Kinyras, 143, 145, 188, 216, 280, 292, 298–299; Hellenistic interest, 191, 201; inscriptions, 201–204, 298–299; long upsilon versus kinýra, in r ein, Kinyras, 188n6– 189, 199, 292n70; non-lamentative sense, 200, 233; synaulía of General Index Olympos, 295; threnody primary, wailing secondary, 298, 299; variant with -nn-, 213 kinyrístriai, 216 in r ein, 199, 206–211, 316–318, Appendix D; Homeric variant in r n in same verse position as ithar n, 208 in r (false form?), 200 in r s (adj.), 188, 201n86, 280, 288, 433; variant with -nn-, 213 Kirris, 315 Kish, 35, 63–64, 84, 101. See also Ur-zababa/ur a a tum kispu ritual, 70n54, 83 kissar, 456n81 Kisseus, 515n130 kithára: ‘Asiatic’, 458; cognate with knr?, 456; cradle, 269n126; currency of word on Cyprus, 213, 319; ‘cylinder’ kithára, 270n126; Dioskouroi, 480n126; distinguished from Cypriot kinýra, 211, 276; emulates tortoiseshell shape, 275n144; etymological link with Kothar?, 456–458; glosses kinýra, 195; kítharis, 198, 318–319, 456–458; itharist s, 211n135; ithar n in same verse position as Homeric variant in r n, 208; ithar ido , 191, 210–213, 232, 234, 306, 496; —enacting Apollo, 233; lyric threnody, 296n97, 306, 309n172; morphological influence in Cyprus, 212, 278; replaces kinýra etc., 216; transition to lute-class, 543; translates Heb. inn r, 47 kítharis: see kithára Kition, 57n58, 206n106, 236, 344, 347, 349, 352, 363, 416; Astarte temple, singers, 116, 262, 315; eponymous founders (Kittim, Kettes), 514–516; Kittia, princess, 440n107, 514n155; LBA, 14n68, 378, 394, 514; Milkyaton inscription, 357; Persians, 352; resists Euagoras, 352–353, 357–359; Sargon stele, 16, 353, 407n43; siege by Kimon, 341; Tyre, 16, 337n3 Kittim, eponym for Kition, 514, 558n6 Kizzuwatna, 9, 96, 98–100, 102, 123–124, 329, 371, 375, 400, 460, 495, 517; Kummanni, 508. See also Cilicia Klearkhos, 222n16 Kleitarkhos, 284, 489–490, 492 Klytaimnestra, 74, 347 Knidos, battle of, 347, 353 Knossos, 432, 435 nr innāru m , etc.: overview of lexical evidence 43–62; partial identification with iconography, 46–53; —variability of reference, 53, 256, 272, 276, 391; peripheral diffusion, general, Chapter 6, Chapter 9, 272–276, Chapter 17; —LBA Cyprus, 89, 245, 249, 272–276, 435–436, 440–441; — Mycenaean world?, 435; problem of stringing and tuning, 57–60; root-form, when used in study, 8n38; —WS or areal?, 54; = Sum. BALANG, 54, 65–67, 71, 77, 87, 121, 435, 531; = annāru/Inannainstrument, 55, etc. See also Inanna-instrument; lyres and lyric iconography; annāru; inar —knr, innāru m , forms attested, Syria, Mesopotamia, Anatolia: Alalakh (Kin(n)ar[-, lú innāru uli), 98; Arabic, 61, 543n32; Aramaic, 43, 60, 199, 216, 300–301; —Sefire steles, 300; —St. Ephraim, 61, 216; Ebla, 65–67, 145, 435; Hurrian and 769 General Index (knr, cont. ) Hurro-Hittite contexts, 98–100 (lúkinirtallaš , lú innāru uli, ki-nara-a-i, ki-in-na-a-ri); Mari, 76–79; Ugarit, 113–148. See also Cinaras kínaris; inar esthai —knr, forms attested or assumed of Canaanite derivation: Can. * inn ru or inn ru: 43, 56, 106, 196, 199, 274, 276, 439–440, 452, 456n83, 459–461, 465, 468; — represented by Egyptian kn-nùrú, 106; Gk. kinýra and Kinyras, 57, etc.; Heb. inn r, 56, etc.; Phoen: * inn r, 57, 196–197, 199, 214, 273, 275, 302, 314, 472. See also inn r; kinnyrídes; kinýra; Kinyras; in resthai; kinyrístriai; in r ein; in r in r s Koitabashi, M., 7 Kolotourou, K., 397 Kombabos, Hierapolitan myth, 462 Kommos, Crete, 271 Konon, 353 Konya-Karahöyük, 92 Korah, 174n147 Kothar (Ugarit and wider SyroLevantine figure): absorbed by Kinyras on Cyprus, 443, 452–453, 479–482, 486; Amorites, 441, 452; as king, 167n100, 441, 452, 468–473 (see also Kauthar); Baal’s weapons, 122, 443, 444, 447, 448; bowyer, 131, 229, 443, 447; builder, 447, 468–473; Byblos, 9, 453, 459–487; craftsman-musician twins mytheme, 453; equated with Ea, 5, 448, 451; etymology, 448; etymology of kithára?, 456–458; fused with Kinyras at Byblos, 472–473, 479–482; ‘goodly companions of ’, 135, 139, 443–445; Kaptara (Crete), 447–478; Khousor compared, 770 445–452; innāru created by?, 444, 449; Kinnaru, god, 139, 443–445; —coalescence with, 136, 441, 451, 453; Kinyras compared, 4, 9, 229, 323, 396, 443–458; Kotharwa-Hasis, 450; Kythera, island, 478–479; Kythereia, goddess (as form of Astarte/Ishtar), 396, 404, 476–479; LBA Cyprus, 473–479; maritime dimension, 447; musicality at Ugarit?, 130, 443–445; musicalization outside of Ugarit, 450, 451; name used for both Ugaritian and wider SyroLevantine figure, 443n2; offerings to, 374, 443; phonology, 443n2, 460n3, 477–478; theophoric names, 441, 452; Ugaritian god distinguished from cognates, 451. See also Kauthar; Khousor; Khousoros Kotharat goddesses, 123n74, 445n11, 477, 510 Kouklia: see Paphos; —Kouklia kalathos, 253–255, 258, 364 Koureus/‘Curio’, son of Kinyras, 350, 361, 558–559, 561–562, 564 Kourion, 14n68 and n73, 255, 262, 266, 270, 280, 349–350, 386n91, 410, 480; Antinoos lament, 318–319; Argive foundation, 340, 350n75; Kinyras, 350, 361; sacral kingship?, 410. See also Koureus/‘Curio’; stands, bronze krar, 58n65, 61n92, 167n101, 456n81 Kreophylidai, Samos, 234 Kroisos, 2, 224, 323 Kronos, 123n74, 481, 508, 511 Ktesias, 327, 547 Kubaba, 462, 508n83 Kültepe: see Kanesh Kumarbi, 97, 103, 374 General Index Kummanni, capital of Kizzuwatna, 508 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, 60 Kura, 63, 68 Kushmeshusha of Alashiya, 12 Kutha, Nergal temple, 86 Kwšr, Amorite royal name, 441 Kybele, 101, 126n91, 315, 462 Kynortas, Kynortion, 492n20 Kypria (lost epic), 1, 190, 211, 337, 344–345, 409, 476. See also Index Locorum Kyprios, bronze-worker, Pylos, 436 Kypros: daughter of Byblos/ Aphrodite, 480, 515–517; son/ daughter of Kinyras, 350, 515–517 Kythera, island, 476, 478–480 Kythereia, goddess, 396, 404, 476–479, 478n119; ‘Assyrian’, Byblos, 477; connection with Cyprus, 477; Levantine paralells, 477; phonology, 476–478 Kytheros son of Phoinix, eponym, 478–479 Laban, 43n3 Laconia: see Sparta Lagash, 19, 21, 25n43, 26, 30, 41n149, 86, 393n123 Lamech, 43–46, 312n187, 454; Lamk and invention of lamenting lute, Arabic tradition, 312, 454 lamentation: Adonis, 289–290, 298, 308, 312–317, 463–464, 484, 514; Anatolia, 303n137, 305, 311 (see also Attis, Galloi); — in resthai, 201–204; Antinoos, 318–319; Aphaka/Byblos, 468–473; — traced to BA, 485–486; apotropaic, 30, 70, 279, 282, 303; as incantation, 449; birds, 191–192, 289; Caria, 202–204; choral, 29, 289, 293–294, 299n113, 306, 308, 311n180; chronic versus acute, 30, 279, 282; city-lament, 292, 303, 310–311n138; Damu, 485; —Byblos, 482–485, 594; divinized cult-objects and instruments, 22–25, 27–30, 32, 84–85, 143, 279, 291; Dumuzi, 84, 144, 485–486; Ebla, 64, 66–71, 304; Egypt, 145, 280, 304, 311, 316; father-daughter motif, 191, 471, 473; father-son motif, 144, 233, 289, 299, 304, 311–319, 464, 471, 473, 482; female, 29, 46, 64, 133, 144–145, 200–201, 292–293, 296, 298, 312, 470, 486; —by goddess, 25, 84–85, 290–291, 299, 468–473, 484–485, 514; Gk. os, 292–294, 296, 299; Gk. thrênos, 292–293, 295–296, 298–299, 306, 310; industrial, 22–25, 30, 279, 282, 394, 435, 532–534; Kinyras, 8, 143, 188, 191, 197n55, 279–319, 335, 473; mother-son motif, 317n228, 471, 473, 486; Nabu, 496; Osiris, 144, 316, 318; Phoenicia, 145, 315n209, 485n154; psychology, 298; royal contexts, 34–35, 67–71, 85, 94, 141–146, 175, 301, 311, 316–318, 382, 393, 468–473, 472–473, 482–485; Tammuz, 468–473; where performed, 30, 282. See also Achilles; David; funeral rites, Linos-Song; threnody, lyric lamentation-priest, 5, 30, 41, 85; created by Enki/Ea, 29, 291, 451; enactment of mourning, 24n40, 291, 298; gala/kalû, 23–24, 28–30, 29n75, 66, 70, 141, 282, 291, 315, 451, 462; —Galloi, 315; Hittites, 95. See also third gender Lamk, 312, 454 Lampsacius: 549–555 771 General Index Laodike, daughter of Agapenor or Kinyras, 329, 333, 359–368, 511 Laogore, daughter of Kinyras, 281, 333, 504, 513 Lapethos, 234, 236, 242n2, 339–340, 416; Kinyras, 325, 350n75, 563; Phoenicians, 16, 260, 339, 349; — d ml , ‘Sydyk-is-king’, 510 Larsa, 83, 393n123, 414, 485 Lawergren, B., 47, 52–53, 244, 257, 267, 273 Lawson, G., 3n14, 141 Lebanon, Mount: see mountains; Aphaka Ledroi, 14n73, 345n46, 411–412n70; identification, 411n64; Litros, eponym, 339 Lefkandi, 159n68, 255, 262, 266 Lelwani, 94–95 Lemnian women, 200–202 Lesbos, Lesbian, 140, 271, 275, 295n93, 458. See also Alkaios; Sappho; Terpandros Levites, Levitical, 156–158, 164n86, 173, 302n131 Lewis, T., 142 Lewy, H., 456, 492 Li Castro, E., 517 Libya, Libyan, 274; double-pipes, 310; eponymous princess, 354; PNs, 57n58, 452n60 Lightfoot, J., 469n71, 472n86, 501, 566n64 lilissu, 32, 83, 87; construction rituals, 23, 41, 103, 595 Limassol, 361, 557, 564 Linear A, 13 Linear B, 2, 206n106, 230, 252, 273, 330, 360, 387n100, 411n67, 418, 423, 427–442 Linos: Adonis, 307, 312–316; aílinon, 309, 310; Apollo laments, 294, 311; —slays, 189, 306; death, 145, 772 306; Kinyras compared, 309–310; linen, 189, 306, 309; lyrist, 145, 306; lyrists invoke, 306–307, 311; lyrists reenact, 145, 308–310; Oito-Linos, 307; Ourania mother, 307; Pamphos, 307n156; regional cults, 307–308; resurrected through performance, 310; royal cult, 311; Shield of Achilles, 308, 318; wisdom figure, 307. See also Linos-Song Linos-Song: Aegean, 306–310; bittersweet flavor, 70n55, 308; Cyprus, Phoenicia, Egypt, 145, 279, 300, 304–306, 315n209; —Cypriot, 8, 304–316; LBA antiquity, 308; traditional lyric genre, 296, 306, 318. See also Kinyras: lamentation/threnody; Maneros lion, 390; and goddess, Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 521; and musician, 72, 159, 194, 388; as lyrist, 153, 301, Figure 5.4k; lyre adornment?, 269 Litros, 339 liver models and omens: see divination Livingstone, A., 25, 282 Locri, 221; Locrian maidens, 220–222, 232 Lucian: Adonis laments, Byblos, 463, 472, 484n151; Attis, 315n213; autopsy and priestly informants, 461–464; Herodotean model, 461; Kinyras, and Myrrha, 466; —at Aphaka, 460, 461–466; —son of Skintharos, 329, 335n99; Osiris, Byblos, 316n214; Syrian Apollo, 462, 464, 495–496, 507; Syrian Goddess, 236, 461–462; threnodes, 293, 296 Lugal-igi- u , balang god of Ningirsu, 28 General Index Lugalsisa, servant-god of Ningirsu, 30–31 Lum a, balang god, 24 Lupack, S., 435 Lusignan: see Étienne de Lusignan lutes: anthropomorphic, 312; balang?, 20; Egypt, 106–108, 111, 247–248, 391; evanescence of lyre, 276, 312, Appendix D; Hittite/ Neo-Hittite, 93, 247; lamenting, 312, 454; Mesopotamia, 21n14, 34; s inda s s, 535 tortoiseshell, 248, 326 Luwians, Luwian, 3n11, 90, 96, 102n80, 199, 251–252, 371, 405, 508–509 Luxor, 108 Lycia, Lycian, 202, 551n16; —Apollo ios 308 Lydia, Lydian, 201n87, 275n147, 330, 357n119, 368n177, 407n43, 457–458, 508 Lykaon, 308 Lykophron, 196–197, 201–202, 337, 340, 359, 363–364, 467 lýra, 211, 294n90–91, 295n93, 434 and n62; —constellation, 61n89, 196n54; transition to lute-class, 543 ‘Lyre of the Divinity’ (Hittite text), 93 Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 9, 95, 272n132, 330, 386, 388, 390, 497, 517–528; iconographic analysis, 521–527; overview, late eighthcentury Cilician origin, 518–521; uses, contexts, 521; —amuletic function, 521 lyres and lyric iconography: Aegean and Aegean diaspora, 47, 157, 242, 244, 250–258, 519–520 (see also round-based below); Anatolia, 270n126, 251–252, 256–258, 457–458, 517–518; Anglo- Saxon burials, 141; Aramaean, Aramaic, 43, 153, 300 (see also Syria and Syro-Anatolian below); Biblical world, 149–184; bulllyres, 52, 72, 78, 125 and n86; Canaanite, 56, 248, 255, 257, 272; Christian contexts, 4, 180, 182, 189, 193–194, 209–210, 215–217, Appendix D; Cilicia, 250–253, 256–257, 386, 388, 497, 517–528; city-foundation rituals, 233; Cyprus, 53, 178, 229–230, 236–239, 241–278, 457, 517; — floral decor, 269, 278; —LBA, 8, 245–250, 258, 272, 276–278; —size and pitch, 269; dedicated at graves, 296; defined, versus harp, 3n14; divination, 99, 383, 414, 449; eastern and western, as defined by Lawergren, 52, 256–258, 267–272, 278; Ebla, 65–67; Egypt, 52, 56, 104–111, 178, 247–248, 275n144; giant, 108, 110–111, 456 (see also begena); Greek morphological influence in ANE, 59, 180, 194, 542; Hattian/Hittite, 32, 52, 55, 78, 89–96, 116, 178, 247, 381, 495, 525 (see also Syro-Anatolian below); Hurrians and Syro-Hurrian, 96–104, 495–496; invoked, 163, 231–236, 318n233; kingly virtue, 166–167, 176; living traditions, 62; lyre as teacher, 6n32; lyre/ frame-drum duo, 77, 95, 525; Mari, 76–79; massed lyres, 94, 117n35, 118, 169, 172, 265, 314, 422; mediation with divinity, 32, 156, 161, 164–165, 173, 236–239, 517–258; Minoan, 108n120, 255, 295, 387n99, 435n73; mortuary cult, 67–71, 95, 134–147, 177, 423; Mycenaean, 255, 387; origin 773 General Index (lyres and lyric iconography, cont. ) in North Syria?, 52; Philistines, 157, 159, 244, 250–251, 255; Phoenician, 242, 244, 257–272, 274–276, 278, 300, 302 (see also knr, innāru m ); ‘Phoenician’ h ni , etc., 271, 274–276; prominence, 93, 102, 115, 118, 139, 143, 147, 164–165, 170, 178–179, 265, 291, 421–424, 525; purification rites, 99, 165–166, 174, 183, 233, 329; rectangular, 52, 105, 153, 543–544; round-based (Aegean, Cyprus, Cilicia, Philistia), 52, 108n120, 157, 242, 244–245, 250–258, 266n107, 267, 269n126, 272, 276, 278, 519, 521; royal contexts, 34, 36, 45, 67–71, 76, 81, 102, 134–147, 153, 167–174, 251–253, 316–318, 380–382, 400, 421–424, 468, 522–528; selfactivated, 141, 181, 295 (see also sympathetic vibration; divinized instruments: self-activated); silence of, 85, 95, 141–147, 279–319 (see also silence, ritual); surviving specimens, Egypt, 106; Syria, 248, 268, 274, 276, 495–496; Syro-Anatolian/Neo-Hittite, 60, 253, 256, 258, 276, 520; thick and thin, as defined by Lawergren, 52; tortoiseshell, 258n76, 275n144, 298n104, 450n43; two ‘lyrasts’, Myc. Thebes, 434; Ugarit, 113–148; zigzag arms, 255–257, 260, 517. See also animals; balang; bárbitos/n; birds; Inanna-instrument; innāru; kinýra; kissar; kithára; knr; krar; lýra; nbl; h rmin ; prophecy; threnody, lyric; women; annāru; inar Lyros, son of Aphrodite and Ankhises, 434n67 774 Maas, M., 244 Magi, 449, 496; Magos, father of Misor and Sydyk, 507n78 Mahol, 151–152 Maier, F. G., 351–352, 363 Malachi, 510 management of musicians, 397; Bible, 154–158; Ebla, 63; Mari, 75–76; Paphos, 421–424; Ugarit, 113–119. See also guilds, musical Manana of Urum/Ilip, 84 Manbog: see Hierapolis Mandaean, Mandaic, 60; ‘lyre of lust’, 61, 538 Maneros, 304–306, 311, 313 Mannaseh, 178, 383 Marash, 60 Mardin, 517 Marduk, 495, 509, 511; lamentation for, 496n10 Mari, 8, 22, 45, 54, 64, 73–88, 106, 114, 155, 245, 291, 304, 422, 485; Alashiya, 324; Crete, 479; destruction by Hammurabi, 73, 152; Ebla, 63, 74; innāru, 76–79; ‘Mari-lyre’ (miritum), 34, 36; mummum, ‘conservatory’, 74; musical cosmopolitanism, 73–75, 77, 82, 154–155; pre-Sargonic, 485; Shakkanakku period, 74; Sumerian influence, 73, 81; Ur III dynasty, 483; women, harem, 74–77, 82, 85, 154, 292 Mariandynoi, 305n147 Marieus, son of Kinyras, 350, 502 Marion, 14n68, 229–230, 350, 414, 502; Marieus, eponym, 350, 502; population deported to Paphos, 416–417 Markoe, G., 256, 266n109, 268 Maroni, 248 marriage, 63, 67; dynastic, 74, 82, 92, 106, 154–155, 366–367 General Index Marsyas, 189, 190n19 Martu, 80, 87. See also Amorites mar ea /mar i u, 138n164, 293n79, 452n60 Masoretic Text (MT), 55, 168, 170n119, 175, 178 master- and servant-gods, 20–21, 26–33, 36, 84–86, 118, 122, 164, 167, 239, 279, 291, 382, 386, 388, 401, 485; in Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 526; servant reflects master in name and/or quality, 25, 36n116, 88, 124, 507; servants as familiars, 27, 282, 291; Ugarit, 130–131. See also Kinyras, divine or cultic qualities; Ninigizibara Mati’el of Arpad, 300 matrilineal succession, 283, 366–367 Megassares of Hyria, 504, 507 Megiddo, 53, 59, 105, 159, 255, 386, 517; etching, 47n21, 53; plaque, 126 Meilikhios, Zeus, 446, 448 Meleagros, 207, 316; Meleagrides, 191 Melena, J., 428 Meliton, pseudo, 404, 447, 468–477, 480, 482, 487, 495; overview, 469 Melos, 378, 379 Melqart, 471n82 Melus/Melos, friend of Adonis, familiar of Kinyras, apple-tree, 290 Memnon, Memnonides, 191n30, 298, 505 Menelaos, 188n7, 204, 323, 333n81, 339, 344, 369, 467, 506n67 Menophanes, 346 Merneptah, 13 Mesopotamian tuning system: see tuning messianism, 58, 175n153, 179–181 metals, metallurgy: see Aegean migrations; Agapenor; Bomford Goddess; copper; gold; Hephaistos; industry and wealth; Ingot God; Kauthar; Khalkanor; Kinyras, silver metamorphoses: connection with cult-objects, 279–291, 381; Hellenistic popularity, 189, 192, 286. See also Amaracus; Anaxarete; birds; Erinoma; Meleagrides; Melus; Myrrha; Peleia/Pelia; Pierides; Propoetides Metharme, wife of Kinyras, 290n63, 356, 367, 497, 504, 512n119, 513, 515; variant Thymarete, 512 Mettinger, T., 483–485 Meyer, E., 508 Michal, 169, 173–174 Michalowski, P., 55n46, 77 Midas, 2, 224, 323 migrations, migration legends: see Aegean migrations Milku, 135, 138 Milkyaton, Kition, 344, 358; inscription, 357 Millar, F., 495 Milku: see R p’iu mimesis: see enactment mimation, 54 Minoans, Minoan: Cypro-Minoan script, 13; frescoes, Avaris, 447n23; Hagia Triada sarcophagus, 295; Kothar and Crete, 478; Kythera, 479; Minos, eponym, 432; royal ideology, 387n99; trade with Ugarit, Mari, Babylon, 479. See also pre-Greek languages; lyres and lyric iconography Minyans, Orkhomenos, 432 Miriam, Song of, 156n41 Misor, Philo of Byblos, 509; Misharum and Kittum, 510 775 General Index Mitanni, 10, 92, 96, 106, 108, 373, 375–376, 440; glyptic, 386, 397; Ugarit, 97 Mitford, T. B., 205–206, 362, 411 Mlynarczyk, J., 239, 410, 413, 417 Moab, 154, 164–165, 301 mobility: craftsmen, 12, 74, 261; cultmusicians, 102, 154, 373, 380, 405; cult-specialists and techniques, 373; diviners, 449; gods/cult, 100, 154, 364–368, 371–400, 380, 479–482; musical instruments, 37, 248; musicians, 37, 59, 63, 74, 82, 105n101 (see also captive musicians); objects, 247–248, 260, 270–272, 275, 326; ritual division of god, 100–102, 380. See also pilgrimage/tourism; tuning: Mesopotamian system Mohammed, 182 Mokhos of Sidon, 445, 470, 477 moon, 97, 103; in magic, 41, 103; Ku u , 99; lunar calendar and balang-cult, 41n152, 584–585; Selene, 461; Suen/Sin as mastergod, 36 Mopsos, Moxos, Muk a , Mp , 340n18, 346n50, 353, 363n150, 508, 520; Ascalon, 364n150; daughters, 346n50; historical individual?, 252n51; Meliac War, 347, 351 Morphou, 390 Morris, S., 379 mortuary cult: Greek world, 294, 296, 317; Hittite world, 95, 304; lyres, 67–71, 95, 134–147, 177, 189, 296, 423; royal ancestor cult, Alashiya, 382; —Byblos, 484; —Ebla, 67–71, 83, 175; —Hittites, 94, 509; —IA Paphos, 382, 401–417; —incense offerings, 283; —Mesopotamia, 83, 140, 485; —Sam’al/Zincirli, 776 136; —Ugarit, 5, 71, 83, 124, 134–147, 175, 177, 256, 313, 423, 484, Rephaim 146–147; versus funeral rites, 70n54 Moses, 379n52, 490; instruments from time of preserved in First Temple, 155n39; musical prophecy, 164n86; silver trumpets, 155n39; Song of, 156n41 mountains: Aoios, Cyprus, 500–501; Baal cult, Bible, 465; conjunction of mountain and river, 461–466, 468, 500–501; divinized, LBA, 465, 501; echo David’s songs, 183; Ishtar-cults, Anatolia, 375n29; Kasios/Saphon/Hazzi, Baal, 120, 125, 374, 465; —gods of Ugarit, 120; —Teshup, 465; —Adonis, 465, 514; —Kasos, eponym, 440n107; Lebanon, Adonis, 463, 467, 501, 514; —Belos/Oreithuia, 467; —goddess of, 464; —Tammuz, 470–471; mountainous regions culturally conservative, 465; mountaintop shrines, 465; Troodos, 11, 16, 270, 324. See also storm-gods Movers, F. C., 404, 513–514 Mowinckel, S., 169 Mursili I, 96 muse(s), 6, 126n89, 191, 211n135, 234–235, 293–294, 305, 307, 310, 383, 405; Aphrodite as, 39, 307, 310, 313, 345; Inanna/Ishtar as, 38–39; lyre as, 6n32; ousa sta , 234; sing at Christ’s birth with kinyrístriai, 216; slay Adonis, 467 Mushe of Nisibis, 469 musical cognition, 35–36, 41, 86, 161–165, 383–391, 521–527; epiphany in guise of musician, 26–33, 522–528 General Index musical therapy, 140, 166, 174, 183, 233, 455. See also purification rites Mycenae, Mycenaean, 322; Agamemnon, 74, 190, 347–348; Ahhiyawa, 10, 251; Alashiya, 348; Arcado-Cypriot dialect group, 360; Argos, Argives, 340; contact with Cyprus, 435–436; —chariot kraters, 388; —western margin of knr-culture?, 435; Cilicia, LH IIIC pottery, 250; Great Collapse, 13; international trade, 326–327, 330; Kythera, 478; lamentation, 292n71; linguistic points, 206n106, 252, 273–274, 380n58, 387n99, 407, 432–436, 451, 478; Linos-Song, 308; Melos/ Phylakopi, 379; PNs, 428, 431–439; PNs, musical, 434n67; — non-Greek, 439; sub-Mycenaean, 255; —Cyprus, 253, 255, 258, 341, 368; —Philistia, 159; two ‘lyrasts’, Thebes, 434. See also Ahhiyawa; Hiyawa; Linear B; lyres and lyric iconography; Pylos Mygdalion, son of, 344–345 Mykale, battle, 341 myrrh, 2, 124, 199n71, 275, 286n41, 331; anointing rites, 283; — Adonis, 287; aphrodisiac, 283; divinized at Byblos?, 283; royal burials, 283; sap-drops as tears, traditional idea, 286; sun, 288; Tammuz, 283; Ugaritian ritual, 282; uses, 282–283; where produced, 282, 287 Myrrha: ‘numbered among the gods’, 289; ancient literary treatments, 284–286; —Cinna’s Zmyrna, 286; —Hellenistic tragedy, 284, 334; — Ovid, 2, 286–288; Byblos, 283, 460, 466–468, 492, 502; Divine Censer, 124, 283; incest motif, 220, 283, 367; katábasis?, 287; Kinyras, 282–289, 310, 492n20, 513; mýron, perfumed oil, 283–284; myrrh, 2, 124, 282–283, 331; myrtle, 288; phonology, 274, 477; ritual poetics, 282–283, 418; Sun, 288, 506; tears, 2, 282, 286, 288; wrath of Aphrodite, 288–289 Myrrhina, 284 Myrtion, 492n20 myrtle, 288 Myrtou, 378 mysteries, mysticism: Eleusis, 234; kinýra of, 210n133; Kinyras, 238; Kybele and Attis, 101; lilissu ritual, 24; Linos, 307; musical, seven-numerology, 40; N-A Tammuz ritual, 283; Orphism, 296 myth: reflection of ritual, 25, 33, 103, 282, 382, 393. See also divinized cult-objects: mythogenic Naamah, 44, 46, 129n104 Nabataeans, Nabataean, 60, 542n23, 543n32 nábla(s): see nbl Nabu, 462, 495–496 Nagar, 64 Nagy, G., 310 Nahr ’Ibrahim: see rivers Nakassis, D., 438 naming rituals: see divinized cultobjects Nanna, 84 Nanshe, 27 nar/NAR/nâru, 28n65, 66n30; balang, 28, 66; U umgal-kalama, 28, 531–532; Byblos, mi2-nar, 486, 594; defined, 28; Ebla, 63, 65 67; NAR.MA , NAR.M , NAR.TUR, 64; Hittites, l .me NAR, 100; —lúNAR, 329; —lúNAR-aš, 777 General Index (nar, cont. ) 100; —lúNAR-aš = lúkinirtallaš = ‘ innāru-singer’, 98, 116; Mari, 66n30, 73–74; —MUNUS.NAR. GAL, MUNUS.NAR.TUR, 75n23; NAR.GAL, NAR.M , nargallum, 74; Ugarit, NAR= šr, 116. See also Chief Singer; singers Naram-Sin, Akkad, 33, 37, 41, 65, 131n118, 393 Naram-Sin, Eshnunna, 479 nbl: Gk. nábla(s), 52n26, 58, 275, 538; Heb. n el, 52–53, 58, 116–117, 155, 157, 163–164, 169, 172, 180, 215n164; Lat. nablium, 538; Ug. nbl, 52n26, 102n82, 114 Nebuchadnezzar, 150 Nemesis, 461 Nena , 68 Neo-Hittite sphere, 60, 247, 519; persistence of Hittite royal ideology, 517. See also Cilicia; Karkemish; lyres and lyric iconography: Syro-Anatolian/ Neo-Hittite; Mopsos Nereids, 293–294 Nergal, 86–87; Alashiya, 372–373, 396n134; calque, 372; Resheph, 372, 396n134 netherworld: see underworld New Year rituals, 169, 171 Nicolaou, I., 412–413 Nicosia: see Ledroi Nikokles, Paphos, 230n69, 407–417; building program, 362, 409–410, 413; —(re)founds New Paphos, 362, 409, 416; rewalls Old Paphos, 409, 414; fall of, 416–417, 491; links Kinyras to Apollo?, 410, 415; Panhellenizing tendency, 409–410; proposed restoration in thyapolía inscription, 412–414; traditional Kinyrad stance, 410–414; wars of the Successors, 414–417 778 Nikokles, Salamis, 212 Nikokreon, Salamis, 212n144, 414, 416n95, 417, 491 Nile: see rivers Nimrud: ivories, 248, 260, 268; symposium bowls, 260–261 Ninazu, 140, 304 Nineveh, 23, 328; Ishtar of, 100, 373, 375–376, 474 Ningal/Nikkal, 30n83, 97, 383 Ningirsu, 22n20, 26, 29n75, 30, 32, 42, 66, 118, 122, 163, 167, 279, 282, 382, 393, 444, 450; seven balanggods, 29n68 Ninhursag, 396n134 Ninigizibara, balang-god, 22, 84–85, 292, 304, 383, 485; spouse or lover of Inanna/Ishtar, 84, 102, 291, 380 Ninos, 357n119, 547, 557–558n8 Nintu, 68–69 Ninurta, 25–26, 86, 122 Nippur, 30n83, 40n147, 393 Niqmaddu III, Ugarit, 143, 146 Nirar, 64 Noah, 44 nomad, nomadic, 44, 80–82 Nonnos, 337, 339, 351, 477, 501–502 Norborg, A., 47 Nostoi (lost Greek epic), 317n226, 337 notation, musical: Greek, 58; of Hurrian hymns, 59, 97, 119, 448 Nougayrol, J., 4, 120 Nubia, Nubian, 105, 326 Numidian PNs, 57n58, 452n60 Nuzi, 92n8, 154 oaths, 21n17, 205, 329; on musical instruments, 20–21, 211n136. See also treaties Odysseus, 255, 328n49, 333, 338, 342, 343n32, 344, 369, 387n99, 536 offerings: see divinized cult-objects offering-scenes, iconography, 262, General Index 383–391, 525; ambiguity between human and divine, 265, 387, 525; offering of harp?, 398 oil, 249; anointing, 101, 144n197, 282; divine protection, 330; offerings, 20, 41, 69, 120, 139n166, 331n69; perfumed, 120, 249, 282, 284, 330, 413n76, 436; —Adonis, 283n25; —Aphrodite, 331; —Kinyras, 1, 283, 323, 330–332, 436; —Pylos, 330–331. See also Amaracus; myrrh; Myrrha Oito-Linos, 307 Olbe, 356n110, 405 Old Testament, 43, 164, 450 Olymbros, 508 Olympia, 266, 271–272, 298 Olympian gods, 189, 226–227, 230, 234n87, 362, 409, 415, 459, 473, 475, 495 Olympos, Phrygian aulete, 202, 295 Opheltas o el s, 14, 253 oral tradition: Amorite, 83; at sanctuaries, 380, 401–407, 460–462, 472, 475, 487; —Byblos/Aphaka, 464–466, 472; Hurrianization of Akkadian musical terms, 97; Jewish folklore in Arabic sources, 182; transmission of SyroLevantine cult-music, 448. See also Cyprus: oral tradition; epic poetry; parallelism order, symbolized by music, 37, 41, 72, 86–87, 147, 152–154, 252, 300–301, 381, 383–391 Oreithuia, ‘oread’ of Mount Lebanon, 467 Orontes, 507, 538n8 Orpheus: animals, 229, 517; Argiope, 325n24; David, 179, 193; Euklees/ Euklous, Cypriot prophet, 345n43, 356n113; Hermes, 492n21; Hierapolis, 462, 496; Jesus, 210; katábasis, 298n108; kinýra of, 215; Kinyras, 192–194; lyric threnody, 141, 294; Orâfî, Harran, 496; Orpheus Jug, 159–161, 163, 165, 179, 183, 194, 255, 386; Orphism, 296; Ovid’s etamor hoses, 281n7, 553; purifications through lyre, 166n97; R p’iu, 140 Orsedike, daughter of Kinyras, 281, 333, 504, 511, 513 Osiris, 305, 316, 318; Amathous, 516; Byblos, 316n214, 516 Ostasos, 508 Oulomos, Mokhos of Sidon, 445 Ourania: Aphrodite, 307, 378, 403, 463; —Kythera, 478; muse, 306–307 Ouranos, 97, 403, 508 Ovid: Apollo the Lamenter, 294, 311; Cinna, 286, 288; etymology of Kinyras, 188, 280; Kinyras the Lamenter, 188, 280–282, 291, 298, 300; Myrrha and Cinyras, 2, 282, 286–288, 334–335; PygmalionPaphos-Kinyras, 289, 499, 503; relationship between Ovid’s two Cinyras scenes, etamor hoses, 288 Oxyporos, son of Kinyras, 333, 497–498, 504, 512–513, 515 Pacific parallels, 22 Pahlavi, 61 Paiawon, 190 Palestine: see Canaan; Israel; Judah; Philistia Palmer, A. N., 162 Palmyra, Palmyrene, 60, 496 Pamphos, 307n156 Pamphylia, 202, 335n100, 347, 499; A as, 145n201, 502 Panammuwas I, Sam’al, 136 Panchaea, 286n42, 287, 467n54 779 General Index Pandion, 498–499, 505 Panhellenism, 189, 227, 230, 338, 341, 348, 359–360, 410 panpipes (s rin ), 298n108, 310 pantomime: Kinyras and Myrrha, 466 Panyassis, 284, 467–468, 492, 502 Papageorghiou, S., 501 Papasavvas, G., 384, 394 Paphia: mother of Kinyras, 350, 406n39, 499 Paphos, 3, 14n73, 99, 205, 211, 217, 226–227, 229–230, 319, 341, 348, 350, 360–361, 365–367, 438, 474, 501; Abdalonymos wrongly relocated, 491–492; abduction of Helen, gathering of Greek fleet, 348; absorbs Marion, 416–417; Agapenor, 359–368; Basiliastaí, 234; dual kingship traditions, 363–364, 367, 401, 404–406; earliest attestation of Greek, 14, 253, 360; earthquakes, 362; Eteocypriot inscriptions, 349; LBA contact with mainland, 379; LBA metalworking, 324; Nile resurfaces, 501; Paphian Zeus, 501; Salamis, alliance with Euagoras, 357; —rivalry in Archaic period?, 345, 357, 400; Roman period, emperor cult, 402; —metropolis of Cyprus, 499, 554; royal decadence trope, 284, 490, 493. See also Agapenor; Apollo: en rist s Kinyradai of Paphos; Kouklia kalathos —Paphos, foundation legends (city/ sanctuary): Aerias, 401–407, 475–476, 487; Agapenor, 253, 341, 359, 362–363; Aoios, 503; Kinyras, 2, 222, 356, 363, 380, 393, 401–407, 475–476, 487, 504; Phoinix, 378–379, 487 780 —Paphos, sanctuary, 226, 345, 378; aniconism, 236, 481; Ad ni , 221n10, 505; arkhiereús, 420; Astarte, Paphian 271n129; bloodless sacrifice, 124, 283, 413; Byblian and Paphian legend agree, 460, 475–476, 487; Chalcolithic figurines, 375; cult-continuity LBA–IA, 8, 363–364, 407, 423–424; design, 378; fame of, 360, 365, 400–401, 416; —center of world, 204, 411, 416; incense/perfumed oil, 124, 331, 418; —m ro or s, Rantidi, 283; island-wide an ris, 416; Kinyradai, 401–417; manti r h s, 420; monumentalization, 363, 375, 380, 487; never rained upon, 505; oral tradition, 402, 404, 406, 475, 487; sacred site for Alashiya?, 11, 400; sexual rites (real or alleged), 94, 222; thyapolía, 124, 412–414; tombs of Kinyras and Kinyradai, 2, 136, 310, 382, 419; wealth of, 418 —Paphos, eponym, father or mother of Kinyras, 350, 356, 406n39, 453, 498–503, 512, 514; Aoios doublet, 500, 503–504 —Paphos, New, 287n46; administrative capital, Ptolemaic period, 418; Agapenor founds (myth), 359, 361–362; Artists of Dionysos, 212n148, 213; House of Aion, 212n146; tenth-century tombs, Iskender/Ktima, 362 parallelism, poetic, 128, 156, 162–163, 176, 444 paramythological texts, 26–33, 113, 115, 120, 125, 128, 138, 146, 313; defined, 7 Pardee, D., 114, 122–124, 137–138, 142 Paris, 1, 202, 329, 339, 409 General Index Parsons, P. J., 505 Parthenios, 286, 500–503 Patroklos, 188n7, 292n72, 333, 335 Paul of Perugia, 549 Pausanias, 307–308, 337, 353, 359–360, 362, 364, 366, 378, 511; Theopompos, 353, 362 peace: see order peg-wizards, 393n123 Peleia/Pelia, 237, 290. See also birds: doves Peleset: see Philistines Peloponnese, Peloponnesian, 340–341, 343, 360 percussion, 41, 46, 115–116, 118n38, 143n189, 144, 242n1, 265, 397; clappers, 135, 144, 313, 444; —Gk. r tala, 145; rattles, 241, 397; scrapers, 241. See also cymbals; frame-drum; instruments, various; sistrum Perdikkas, 414 Perga, 502 Perikles’ citizenship law, 356 perfume: see oil Persephone, 223, 298n108; Adonis, 287, 299n112 Perseus, 506n67, 508 Persia, Persian, 196n50, 339n11, 378n50, 490, 508n83; Amathous, 352, 506n67; Cyprus, 16, 328, 351, 491; Euagoras, 347, 352; Euagoras II, 493; Ibn urd bih, 60n88; Ionian revolt, 352; Kition, 352; Magi, 449; Middle Persian, 60; Mykale, 341; Perseus, 506n67; Persian Wars, 223; Pharnake, 507; PNs, 508n83 Phaethon, 103, 474, 504–506 Phaleron, eponym Phaleros, 341, 355 Pharnake, mother of Kinyras, 367n170, 504, 507; Apollo, 512 Philammon of Delphi, 325n24 Phileas, Athenian geographer, 356, 500, 502–503 Philip of Macedon, 284, 346–347 Philip V of Macedon, 346 Philistia, Philistine, 14, 363n150; Amuq, 199; Ark, 169; David among, 161n76; David and Saul, 126; instrument of Gath?, 161n76; Mopsos, 363n150; musical guilds, 157; Ramses III, 13, 354; religion, 250, 378. See also lyres and lyric iconography Philo of Byblos, 45, 443n2, 445–452, 470, 507n78; Baaltis/Baalat Gebal, 472, 481; Byblian bias?, 446, 472; methodology, 446, 510; Sankhuniathon, 123; Ugaritian pantheon, 123n74 Philostephanos, 337, 340, 364, 515–516 Phoenicia, Phoenician: Alexander the Great in, 212, 284, 488–494; Cilicia, 5n27, 9, 199n67, 202, 405, 461, 512, 517; cultural history in Philo of Byblos, 446; dialect pressure, Cyprus, 206n106, 460; Greek usage, 3n11, 55; Homer, 275, 317, 345; in Aegean, 275, 378; —Kythera, 478; —Kommos, Crete, 271; Kinyras, 3, 57, 369, 459–487; linguistic points, 196n54, 199, 206n106, 214, 275–276, 282, 339n11, 372n6, 445n12, 472, 478n118; —Phoenician Shift, 273, 445; music and dance, 244; mythical foundations, 378–379, 478, 487, 516; N-A control, 262; Pindar, 225; PNs, 57n68, 452, 509; production centers, symposium bowls, 260; versus ‘Canaanite’, 12n61, 55. See also Adonis; Astarte: royal cults; Baal; Byblos; knr, innāru m ; lamentation; lyres 781 General Index (Phoenicia, Phoenician, cont. ) and lyric iconography; Philo of Byblos; Sidon; Tyre —Phoenician colonization of Cyprus, 16, 327n37; Adonis problem and chronology of Kinyras, 313–316, 369, 476; copper as stimulus, 16, 270, 475–476; lyric morphology, 242, 258–272, 276, 278, 457; other theological issues, 272, 373, 375; Tyre versus Byblos, 16, 476. See also Cypro-Phoenician (ethnicity); Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls; Cyprus; Lapethos; Kition Phoinix: Greek hero, 207, 280, 316–318; Phoenician eponym, 313, 317, 378–379, 478, 487; — Adonis son, 313, 317, 464n29; — Kytheros son, 478; h rmin , 207, 211, 235, 269–270n126, 311, 318, 433, 458, 541 Phoroneus, 343 Photios, 210, 346–347, 511 Phrasios, Cypriot mántis, 373 Phrygia, Phrygian, 101, 202, 305n147, 311 Phylakopi: see Melos Pierides, 191 pilgrimage/tourism, 348n62, 416n92, 462, 511 Pindar, 1, 8, 215, 217, 219–239, 241–242, 310, 321, 329, 334–345, 355, 360, 409, 410n59, 475, 525; lyric threnody, 293, 296; scholia, 187, 219, 241 (see also Index Locorum) pipes: see double-pipes; single-pipe Plato, 104, 449; Comicus, 312; cosmic harmony, 210 plectrum, 58, 309n172 Pliny, 324–325, 332, 351, 450, 452, 545–546, 552–553, 558, 560, 563 782 plucking, 47n17, 58, 196n54, 537, 540; Gk. psállein, 69, 210, 303, 537n3, 539–541; — salt ido , 116; — salt rion/Lat. psalterium, 58n66, 182, 194n43, 215n164, 216, 275n147, 540. See also Hebrew psalmody; plectrum Plutarch, 305, 337; Abdalonymos, 489–491 PNs: Alalakh, 98, 435, 440, 452; Alashiya, 245, 350, 374, 440–441; Amorite, 80–81, 138, 441, 452, 509; Anatolia, 202, 252, 440, 508, 511; Aramaean, 441, 443, 452; Biblical, 138, 509; Canaanite, 44, 138, 273n138, 440–452; Hittite, 440; Hurrian, 245, 440; Libyan/ Numidian, 57n58, 452nn60 and 64; Mycenaean/Linear B, 9, 252, 428, 431–439; —musical, 434n67; —non-Greek, 439; Persian, 508n83; Phoenician/Punic, 57n58, 452, 509; Sumerian, 98, 435; Syria, 78n45; Ugarit, 56n53, 167n100, 273n138, 377, 441, 452, 509 Pnytagoras, Salamis, 493 Polyainos, 417 Pompeius Trogus, 221, 490 Pompey, 199 Pomponius Laetus, Julius (Sabinus), 332, 552 Poncy, H., 519 Pongratz-Leisten, B., 38 Pope, M. H., 7, 130 Porada, E., 21, 518–522, 526 Poseidon, 226n46, 333n85, 354, 423n129, 431 Potnia, Potnian, 331n69, 429–430; bronze-workers, 394n127; Potnia Hippeia, 431; unguent boiler, 331 Power, T., 536 General Index power, song as, 37, 41, 72, 86–87, 137–139, 147, 152–154, 175–178, 252, 301, 383–391 Praxandros, 340 pre-Greek languages: Aegean, 198, 274, 434n63; —Minoan, 198, 434n63; LBA Cyprus, 245, 272–276, 434n63, 436, 439–440, 477–478. See also Cypro-Minoan; CyproSyllabic; Eteocypriot; Minoans prescriptive: see rituals presentation scenes, 33 Priebatsch, H. Y., 478 Prittlewell Prince, 141 processions: Aegean, 294, 295n94, 387n99; Assyria, 171; Babylonia, 30, 32–33, 171; Biblical world, 43, 44n6, 118, 167–175, 178 (see also Ark); Canaanite/Phoenician, 115, 160, 173, 248, 265, 486; Cyprus, LBA, 250, 382, 388, 397; —Paphos, 416; Emar, 171–172; Hittites, 96, 171–172, 501; North Syria, 248 prophecy: ecstatic, 38, 43, 85, 88, 156–157, 383; musical, lyre, 43, 156–157, 161–165, 296, 345, 383, 414, 422, 450; N-A texts, 38, 383. See also divination; Kinyradai Propoetides of Amathous, 281 prostitution, 266n113; harlot of Tyre, 61, 77, 302; ‘sacred’, 222n15, 238n112, 250n41, 281n13, 313n195, 463n24; —Babylon, 313n195; —Cyprus, 222n16, 281; —Kinyras, 222n15; —Locrian maidens, 221–222; sam ai, 537; Syrian musiciennes in Rome, 199, Appendix C. See also Propoetides of Amathous; sexual rites (real or alleged) psállein, salt rion, psalterium: see plucking psalmody: see Hebrew psalmody Psaroudakes, S., 248 Ptolemies: Cyprus, 321, 328, 414–417, 416n92, 417–420; —New Paphos administrative center, 418; —strat a, 417, 419–420; Demokrates son of Ptolemy, 418; dynastic cult, 213, 234, 420; influence on Istros?, 516; Kinyradai under, 410, 413, 417–420, 422; Ptolemy Epiphanes, 419; Ptolemy Euergetes II Physkon, 419; Ptolemy I and Nikokles of Paphos, 414–417; Ptolemy IV Philopator, 418–419; Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyros), 420; Ptolemy of Megalopolis on Kinyras and Kinyradai, 419; Ptolemy V Epiphanes, 418 Ptolemy Khennos, 192, Appendix B Pumayyaton, Kition, 344, 358 Pummay/Pygmaion/pmy, 315 and n210, 344n38 Punic, 57, 274, 452 Punt, 282 purification rites, 68, 449; eaglediviner?, 373; Itkalzi series, 98; lyre, 99, 158–159, 165, 298, 329, 381; model boats, 328–329. See also musical therapy Puzrish-Dagan/Drehem, 483 Pygmaion: see Pummay Pygmalion, 369n179; Bousiris, 373; Cilix father, 339n14, Appendix F, 559–560; conquest of Cyprus, 327n37, Appendix F, 559–560, 561n32; divinized statues, hierogamy, 289, 499; founder, Golgoi, 339n14; —Karpasia, 356n113; Kinyras’ father-in-law, 344, 356, 358, 367, 369, 404, 497–498, 504, 512, 517; Sicyonian dynasty, 339n14; son/daughter Paphos, grandson Kinyras, 289, 369, 783 General Index (Pygmalion, cont. ) 499, 503, Appendix F, G. See also Pummay pygmies, 105 Pylos, 394n127, Chapter 17; Cypriot contacts, 330, 435–436; Northeast Building, 427; —cultic function?, 431, 435; oil industry, 436; PN Kinyras, 9, 274, 323, 392, Chapter 17, 451, 478, 480; Qa series, 427–432; Throne Room fresco, 387n99 Pyrodes, son of Cilix, 552–553 Pythagoreanism: cosmic harmony, 210; purifications through lyre, 166; seven-magic, 40n141 Pythian games: see Delphi Pythias, cultic agent, Pylos, 430 Qatna, 74, 82 Queen of Sheba, 151 Qumran: see Dead Sea Scrolls Quran: see Arabic, Arabic tradition; Index Locorum Rabbinic tradition, 43, 59, 117, 155, 177, 181, 183, 462n14 rag-bushes: see trees Ramses II, 14n68 Ramses III, 13–14, 354 Rantidi, 284 R p’iu, 130, 134 142, 144, 147, 177–178, 256, 265, 273, 444, 451; etymology, 135; identity, 135; Orpheus, 140; plays innāru?, 137–146, 143, 177, 304 Rapa’ ma, 134 141, 146, 484; identity, 136 Ra ap: see Resheph Rawson, M., 427 Rephaim, 43n3, 146–147, 484 784 Resheph, 63, 71, 229, 373n7, 396n134; ’lhyts, 372; Alashiya, 372; Ebla, 372; Mikal, 372n3; NK Egypt, 372; Ugarit, 372 Rhea, 315n213, 461, 481, 508 Rhodes, 234, 356n110, 518–520 Rib-Hadda of Byblos, 481, 485–486 Ribichini, S., 6, 9, 143, 314 Rim-Sin of Larsa, 393n123 Rishiya, Chief Singer, Mari, 74n7, 75 ritual: descriptive, 172; prescriptive, 67, 120–121, 136, 171–172; prescriptive versus descriptive, 67n35; reflected in myth, 25, 33, 103, 282, 382, 393; ritual poetics, 26, 35–36, 92, 101, 164, 172, 177, 204, 282–283, 289, 292, 298, 301, 306, 381–382, 418, 485 See also divination; divinized cult-objects: naming rituals and construction rituals; drinking rituals; entry ritual; funeral rites; processions; prophecy; purification rites; sexual rites (real or alleged); silence rivers: Adonis, modern Nahr ‘Ibrahim, 463–464, 466, 468, 498, 501, 503; Aoios, 500–503; Aplieus, 500–502; Cisseum fluvium, 515; conjunction of mountain and river, 461–466, 468, 500–501; Diarrhizos, Old Paphos, 502; Euphrates, 73, 78, 97; Eurymedon, 499; Hebros, 295; Khabur, 96; Nile, 13, 105, 318, 325n24, 515n130; —resurfaces at Paphos, 501; of Babylon, 300; Orontes, 503; Pyramus, 501; Setrakhos, 500–502; Tigris, 328; underground, 500–503; —Cypriot folk belief, 501 Rizzo, M. A., 520 General Index Rome, Roman: Cyprus, 205, 499; —annexation 58 BCE, 420; — Kinyradai of Paphos, 420–421; —sanctuaries, 401–407; emperor cult, 205, 402, 469; Judaea, 180–181, 401; Kinyras and Myrrha story, 286; Syria, Syrian musiciennes, 199, Appendix C rose(s), 500 royal ancestor cult: see mortuary cult royal hymns, Neo-Sumerian, 34, 37–38, 81, 392 royal ideology: covenant metaphors, 177, 179, 468; Damu, 484–485; divine kingship, 5, 33–34, 37n123, 114, 468; divinized instruments, 21–22, 31–33, 35–36, 84–85, 390; Dumuzi, 35, 37, 39, 382, 484–485; king and sun, 507; king as musician, 33–35, 38–39, 178, 383; —as shepherd, 35, 37n125; —as totalizing cultural symbol, 35, 151–152, 381, 392; king empowered by goddess or queen, 366–367, 383–391, 400, 407, 473–479, 506; king in cult, 166–167; —as high priest, 124, 223, 239, 345, 380, 383, 405, 407, 410, 417, 422, 492, 501; —as praise-singer of master god(dess), 36, 129, 149, 176, 382–383; —as sole or leading agent, 32–33, 39–40, 113, 118, 167–174, 381, 422–423; lamentation, 34–35, 85, 141–146, 482–485; LBA Aegean, 387; popular memory, 366, 392–400, 418; projection to public, 26, 153, 167–174, 251–253, 393–394, 397–399, 415–416, 491, 493; Ruler’s Truth, Indo-European tradition, 387n99; storm-god patron, 135, 169, 468, 501, 503. See also beauty; justice; lyres and lyric iconography: royal contexts; mortuary cult: royal ancestor cult; Sacred Marriage (so-called); temple-builder/building Sabaeans, 287 Sabians, 471n81, 496 Sacred Marriage (so-called), 35, 37–40, 42, 68n37, 93, 128, 154n34, 265, 289, 382, 410–411n63, 418, 506; controversy, 38. See also sexual rites (real or alleged) Sadykos: see Sydyk Salamis: Cypriot, 5, 11, 14n68, 16, 211, 227, 236, 253, 266, 281, 287, 321, 341, 346–347, 350–359, 362, 402, 410n62; —Enkomi, 349, 354, 398, 460; —epic school and Kinyras as Liar King, 345, 357, 400; — Gerginoi, 457; —sacral kingship?, 410; Saronic, 287n45, 354–355. See also Enkomi; Teukros, Teukrid Sam’al/Zincirli, 136, 253n52 Sambykai, sam ai, 537 Samsi-Yasmah-Addu, divinized ur aa tum, 86 Samuel, 149–150, 156, 165–174, 381. See also Index Locorum amu a, 100 Sandas, Sandes, Sandon, Sandan, anta , 508 509, 511; as Herakles, 509; as Marduk, 509, 511 Sandokos, father of Kinyras, 367n367, 477, 504, 507–512, 552; reflects Sandas vel sim.?, 508–509, 511–512; reflects d vel sim?, 509–512 Sankhuniathon, 123 Saphon: see mountains Sappho, 275, 293, 307–308, 310 Sardanapalos, 2, 224, 323 Sargon, Akkad, 19, 35, 37, 65, 151n151, 324, 393, 490 785 General Index Sargon, Assyria, 146n205, 262, 327n37, 520; Kition stele, 353, 407n43 Saul, 126, 149, 173, 381; band of prophets, 156–157, 164, 175n153, 265; evil spirit, 31, 158, 166–167; lament for, 175, 301; Michal, 169 Scardina, P., 517, 520 scribal culture/practice: Alashiya, 12; Assur, 79; Biblical, 150–151; Byblos, 483, 485; Canaan, 12, 440, 511; Ebla, 63–66, 71, 87; Egypt, 56, 197, 273, 440, 483; Emar, 79, 121n59; Greek, Myc. Pylos, 427, 431; —Syro-Levantine influence, Byzantine period 213–216, 433n53; Hittite, 90, 92, 99; Mari, 81; Mesopotamia, 4, 63–65, 71, 77–79, 89, 151, 291; —musical texts, 59; —Nabu, 495; peripheral Akkadian, 12, 78–79, 329, 483; —Shulgi, 35; Minoans, 13; Tyre, 440; Ugarit, 4, 12, 54, 59, 79, 119, 121n59–122, 152n23, 197n56, 440, 448 d ml , ‘Sydyk-is-king’, Lapethos, 510 Sea Peoples, 10, 354, 481; use of term, 13. See also Aegean migrations; Great Collapse; Philistia, Philistine; Ramses III; Tjekkeru Sebettu: see Divine Heptad Second Temple: see Jerusalem Sefire steles, 154, 300 Seleucia Tracheia: see Hyria; Ura Seleucids, 418, 507; Apollo, 415n88, 495; Nabu, 495 Selz, G. J., 19 Semiramis, 327, 547, 566n64 Sennacherib, 154, 178, 301, 328, 520 Seow, C. L., 169 Septuagint, 3, 47, 116, 157, 176–177, 178; kinýra, 194–196, 198, 214; 786 Samuel, versus Josephus, MT and Qumran, 168, 170; transfer of Ark, 167–174 servant-gods: see master- and servant-gods Servius: Adonis, alter ordo fabulae, 513–515; Amaracus, 331–332, 550–552; Melus, Adonis laments, etc., 290; Myrrha, 288 Sesostris II, 105 Setrakhos/Satrakhos: see rivers seven-magic: balangs, 29n68, 41, 585; Biblical world, 150, 170–173; Divine Heptad, 26, 40; Ebla, 68; Emar, 171; heptatonic/diatonic tuning, 40, 171; Hittites, 26n49; Hurro-Hittite, 101; in lilissu ritual, 24n39; Mesopotamia, 40–41; music, 39–41, 170–73; Pythagoreanism, 40n141; sevengated Thebes, 26n49, 193; Ugarit, 128, 143 sexual rites (real or alleged), 38, 93, 221–222, 238n112, 282–283, 465; Cyprus, 222n15, 281; Paphos, 94. See also Inand k vase; Sacred Marriage (so-called) Shakkanakku period, Mari, 74 Shamshi-Addu, 74n7, 75–76n23 Shargaz, divinized weapon, 27 Sharur, divinized mace, 25–27 Shaushgamuwa of Amurru, 12, 376 Shaushka (Ishtar of Nineveh), 92n10, 100, 103, 373, 375–376, 383, 474. See also Inanna/Ishtar shepherd motif, 19, 35, 37n125, 145n197, 194n43, 471 Shibtu, Mari, 82 shrines, model, 236–239, 386 Shulgi, Ur, 33–37; building materials, 393; divination, 35, 38, 393; lamentation-priest, 34–35, General Index 393; musical cosmopolitanism, 36–37, 73, 391; musician, 33–37, 40, 81, 86, 152, 167, 178, 381, 387, 391–393; Sacred Marriage (so-called), 38–39, 93; sole or leading agent, 38–39, 113; standard measures, 392; templebuilder, 33, 393; totalizing cultural symbol, 152, 381, 392; annāru, 34, 36, 81, 391 Sicyon, 322, 339 and n14 Sidon, 138n162, 151n13, 275; Astarte, 154, 376, 382, 407, 462n16, 463, 492; Belos, 354, 379; Canaanite Shift, 55; Damu, 485n154; Eshmoun/Asklepios, 511; Kinyras?, 9, 57, 334, 358, 406, 488–494, 496; Paris and Helen, 339; Salaminian dynasty, 493; Solomon, 154; Straton, 212. See also Abdalonymos; Astarte: royal cults; Mokhos; Straton silence, ritual, 85, 95, 141–147, 279, 291–298, 304 silver, 103, 262, 323, 521; adornment, instruments, 39, 76n27, 84–85, 95, 106, 155n39; Cypriot, 327; Kothar-is-king, silversmith, Ugarit, 167n100, 441; sevenmagic, 171n125; Song of Silver, 103, 122, 380, 506 Simeon the Pious, 181 Simonides: lyric threnody, 293, 296 singers: Ebla, 63–64, 66; Egypt, 105, 110; Emar, 171; Gk. aoid s, 6, 126n89, 211n135, 238, 292–293, 306, 309, 468, 527; Gk. salt ido , 116; Hittites, 94–95, 98, 100, 329, 509; Kition temple singers, 116, 262, 315; Mari, 73, 75–76; Mesopotamia, 26, 28, 31, 35, 39, 41, 73; Ugarit, 113–119; —Singer of Ugarit, 114; —Singer(s) of Astarte, 40, 114, 383; —šrm, 115; umbrella term, 28, 115–117, 155, 383; —lyre implied, 116, 383. See also Chief Singer; epic poetry; kithára: ithar ido ; nar/NAR/ nâru; psalmody, Hebrew single-pipe, 145n197, 265n104 sistrum, 104, 110, 126n92, 169n115 Sisythes: see Ziusudra Skindapsos (lute and eponymous inventor), 535 Skylax, pseudo, 349 Smith, M. S., 444 smiting-god type, 372, 394, 474n94 Smyrna: see Myrrha Snyder, J., 244 Soloi: Cilician, 347, 356n110, 520; Cypriot, 14n68, 222n16, 340–341, 352, 355, 359, 414, 498; —resists Euagoras, 352; —Solon, 341 Solomon: Arabic tradition, 160, 182–183; Astarte, 154, 382; attribution of works to, 152, 174, 178, 383; bronze stands, 390; builds instruments, 158, 381; djinn, demons, spirits, Lilin, 183; Egypt, 151, 154–155; —pharaoh’s daughter, 155; First Temple, 149–150, 155, 173; —transfers Ark, 172; Great Kingship, 150–155; harem, 154; management of musicians, 154; musical activity, 151–152, 159, 178, 381, 383, 387, 393; speaks with animals, 151, 183; totalizing cultural symbol, 151–152, 392; —Shulgi compared, 152, 381, 393; wisdom, 151–152, 159 Solomon of Akhlat, 455 Solon, 294, 341, 355–356 song-acts, 27, 164–165, 167–174, 172 787 General Index Sostratos, Kinyradai diviner, 401 Sparta, Spartan/Laconian, 191, 196, 266, 294, 298n104, 317n228, 330, 348, 353, 357n119, 423n128, 432–433n52, 492n20 sphinx or gryphon, 269, 388, 390, 522, 527; and lyrist, 390, 522–528 spirit: evil, banished by pipes, 455; — in pipes, 455; —Saul, 31, 158–159, 166; not evil, in instrument, 32, 61, 163, 455; ‘lyre of the spirit’, 182, 209–210; ‘spirit of the Lord’, 157, 165–166 St. Maria Deipara, convent, Wadi El Natrun, 469 Standard of Ur, 73 stands, bronze, 241, 245–255, 383–391, 398, 405, 441, 443, 451, 480, 526 Stasinos, Salamis, 211, 269, 345 statues: anointing, 282; Astarte, Bar Koni, 471; Euagoras, 353; Ishtar of Nineveh, 373, 376; metamorphosis into, 281; offerings, 19, 71; oracular lyre-player, Hierapolis, 495; processions, 84, 486; Pygmalion, 289, 499; royal, Paphos, 407 —statues, divinized, 19, 22; attributa, 25–26, 94, 101; construction, repair, 23, 30, 101, 282; investiture, 114; lamentation, 30, 282; manifestation of divinity, 20, 22, 25, 373; mouth-washing ritual, 23; mythogenic, 25, 282; Pygmalion, 289 Stesandros or Stasandros, Salamis, 211, 269, 345 storm-gods: Adonis as, evidence limited, 465, 473, 484, 514; Aerias?, 403; Baal of Ugarit, 125–132, 403, 465, 484; dyingand-rising pattern secondary, 484; Haddu, Baal of Byblos, 788 483–485; Jupiter, 514; mountaintops, 465, 467, 484, 501, 514; royal cult, 135, 169, 468, 501, 503; Storm God of Zippalanda, 95; Tarhunzas, 507n75; Teshup, 92n10, 103, 465; Yahweh, 484; Zeus, 403 Strabo, 204, 326, 337, 340, 362, 416, 466, 473, 558, 565–567 Straton/Abdastart of Sidon, 212, 407n45, 462n16, 489–493 Stratonike, Hierapolitan myth, 462 Stratonikos, citharode, 211 strings: anthropomorphic conception as sinews, 312; decorative treatment of ends, 247n28, 388n104; Josephus on, 58; Kadmos’, broken by Apollo, 492n21; linen, Linos, 189, 306, 309; lyre versus harp, 3; number of, 57–60, 58n65, 167, 229; —Rabbinic speculation, 58; sheep-gut, Greece, 449–450n43. See also heptatonic/diatonic; tuning; plucking, plectrum Subarian, 76 succession myth, 97, 376 Suen/Sin, 36 ul aga, son of Ningirsu, 27 sun, 183; Akhenaten, 107, 110, 175, 507; ANE kingship, justice, 501, 506–507, 509–511; balang-cult, 21, 507, 584–585; Ebla, 68; etymology of Idalion, 339, 364; Hammurabi and Shamash, 506; Helios, 506n70; —of Hierapolis, 495, 507; Hittite king, 175, 501; in magic, 103; ‘Lyre of the Divinity of the Father of the Sun God’, 94n24; Lyre-Player Group of Seals, 522; Misharum and Kittum, servants of Shamash, 510; Myrrha, 288, 506; Phaethon, Song of Silver, 506; Phoenician Apollo, 511; royal General Index title, 507; Sandas, 509; ap u, Ugarit, 143, 374; d and r, 509–511; solar descent of Kinyras, 288, 504–512, 505; Sun Goddess of Arinna, 94; Utu as master-god, 21, 507; ‘Yasmah-Addu is my Sun’, divinized ur a a tum, 86. See also Aoios; Eos Suppiluliuma I, 108n120 Suppiluliuma II, 13 Susa, 101, 507n74. See also Elam, Elamite Sydyk, Philo of Byblos, 477, 509–511; as Apollo, 511–512; seven sons, 511 sympathetic magic, 25, 40, 165 sympathetic vibration, 85, 182 symposium: see drinking rituals synaulía, 202, 295 syncretism, musical, 272, 314; theological, 459; —Aegean royal ideology, 387n99; —Apollo and epichoric rivals, 189; —Baal and Damu, Byblos, 482–85; —Cypriot and mainland gods/cult, 272, 373–375, 377–380; —Cyprus and Byblos, 475, 480–481; —Kothar and Kinyras, 9, 139, 229, 323, 396, 443–458 Syracuse, 219–226 Syria, Syrian: Kinyras, 3, 9, 57, 98, 122, 406, 461, 504–512, 517; PNs, 78n45; Roman annexation, 199, Appendix C; scented oil at Paphos, 284; Syro-Hurrian, defined, 96; versus Assyria, 3n11, 461, 467. See also Aramaean; Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls; Hierapolis; Hurrians; Karkemish; Sefire steles; Sam’al; Syriac sources; ‘Syrian Goddess’ Syriac sources, 2, 60–61, 216, 454–455, 460, 463, 468–473, 543n23 ‘Syrian Goddess’, 126n91, 236, 363–364n150, 461–462, 521 Taautos, 448, 477, 510, 511 Tabernacle, 155, 169 Table of Nations, 43, 514, 558n7 Tacitus, 401–407, 413, 417–418, 420–422, 475 Talthybios, 344, 369; Talthybiadai, 423n128 Tamar, 404–405n26 Tamassos, 229, 236, 339, 372, 515; Kinyras, 325, 350n75, 563; Phoenicians, 16 Tamiras, Tamiradai, 401, 404–406, 497; proposed etymologies, 404–405; vis-à-vis Kinyradai, 367, 401, 404–406 Tammuz, 483n144; Adonis equated, 464, 467, 470; Aphaka/Byblos, 314, 464, 468–475; —tomb, 470; lamentation, 468–473; — Jerusalem, 470; myrrh as semen, 283. See also Adonis; Dumuzi targums, 183, 216, 302 Tarhunzas, 507n75 Tarsus, 250n44, 256n72, 499, 517–521; destruction 696 BCE, 520; Sandan, Perseus, 508, 511 Tašmišari: see Tudhaliya III Tattam, H., 469 teachers: see instruction, musical Tegea, 230n64, 359, 364–365 Telamon, 354–355, 366n165 temple-builder/building, 366; Agapenor, 359, 362–363; Bar Kokhba, 180; David and Solomon, 150, 172, 381; Gudea, 26–33, 393; Kauthar, 468–473; Kinyras, 222, 363, 380–381, 393, 401, 439, 464, 505; lamentation, 279; Nikokles, Paphos, 409–410; Pylos?, 437; Ur III dynasty, 33, 393 789 General Index Tentnau, Egyptian songstress, Byblos, 105n101 Terpandros, 232n80, 233 Teshup, 92n10, 103, 374, 465, 514 Teukros, Teukrid, 253, 340–341, 348–349, 351–360, 365, 366n165, 368, 379, 514; Asterias/Asteria, son/daughter, 514n125; ‘Athenian’, 354; banishment, foundation of Cypriot Salamis, 355, 359; Cilicia, 356; —priesthood at Olbe, 356n110, 405; Gerginoi, 458; marriage Eue/ Eune/Eunoe, daughter of Kinyras, 353–354; multiformity, 354; Salaminian Zeus, 402. See also Tjekkeru thalassocracy-lists, 327 Thamyris, 192–194, 234, 318, 325n24, 405, 411n68; Tamiras, Tamiradai?, 405; Thamyríddontes, Thespiai, 234–235, 405 Thasos, 379 Thebes, Egyptian, 106 Thebes, Greek: Ismenias, aulete, 303; Linos, 306n150, 307; Mycenaean period, 387n100; —two ‘lyrasts’, 434n62; Pindar as Theban kinýra, 215; seven-gated, 26n49, 193 Theia: wife of Hyperion, 288n52 Theias: Adonis son, 466–468; Aphaka, 467; ‘Assyrian’, 467n52, 502; beauty, 335n99; Belos father, 467, 468; divine determinative?, 123, 468; Greek gloss, of El?, 468; —of Kinyras cognate?, 465, 468, 486; Kinyras doublet, 284, 288n52, 460, 464, 466–468, 486, 492, 502; Kinyras son, 187, 466; Oreithuia mother, 467; wife Aoia, 502 Theodontius, 199, 499, 517, Appendix F, 559–561 Theodoros Studites, Appendix D 790 Theodosios, 465 theogony, 449. See also cosmogony Theokritos, 308 Theophrastos, 286, 315n213, 413–414n76 Theopompos, 212; compared with Étienne de Lusignan, 361, 557, 564; Mopsos, 346n50, 347; Pausanias, 353, 362; unthroning of Kinyras, 190, 346–348, 351–361 Thera, 378–379 therapy: see musical therapy Theseus, 340–341, 471n82 Thespiai, 234, 405 Thilo, G., 513 third gender, 29, 315, 462. See also gender-blurring Thoth, 448, 477, 510 threnody, lyric, 43, 67–71, 83, 141, 145, 188–189, 199–200, 202, 207–208, 233, 279–319; female, 289, 293, 295; harlot of Tyre, 302; Hebrew psalmody, 301; Homer, 292–293; ‘leaders’, 293; legislation against, 294, 299; mythological repertoire, 293–296, 307, 311; Pindar and Simonides, 293, 296; seasonal cult, 294–296, 304–316 throne, 102, 143–144, 146, 150, 180, 209, 507. See also enthronement Thutmosis III, 105 Thymarete, wife of Kinyras, 290n63, 404, 497–498, 512–513n119, 515; variant Metharme, 512 Tiberius, 205, 402, 423 Tibullus, 294 Timarkhos, Paphos, 236n108, 410n62, 411 Titans, Titanids, 123n74, 508, 510 Tithonos, 329n57, 504–505 Titus, 401, 420 Tjekkeru, 13, 354. See also Teukros, Teukrid General Index transgender: see third gender treaties, 21, 300–301, 376–377. See also oaths trees: ao a, cuttings dedicated to Aphrodite, 502; apple-tree, Melus, 290; cedar, 27, 124n82, 147, 151, 179, 462n16; —Cedar Deities, 376; charmed by lyrist, 193; date-palm, 384; —Tamar, 404; early Cyprus, 327; eldertree, 332; hanging from, 290, 300, 312; joining in lyric praise of Yahweh, 179; Mitannian glyptic, 386; musician and, 159, 246, 253, 383–388, 405, 522–528; offerings/blessings when used for instrument, 23; palm and ibex, 160; rag-bushes, 466, 563–564; representing sacred grove, 386, 397; Sacred Tree, 159, 160n71, 383–388, 386n92, 390, 391, 404, 522–528; —representing goddess, 386, 391, 522, 526; Solomon’s wisdom, 151; sphinx or gryphon, 390, 522. See also myrrh Troad, 317n228, 354, 457–458 Troodos: see mountains Troy/Trojan War, 141, 204, 253, 275, 322–323, 338–340, 342, 347, 354–355; Arcadian contingent, 359; chronographic boundary, 379, 516n135, 560–563; Helen abducted from Paphos, fleet gathers there, 348; honeymoon escapade of Paris and Helen, 1, 339; Kinyras and, 1, 187, 343–346; lamentation of/at Troy, 292, 303, 311n183. See also Aegean migrations: migration/foundation legends; Cyprus: Greek conquest myths; epic poetry, Greek: n stoi trumpets, 118n38, 155, 164, 168, 169n115, 170, 172, 179, 212n148; Heb. shofar, 155; —Tutankhamun, 155n39 Tubal-Cain, 44, 453–456 Tudhaliya I/II, 100 Tudhaliya III, 99 Tudhaliya IV, 12–13, 376, 501 tuning: Mesopotamian system, 40, 57–60, 97, 119, 171, 392, 451; problem of, 57–60; Shulgi, 34. See also heptatonic/diatonic Tushratta, 373, 375 Tutankhamun: tomb, trumpets, 155n39 Tuttul, 64, 78n45, 84, 483 twins: see brothers motif; Dioskouroi Typhon, 98, 500, 503 Tyre, 43–44n3, 150, 275, 347, 446, 462, 490, 502; Astarte, 376, 407; Cyprus, Kition, 16, 337–338n3, 352, 476; Damu, 485n154; Euagoras, 347, 493; Isaiah oracle, harlot, 61, 77, 302; LBA, 440, 482; siege, 491, 493 Ugarit, Ugaritic, 4, 45, 113–148; Alashiya, 11–12, 104, 372–373, 399, 440, 459; —Alashiyan gods, 373–375; —Alashiyan residents, 441; —Alashiyan/Cypriot oil, 330; —‘god of Ugarit’, 374; Amorite dynasty and past, 83, 377; Astarte, 7, 114, 374, 376–377, 407, 486; —Singer(s) of, 40, 383; Baal, 131–132, 403, 465, 484; — and kingship, 468; Crete, 479; Damu, 485n154; destruction, 13, 459; Ebla, 63; Enkomi, 460; female singers?, 115; god-pairs, 450–451, 454, 509–511; Hittites, 12, 115; Hurrian influence, 96; —hymnography, 35, 59, 97–98, 103, 119–120, 377, 383, 392, 451; —Hurrian priest, House of 120; 791 General Index (Ugarit, cont. ) king in cult, 113, 166, 173, 381, 422; lexical texts, 79, 121n59; linguistic points, 137–139 and n162, 199n71, 443n2, 478n118, 479; —Canaanite Shift, 55, 459; Mesopotamian tuning system, 59, 97, 119, 171, 392, 451; Mitanni, 97; n’m, 128–129, 132, 141–143, 149, 175–178; pantheon texts, 4, 79, 103, 119–122, 235, 283, 377, 451; PNs, 56n53, 167n100, 273n138, 377, 441, 452, 509; royal ancestor cult, 5, 71, 124, 256, 313, 423, 484; d and r, 509–511; Singer of Ugarit, 114; Ura, 507, 512. See also Anat; Aqhat; Baal; guilds, musical; Kinnaru, god; PNs; seven-magic Ullikummi, 103 Uluburun wreck, 248, 326, 479 underworld: Adonis, Persephone, 287, 299n112, 484; Dumuzi/Tammuz, 283, 484; Inanna, gala, 29, 141, 145n197; Isaiah, Rephaim, 146–147; katábasis, 147, 287, 298n108–299; Kinyras, 335n99; Lelwani, 94; musician figurines, Egypt, 137n154; Ninazu, 140, 304; Odysseus, 328n49; Orpheus, 141, 294; R p’iu/Milku and royal mortuary cult, Ugarit, 134–142, 256, 304. See also Nergal Ur, 30n83, 37, 97, 393, 485; ‘royal cemetery’, 19; Ur III dynasty, 22, 28n65, 33–37, 73, 84, 86, 150, 152, 393, 485; —Byblos, 88, 483; —Ebla, 483; —Mari, 483. See also Amar-Suen; Ibbi-Sin; Shulgi; Ur-Nammu Ura, 507, 512. See also Hyria Urikina, 100 Urikki of Que/Hiyawa, 520 792 Ur-Nammu, Ur, 33, 393 Ur-Nanshe, 73 Uruk, 19, 23, 84, 393; Uruk period, 19; Uruk vase, 37 Ur-zababa/ur a a tum, 34–36, 76n27, 85–86 U umgal-kalama, 21, 28, 32, 66, 531–532; conceived as musical director, 28, 33, 118, 444; counselor, 30–31 Utu, 21, 507. See also sun van der Sluijs, M. A., 506, 509 vanishing-god motif, 316, 376; faithless goddess, 474. See also grief or wrath, divine Vellay, C., 190 Vergil, 331, 354, 379, 490, 513 Vespasian, 401 victory, performance context, 30, 43, 126, 128, 164, 169, 173–174, 178n166, 201 vintage or harvest song, 300–301, 308–310 Wánassa: see Aphrodite; Great Goddess of Cyprus Warad-Ilishu, Chief Singer, Mari, 74 Warad-Sin, Larsa, 83 Webb, J., 394, 397 wedding: see marriage Wegner, I., 376 Wen-Amun, 14, 105n101, 354, 481, 514nn129 West, M. L., 422–423, 476 Winter, I., 520 wisdom, 30n83; and lyre, 6n32, 72, 307; Canaanite traditions, 152, 156; David, 183; Hebrew psalmody, 162–163; Linos, 307; musical activity, 152; Solomon, 151–152 General Index women: Ad ni , 145, 311n184, 312–313; chorus, 95, 191, 222, 232, 262, 265, 289, 293; cult-musicians, 171n126, 249, 262, 265, 302, 311n184, 486; Cypriot figurines, 242, 258n76, 260n80, 269n122, 394; double-pipes, 105n101; Egypt, 56, 61, 105n101, 106–111, 154; captive musicians, 106; harp, 76n28, 90, 107–108; lamentation, 29, 46, 64, 133, 144–145, 200–201, 292–293, 296, 298, 312, 470, 486; Lemnian, 200–202; lute, 248; lyre, 60–61, 77, 107–108, 110, 126, 191, 216, 222, 236n105, 242n1, 245–250, 258n76, 260n80, 265, 269n122, 302, 486; lyric threnody, 289, 293, 295; —harlot of Tyre, 302; musical cosmopolitanism, 106, 108, 249; palace musicians, David/Solomon, 154; —Ebla, 64; Egypt, 106–111; —Hezekiah, 154; Mari, 74–77, 82, 85, 154, 292; prophecy, 38; Ugarit, 115; victory song, 126, 201. See also CyproPhoenician symposium bowls; frame-drum; harem; lamentation: female; prostitution; royal ideology: king empowered by goddess or queen wrath, divine: see grief or wrath, divine Wyatt, N., 140, 142, 159, 164 Xenophon of Cyprus (?), 565–567 Yahimilk, Byblos, 510 Yahweh, 36, 147, 174, 179, 445; Asherah, 60; Baal, 169; cultmusic, 156, 158, 172, 180; David, praise-singer of, 129, 149, 173, 176–178, 180, 382; —Davidic covenant, 177, 179, 468; —David enacts, 169, 173, 175, 177; —David favored, 167; lyre, 60, 163, 166, 182; —invocation of Yahweh by psalmodists, 162; —lyres of God, St. Ephraim, 61; —Yahweh creates, 167; —Yahweh’s voice channeled by singer, 36, 161–165, 175, 177–178, 310; prophets as couriers of, 161; solar justice, 510; storm-god, 169, 484 Yamhad, 82, 96 Yamm: see Baal Yarim-Lim, Yamhad, 82 Yasmah-Addu, Mari, 35–36, 74–75, 82, 84–86 Yasur-Landau, A., 159 a l kaya, 501 year-names from divinized instruments, 21–22, 27–28, 83, 86 Yeronisos, 386n91 igri -Halab, Ebla, 63 Yirkab-Damu, Ebla, 63 i ’ar-Damu, Ebla, 63 Yon: see Hyon Zababa, 84 Zadok, 156n43 annāru, 55, 77; = innāru/Inannainstrument, 55, 77–79, 88–90, 92, 99, 121–122, 291, 380, 391; IshmeDagan, 81, 391; Ninazu, 140, 304; Shulgi, 34, 36, 81, 391; ZA as phonetic gloss, 78; Zannaru, goddess, 78; inar, 55, 90. See also Inanna-instrument; innāru; inn r; kinýra; knr; lyres and lyric iconography; inar Zarpiya ritual, 508–509 Zedekiah, 181 Zenodotos, 207–208, 309, 316 Zerah, Sons of, 152n23, 177n161 793 General Index Zeus, 373, 439; Aerias, Aerios, 403; Aigina, 224n30; Amathous, 516n135; Aphrodite, 403n16; Dione, 403, 481; Jupiter, 402, 514–515; Meilikhios, 446, 448; Ouranios, 403; Paphian, 501; Salaminian, 206, 402; Typhon, 98, 503 Zeuxis, a.k.a. Kinyras, gladiator, 335 zigzag arms: see lyres and lyric iconography Zillah, 44 Zimri, name element: Bible, 138, 152n23, 177n161; Canaanite/ Amorite, 138; —Zimri-Lim, Mari, 74–76, 82, 85–87, 96, 310n179 794 inar, 89–96, 98; Caucasian cognates, 61; cult devotions, 94; derivation, 90n4; generalized to ‘music’, 93; un inar, 90, 93; i i inar, 90, 93; innāru/ annāru, Inannainstrument, 55, 90, 92, 99, 380; umbrella term including innāru, 99. See also Inanna-instrument; innāru; inn r; kinýra; knr; lyres and lyric iconography; annāru Zincirli: see Sam’al Ziusudra/Sisythes, flood hero, 462 Zoïlos of Cedasa (?), 502 Zosimos, 465