Papers by Michael Gabriel Bányai
AJNES, 2023
Historical, epigraphical, and linguistic evidence supports the classification of TÜRKMEN–KARAHÖYÜ... more Historical, epigraphical, and linguistic evidence supports the classification of TÜRKMEN–KARAHÖYÜK 1 (hereafter: TKH 1) as an authentic 12th-century BC inscription of Hartapu. Visual analysis reveals the deliberate removal and overwriting of parts of Hartapu’s royal titles, particularly information about his father’s identity as a great king, which is present in all other known inscriptions of Hartapu. The anachronistic features identified by Goedegebuure et al. (2020), characteristic of the 8th century BC, are confined to this section of the text. Hartapu’s inscriptions can be stylistically linked to a group of early 12th-century Luvian texts, which use the third-person narrative form.
The territory of Hartapu’s kingdom can be reconstructed based on the endowment of Urḫi-Teššub’s sons by Tutḫaliya IV, CTH 569, compensating for territory promised by “the father of his majesty.” This likely includes parts of the Lower Country not given to Kurunta by Ḫattušili III, a territory that Hartapu expanded after the fall of the Hittite empire.
The renewed 8th-century interest in Hartapu’s ancient inscription is best explained in the context of the Tuwati-Wasusarma dynasty’s efforts to reclaim Hartapu’s territory, indirectly mentioned in TKH 1, which was lost to the Phrygians across the Halys since 850 BC. These territories, added by Hartapu to the state later known from Assyrian sources as Tabal, reflect his efforts to settle the Muški along the Halys, observable through pottery links between Kaman-Kalehöyük and Porsuk IV.
Archaeological evidence proves the presence of the Muški in Central Anatolia (Halys Bend) sometime before their first Assyrian attestation on the other side of the Taurus under Ninurta-apil-Ekur (1191–1179 BC). This corrects the misapprehension, connecting the Muški with Gordion. The arrival of the Phrygians in Anatolia is associated with the radical cultural modifications at the end of phase YHSS 7B at Gordion, c. 900 BC, corresponding to the simultaneous desertion of European sites associated with the Bryges.
Anatolica, Jun 30, 2010
Trotz der zahlreichen Hinweise auf Urh i-Tešup enthalten in der internationalen hethitischen Korr... more Trotz der zahlreichen Hinweise auf Urh i-Tešup enthalten in der internationalen hethitischen Korrespondenz, die sich auf dessen Verbannungszeit beziehen, bleiben die daraus gewonnenen Erkenntnisse in hohem Masse widersprüchlich und spekulativ. Edels Notizen am Rande seiner Übersetzung der Korrespondenz mit Ägypten über Urh i-Tešups Schicksal, sind bereits 2003, im Rahmen eines Symposiums in Leiden streng kritisch betrachtet worden 1. Am weitesten ging Itamar Singer 2 unter anderem grundsätzlich die Auffassung von Edel in Frage zu stellen, dass sich daraus Belege für einen ägyptischen Aufenthalt Urh i-Tešups ergäben. Die im vorliegenden Artikel versuchte Identifizierung Urh i-Tešups mit dem in der gleichen Korrespondenz ebenfalls vorkommenden anonymen König von Zulapa, könnte die bisherigen Wissenslücken füllen. Die Gründe, in beiden bisher separat betrachteten Individuen plötzlich Verweise auf nur die eine und dieselbe Person zu suchen, können kurz erklärt werden. Da ist zum Einen die räumliche Nähe der überlieferten Zufluchtstädte Urh i-Tešups in Niya und Zulapa 3 selbst, zum Anderen die stets abwechselnde Nennung beider Könige beziehungsweise die Austauschbarkeit der auf sie bezogenen Aussagen in der diplomatischen hethitisch-ägyptischen Korrespondenz. Zusätzliche detailliert unterbreitete Evidenz wird diese zunächst knapp begründete Hypothese erhärten. Laut seiner Apologie soll H attušiliš III. aus Rücksicht zu seinem Bruder das Leben Urh i-Tešups verschont und ihn statt dessen in Verbannung nach Nuh ašše geschickt haben, wo er ihm einen Aufenthaltsort zuwies. Auch ein Text, ausführlich von Th.P.J. van den Hout 4 behandelt, CTH 569, bezeichnet Städte in dem Land von Niya als diejenigen, welche Urh i-Tešup von H attušiliš III. vertraglich überschrieben wurden. Nachdem die hethitische Krone diese Städte infolge der Zwangsumsiedlung Urh i-Tešups an die Küste und seiner späteren Flucht zunächst wohl wieder eingezogen hatte, sind sie laut CTH 569 im Zusammenhang mit den Krönungsvorbereitungen des jungen Tudh aliaš IV. wieder den Söhnen Urh i-Tešups zurückgegeben worden. CTH 569 stellt fest, dass "das Gelübde des Vaters seiner Majestät" (H attušiliš III.) die Übergabe einer "Siedlung" in Niya an Urh i-Tešup vorsah. Diese sei nun an die Söhne von Urh i-Tešup (wieder?) auszuhändigen, während man mit Urh i-Tešup in dieser Angelegenheit keinen Kontakt suchen sollte.
Journal of Egyptian History, 2013
The first mention of Kush in the Assyrian sources comes in the context of the resolution of the c... more The first mention of Kush in the Assyrian sources comes in the context of the resolution of the conflict between Sargon and the rebellious prince of Ashdod, Iamani, in ca. 707 BCE. However, this event plays a critical role in our understanding of the chronology of the end of the 24th and beginning of the 25th Dynasties. This paper re-examines the relevant data pertaining to the period in an attempt to synchronize the historical and chronological relationships presented in the Assyrian and Egyptian sources. As a result of this work, a reversal of the conventional order of the kings Schabako-Schebtiko, which was obscured in Manetho’s epithoma and is thus exclusively a matter of modern reconstruction, is needed. The new chronology put forward by the author also necessitates the re-evaluation of several other documents essential to the history of this period.
“And in Length of Days Understanding” (Job 12:12): Essays on Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond in Honor of Thomas E. Levy, 2023
The hypothesis at the core of this paper was published in a much larger work by the author in JEg... more The hypothesis at the core of this paper was published in a much larger work by the author in JEgH 12 2019. Due to its focus on Egyptological matters, that article reached a small circle of specialists, and its ramifications for the biblical scholarship have largely gone unnoticed. The present paper fills this gap-pointing as often as possible to the more extensive discussion of the previous paper's evidence. Recent archaeological evidence invalidates previous chronological solutions for the reign of Amenmesse: edging him between the reigns of Merenptah and Sethos II or allowing a partial overlap between Sethos II and Amenmesse's early reigns. His reign's time and geographical base must be rethought and identified within the regnal period of Merenptah. This reconstruction looks strikingly similar to the late narratives (Manetho, Apion, Potter's Oracle, The Lamb Oracle) concerning a revolt, Merenptah's flight to Ethiopia, his return to Egypt, and his defeat of the contender. The late narratives' association of Amenmesse's rule with the Israelites is understandable against the historical background of a stock of Israelite prisoners brought by Merenptah to Egypt from his previous campaigns. Due to this historical context, the literature of the time offers several hidden references to Israel. The Tale of Two Brothers, the political manifesto of the revolt, is an etiological story of the relations between Egypt and Israel using eponymic patterns as in the story of Danaos and Aigyptos. A Ramses V dated parodistic retelling of the tale, pChassinat III, introduces allusions later picked up by Manetho's characters of Moses and Joseph (Barbotin, Revue d’égyptologie 50:5–26, 1999; Bányai, J Egypt Hist 12:36–103, 2019, n. 153).
A discussion of the literary material from this period demonstrates the necessity of a new approach to Early Israel and its possible relations to Retenu, a term designating an Asiatic neighbor of Egypt.
Journal of Egyptian History, 2013
The first mention of Kush in the Assyrian sources comes in the context of the resolution of the c... more The first mention of Kush in the Assyrian sources comes in the context of the resolution of the conflict between Sargon and the rebellious prince of Ashdod, Iamani, in ca. 707 BCE. However, this event plays a critical role in our understanding of the chronology of the end of the 24th and beginning of the 25th Dynasties. This paper re-examines the relevant data pertaining to the period in an attempt to synchronize the historical and chronological relationships presented in the Assyrian and Egyptian sources. As a result of this work, a reversal of the conventional order of the kings Schabako-Schebtiko, which was obscured in Manetho’s epithoma and is thus exclusively a matter of modern reconstruction, is needed. The new chronology put forward by the author also necessitates the re-evaluation of several other documents essential to the history of this period.
Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 2022
Decoupling the Philistine settlement in the Levant from its Cretan connotations makes a check of ... more Decoupling the Philistine settlement in the Levant from its Cretan connotations makes a check of the historical and archaeological record for evidence for earlier Cretan colonization, separate from the Sea
People´s invasion, necessary.
The paper identifies a sizable group of Cretan artifacts produced in a Levant setting beginning with the Middle Bronze Age. It can be explained only by the existence of at least one palatial centre of production (probably in the Pentapolis), which, given the region's political situation, still eludes sufficient archaeological investigation.
The evidence permits the new discussion of representations of Cretans in Theban graves, which, near the end of the reign of Thutmose III, turned away from the archetypical Aegean Cretan embassies and were replaced with figures of acculturated Levantine Cretans.
The watershed moment leading to the abandonment of the prototypical Aegean image of the Cretans must be identified with the presentation of ʺgiftsʺ by the Mycenean embassy recorded for Thutmose III's 42nd
year in his annals. The correlation of the modifications in the Theban tombs imagery and the annals of Thutmose III reiterates the traditional interpretation of the fashion change of the visiting Aegeans in these
representations as illustrating regime change in Crete and also documents the acculturation of the "outremer" Aegeans within their Asian environment.
The new chronolgy of the Cretan settlement in the Levante is also important for the discussion of Early Israel, since it once provided an important synchronisation factor for the biblical events.
Due to the limitations imposed by the journal, I can not post the paper online yet. Please let me know, if you should be interested in the paper. I will send you a copy.
Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux, 2021
Hawkins´ reading of the name of the kingdom appearing in the SHEIZAR, MEHARDE, TELL TAYINAT 1 ins... more Hawkins´ reading of the name of the kingdom appearing in the SHEIZAR, MEHARDE, TELL TAYINAT 1 inscriptions as Palasatini and the simultaneous excavations at Tell Tayinat documenting the earliest period of this kingdom prompts questions concerning its origins as well as about possible relations to its namesake in Palestine.
The last question is seemingly the easiest to answer thanks to the existence of a toponym in the Alalakh archives (the latter core territory of the Palasatini state) read by Wiseman (1951) as Ḫa-zi-lu-uḫ-e, which because of its attestation continuity (it appears even in Ugarit as ḥasīlu) must be the equivalent of the Gen. 10:14 and 1 Chron. 1:12 "Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came).”
The earliest level finds at Tell Tayinat, possibly documenting semi-nomadic beginnings of the site by ca. 1200 BCE, show a complete lack of the later so characteristic aegeanizing LH IIIC pottery, considered to be symptomatic for the Philistine. Quite to the contrary, the earliest levels show an exclusivity of the Anatolian Plain Wares, which beginn no earlier than 1140 BCE to very slowly get a growing number of LH IIIC Wares mixed to the assemblage (beginning by a meagre 5 % of the assemblage).
The only possible conclusion concerning the Northern Philistines is, that they represent Anatolian settlers coming from other regions of the former Hittite empire, slowly accomodating within a larger Sea-People phenomenon dominated by Milet - whose pottery production they beginn to imitate.
The paper proposes the identification of the Philistine group with the Palaa, Hittite subjects in Paphlagonia. Contemporary migrations also traced back to Paphlagonia by late antique historiography, like that of the Aenetii to Illyria, led to similar ethnic formations named among others Palaeste (and Pala-rioi, Pala-unos, Paleis, Pali-ros). The -este suffix in Illyrian place names (Tergeste, Ateste,Praeneste, Humiste, Bigeste) and the addition of the ethnical appurtenance suffix, -ini (Pala-este-ini, Tergestini, etc.) explain both name forms known for the southern and norther Philistines. The equivalent suffix -asti is documented also in Hittite and is thus made probable also for Palaic. Even the double form of attestation of the ethnic name Pa/Wa-lasatini is easily explainable in Palaic, which is the only Bronze Age Anatolian language to display the labial fricative leading to regular alternative spellings with pa/wa (example wu/pu-la-a-ši-na- a kind of bread).
Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 2020
This paper deals with the relationship between Egypt and Retenu, its main Asiatic neighbor, in th... more This paper deals with the relationship between Egypt and Retenu, its main Asiatic neighbor, in the period from the Fifteenth Dynasty till to the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Recent archaeological research at Tell el-Dab‘a disproves the existence of an empire of the Fifteenth Dynasty extending into Palestine. This leads to a reconsideration of the historical sources thought to attest to an association of Apophis, king of the Fifteenth Dynasty, with Retenu. The existence of an Egyptian empire in Palestine before Thutmose III is also shown to be lacking any support in the record. The destructions in Syria-Palestine between the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages are viewed as being partly the result of the geopolitical divide of this region between Retenu and Kharu, two different political entities competing for the rule of the region. The term Kharu is shown to be just homonymous to that used for the Hurrians. A critical appraisal of the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a Tell el-‘Ajjul is appended to the paper.
Journal Asiatique, 2019
This is the publication of the former draftpaper for a geography of Westanatolia during the Hitti... more This is the publication of the former draftpaper for a geography of Westanatolia during the Hittite period. It provides an essential revision to all proposals hitherto for a geopolitical and historical reconstruction of the region between 1450 BCE and following short to the disruptions brought about by the "Sea Peoples invasions".
Talanta, 2018
The paper is an attempt to deal with Mellaart´s forgery of BEYKÖY by comparing the historical ass... more The paper is an attempt to deal with Mellaart´s forgery of BEYKÖY by comparing the historical assumptions on which BEYKÖY was based with the glimpses we can get from the historical records concerning the demise of the Hittite empire and its aftermath. Some of these observations concerning the Hittites are absolutely new, like for example those linking them with the Amazones - a term which can be explained as Luwian. The deeds of Mopsos as reported in BEYKÖY can be proven as the result of Mellaart´s copious use of imagination and classical sources. Mopsos - one in a long series of members of the same dynasty bearing this name - can be nevertheless identified in documents as early as the Madduwatta text (CTH 147). The historical features associable with the Mopsos dynasty prevent its association with Arzawa, presented in the BEYKÖY text.
From ‘LUGAL.GAL’ to ‘Wanax’. Kingship and Political Organisation in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, 2019
This paper tries a (mainly) statistically founded answer to some current questions of mycenology.... more This paper tries a (mainly) statistically founded answer to some current questions of mycenology. The questions, whether one may speak about a Mycenean centralized state headed by a great king and the question, which the center of such a hypothetical state may have been.
Journal of Egyptian History, 2019
Present paper has important implications for the historiography and chronology of both Egypt and ... more Present paper has important implications for the historiography and chronology of both Egypt and of Early Israel.
Concerning Egypt there is a re-adjustment of the revolt of Amenmesse to a date during the very reign of Merenptah, which was made necessary by new archaeological finds and a re-consideration of the written record, which precludes all reconstruction attempts of his reign made hitherto: either as overlapping with that of Sethos II. or preceding it and following to Merenptah. This corresponds exactly to the stories combatted by Josephus (Manetho, Chairemon, Apion), as also echoed in the prophecies of the Lamb and of the Potter. Certainly, is the mention of Moses and Joseph in these stories not historical – going back to ancient propaganda provided for example by pChassinat III (Ramses V.), itself a deformation of the Bata story contemporary with the events at the time of Merenptah. Already Grandet saw some kind of relation linking the retrospective historical picture drawn by pHarris I to the stories concerning the so-called “guerre des impurs” in Manetho. One should regard the turbulences during the reign of Merenptah, in which the Israelites played a major role according to most sources, as the major event at the end of the New Kingdom sounding the end of the Egyptian colonial empire in Asia.
Concerning Early Israel it is shown that the changing pattern of archaeological evidence in the hill-country may be explained solely within the context of the Egyptian civil war, which ended with an expulsion of the Israelite supporters of Amenmesse. Any tentative to additionally link the re-sedentarisation of the hill-country with the biblical Exodus is therefore fortuitous and unmotivated. The more so, because rests of the literature of the time of the Amenmesse revolt allude to a much longer prehistory of Egyptian-Israelite contacts.
JSSEA (Journal of The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities), 2018
The Sennacherib narrative in both Herodot and Iesaia provides an important synchronism for aligni... more The Sennacherib narrative in both Herodot and Iesaia provides an important synchronism for aligning the chronology of the Egyptian 24th and 25th dynasties with the biblical and the Assyrian ones. But is it possible to make a clue of the real historical events referenced in these sources? A detailed survey of the biblical sources shows, that the narrative might have been originally coined exclusively on Sargon II and may have had nothing originally to do with Sennacherib. It may have been later transformed in secondary stance to eventually fit the erroneous Herodot account, thus leading to confusion with Sennacheribs only campaign to Jerusalem of 701. An identification of Tefnakht as the pharaoh opposing the Assyrian invasion on Egyptian side at the time of Sargon allows to reconstruct the main lines of the Egyptian chronology of this period. A precise biblical chronology of the period following king Ahas becomes at the same time possible thanks to the emergence of several new synchronisms between the kings of Juda and Assyria.
Talanta, 2017
Die außerordentliche Anhäufung mykenischer Funde im zeitlichen Kontext Amenhoteps III. und seines... more Die außerordentliche Anhäufung mykenischer Funde im zeitlichen Kontext Amenhoteps III. und seines Sohns und Nachfolgers Amenhotep IV. in der von Ägypten kontrollierten politischen Sphäre, wurde bereits wiederholt durch die Anwesenheit von Mykener als Söldner in ägyptischen Diensten in diesem relativ kurzen Zeitabschnitt des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches erklärt. Die Auswertung bisher in diesem Zusammenhang noch nicht betrachteter historischer Zeugnisse erlaubt einem unter Umständen sowohl Ursache wie auch geschichtlichen Kontext dieses Phänomens nun zum ersten Mal zu verstehen.
Several additions made over the past years to my initial paper published 2011 „Ist Urḫi-Tešup der... more Several additions made over the past years to my initial paper published 2011 „Ist Urḫi-Tešup der König von Zulapa?“ might have escaped unnoticed. I am therefore publishing them online with the declared purpose to put a definitive end to the regularly flaring discussion concerning the correct reading of RS 34.165. All these have been regularly addressed by me during the past years in private scholarly discussions, but were regularly till now comfortably ommited from the general discussion.
Nouvelles Assyriologiques Bréves et Utilitaires, Sep 2016
This paper deals with the chronologically mistaken approach on the theft of the Marduk statue by ... more This paper deals with the chronologically mistaken approach on the theft of the Marduk statue by the Assyrians and the Elamites. The prevailing view, that Kutir-Naḫḫunte III. took the statue to Elam during the same campaign in Babylonia, which led to the demise of the Kassite dynasty, leads to unacceptable contradictions and to a neglect of most if not even of all traditions concerning this event.
I added here a couple of notices to the official publication, which I have left out in NABU on grounds of brevity.
Journal Asiatique 304.1, 2016
The paper deals with the question whether the several attestations of a high-ranking individual n... more The paper deals with the question whether the several attestations of a high-ranking individual named Šulmānu-mušabši during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I are all to be associated with the same or rather
instead with two different individuals. The first assumption leads to a sequence of grand viziers which is in strong contradiction for example with the archaeological record at Tell Fekheriye, where Aššuriddin
is attested till to the end of the middle-Assyrian occupation, while Šulmānu-mušabši, the grandvizier, is entirely absent. BATSH 4, 9 can be read as alluding to the death of Šulmānu-mušabši and not to the preparations for his installation as a grand-vizier. The related question concerning the real position of the subordinate official Sîn-mudammeq under Aššur-iddin is discussed and results in a rejection of his identification as a vizier.
These are some additional remarks to the named paper, „Die Chronologie der Zeit von Adad-šuma-uṣu... more These are some additional remarks to the named paper, „Die Chronologie der Zeit von Adad-šuma-uṣur“, which obviously deserved consideration. This will be enlarged in time, should new data pertaining to this issue become known.
Nach dem Erscheinen des Artikels „Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten“ von ... more Nach dem Erscheinen des Artikels „Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten“ von Michael Bányai in JEgH 6 (2013): 46–129 entstand die Idee, die dort vorgebrachte Hypothese der Umkehrung der Herrscherreihenfolge in der 25. Dyn. in einer Expertenrunde zu diskutieren. Zu diesem Anlass trafen sich am 16.05.2014 Michael Bányai, Gerard Broekman, Dan´el Kahn, Karl Jansen-Winkeln, Claus Jurman, Hans Neumann, László Török sowie Meike Becker, Anke Ilona Blöbaum und Angelika Lohwasser in Münster bei der Diskussionsrunde „Die Chronologie der 25. Dynastie im alten Ägypten“.Nach der Vorstellung der Thesen durch Bányai und der Reaktionen auf bestimmte Argumente bzw. Vorstellung von einschlägigen Quellen durch die geladenen Referenten eröffneten wir eine Podiumsdiskussion, die zuletzt auch für das anwesende Auditorium geöffnet wurde.
In den abschließenden Gesprächen wurde die Idee geboren, dass Bányai eine Überarbeitung seines Artikels unter Einbeziehung der Stellungnahmen verfasst und diese zur Kommentierung nochmals den Referenten zukommen lässt. Die jeweiligen Kommentare sind—mit Namenskürzeln gekennzeichnet—direkt nach dem betreffenden Absatz eingefügt worden bzw., sofern es sich um Literaturergänzungen handelt, in den Fußnoten beigefügt worden.
Mit dem erneuten Aufgreifen des Problems der Herrscherreihenfolge von Schabako und Schebitko und den Kommentaren zu den einzelnen Argumenten hoffen wir, die Diskussion auch in einem weiteren Rahmen anzustoßen.
Journal Asiatique 303/1, 2015
Zahlreiche bisher unbekannte Synchronismen erlauben eine grundsätzliche Bestätigung der Boese-Wil... more Zahlreiche bisher unbekannte Synchronismen erlauben eine grundsätzliche Bestätigung der Boese-Wilhelm Chronologie und führen zu einer unerwarteten Rekonstruktion der Herrschaftszeit von Adad-šuma-uṣur und seiner Interaktion mit den zeitgenössischen assyrischen Könige.
Uploads
Papers by Michael Gabriel Bányai
The territory of Hartapu’s kingdom can be reconstructed based on the endowment of Urḫi-Teššub’s sons by Tutḫaliya IV, CTH 569, compensating for territory promised by “the father of his majesty.” This likely includes parts of the Lower Country not given to Kurunta by Ḫattušili III, a territory that Hartapu expanded after the fall of the Hittite empire.
The renewed 8th-century interest in Hartapu’s ancient inscription is best explained in the context of the Tuwati-Wasusarma dynasty’s efforts to reclaim Hartapu’s territory, indirectly mentioned in TKH 1, which was lost to the Phrygians across the Halys since 850 BC. These territories, added by Hartapu to the state later known from Assyrian sources as Tabal, reflect his efforts to settle the Muški along the Halys, observable through pottery links between Kaman-Kalehöyük and Porsuk IV.
Archaeological evidence proves the presence of the Muški in Central Anatolia (Halys Bend) sometime before their first Assyrian attestation on the other side of the Taurus under Ninurta-apil-Ekur (1191–1179 BC). This corrects the misapprehension, connecting the Muški with Gordion. The arrival of the Phrygians in Anatolia is associated with the radical cultural modifications at the end of phase YHSS 7B at Gordion, c. 900 BC, corresponding to the simultaneous desertion of European sites associated with the Bryges.
A discussion of the literary material from this period demonstrates the necessity of a new approach to Early Israel and its possible relations to Retenu, a term designating an Asiatic neighbor of Egypt.
People´s invasion, necessary.
The paper identifies a sizable group of Cretan artifacts produced in a Levant setting beginning with the Middle Bronze Age. It can be explained only by the existence of at least one palatial centre of production (probably in the Pentapolis), which, given the region's political situation, still eludes sufficient archaeological investigation.
The evidence permits the new discussion of representations of Cretans in Theban graves, which, near the end of the reign of Thutmose III, turned away from the archetypical Aegean Cretan embassies and were replaced with figures of acculturated Levantine Cretans.
The watershed moment leading to the abandonment of the prototypical Aegean image of the Cretans must be identified with the presentation of ʺgiftsʺ by the Mycenean embassy recorded for Thutmose III's 42nd
year in his annals. The correlation of the modifications in the Theban tombs imagery and the annals of Thutmose III reiterates the traditional interpretation of the fashion change of the visiting Aegeans in these
representations as illustrating regime change in Crete and also documents the acculturation of the "outremer" Aegeans within their Asian environment.
The new chronolgy of the Cretan settlement in the Levante is also important for the discussion of Early Israel, since it once provided an important synchronisation factor for the biblical events.
Due to the limitations imposed by the journal, I can not post the paper online yet. Please let me know, if you should be interested in the paper. I will send you a copy.
The last question is seemingly the easiest to answer thanks to the existence of a toponym in the Alalakh archives (the latter core territory of the Palasatini state) read by Wiseman (1951) as Ḫa-zi-lu-uḫ-e, which because of its attestation continuity (it appears even in Ugarit as ḥasīlu) must be the equivalent of the Gen. 10:14 and 1 Chron. 1:12 "Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came).”
The earliest level finds at Tell Tayinat, possibly documenting semi-nomadic beginnings of the site by ca. 1200 BCE, show a complete lack of the later so characteristic aegeanizing LH IIIC pottery, considered to be symptomatic for the Philistine. Quite to the contrary, the earliest levels show an exclusivity of the Anatolian Plain Wares, which beginn no earlier than 1140 BCE to very slowly get a growing number of LH IIIC Wares mixed to the assemblage (beginning by a meagre 5 % of the assemblage).
The only possible conclusion concerning the Northern Philistines is, that they represent Anatolian settlers coming from other regions of the former Hittite empire, slowly accomodating within a larger Sea-People phenomenon dominated by Milet - whose pottery production they beginn to imitate.
The paper proposes the identification of the Philistine group with the Palaa, Hittite subjects in Paphlagonia. Contemporary migrations also traced back to Paphlagonia by late antique historiography, like that of the Aenetii to Illyria, led to similar ethnic formations named among others Palaeste (and Pala-rioi, Pala-unos, Paleis, Pali-ros). The -este suffix in Illyrian place names (Tergeste, Ateste,Praeneste, Humiste, Bigeste) and the addition of the ethnical appurtenance suffix, -ini (Pala-este-ini, Tergestini, etc.) explain both name forms known for the southern and norther Philistines. The equivalent suffix -asti is documented also in Hittite and is thus made probable also for Palaic. Even the double form of attestation of the ethnic name Pa/Wa-lasatini is easily explainable in Palaic, which is the only Bronze Age Anatolian language to display the labial fricative leading to regular alternative spellings with pa/wa (example wu/pu-la-a-ši-na- a kind of bread).
Concerning Egypt there is a re-adjustment of the revolt of Amenmesse to a date during the very reign of Merenptah, which was made necessary by new archaeological finds and a re-consideration of the written record, which precludes all reconstruction attempts of his reign made hitherto: either as overlapping with that of Sethos II. or preceding it and following to Merenptah. This corresponds exactly to the stories combatted by Josephus (Manetho, Chairemon, Apion), as also echoed in the prophecies of the Lamb and of the Potter. Certainly, is the mention of Moses and Joseph in these stories not historical – going back to ancient propaganda provided for example by pChassinat III (Ramses V.), itself a deformation of the Bata story contemporary with the events at the time of Merenptah. Already Grandet saw some kind of relation linking the retrospective historical picture drawn by pHarris I to the stories concerning the so-called “guerre des impurs” in Manetho. One should regard the turbulences during the reign of Merenptah, in which the Israelites played a major role according to most sources, as the major event at the end of the New Kingdom sounding the end of the Egyptian colonial empire in Asia.
Concerning Early Israel it is shown that the changing pattern of archaeological evidence in the hill-country may be explained solely within the context of the Egyptian civil war, which ended with an expulsion of the Israelite supporters of Amenmesse. Any tentative to additionally link the re-sedentarisation of the hill-country with the biblical Exodus is therefore fortuitous and unmotivated. The more so, because rests of the literature of the time of the Amenmesse revolt allude to a much longer prehistory of Egyptian-Israelite contacts.
I added here a couple of notices to the official publication, which I have left out in NABU on grounds of brevity.
instead with two different individuals. The first assumption leads to a sequence of grand viziers which is in strong contradiction for example with the archaeological record at Tell Fekheriye, where Aššuriddin
is attested till to the end of the middle-Assyrian occupation, while Šulmānu-mušabši, the grandvizier, is entirely absent. BATSH 4, 9 can be read as alluding to the death of Šulmānu-mušabši and not to the preparations for his installation as a grand-vizier. The related question concerning the real position of the subordinate official Sîn-mudammeq under Aššur-iddin is discussed and results in a rejection of his identification as a vizier.
In den abschließenden Gesprächen wurde die Idee geboren, dass Bányai eine Überarbeitung seines Artikels unter Einbeziehung der Stellungnahmen verfasst und diese zur Kommentierung nochmals den Referenten zukommen lässt. Die jeweiligen Kommentare sind—mit Namenskürzeln gekennzeichnet—direkt nach dem betreffenden Absatz eingefügt worden bzw., sofern es sich um Literaturergänzungen handelt, in den Fußnoten beigefügt worden.
Mit dem erneuten Aufgreifen des Problems der Herrscherreihenfolge von Schabako und Schebitko und den Kommentaren zu den einzelnen Argumenten hoffen wir, die Diskussion auch in einem weiteren Rahmen anzustoßen.
The territory of Hartapu’s kingdom can be reconstructed based on the endowment of Urḫi-Teššub’s sons by Tutḫaliya IV, CTH 569, compensating for territory promised by “the father of his majesty.” This likely includes parts of the Lower Country not given to Kurunta by Ḫattušili III, a territory that Hartapu expanded after the fall of the Hittite empire.
The renewed 8th-century interest in Hartapu’s ancient inscription is best explained in the context of the Tuwati-Wasusarma dynasty’s efforts to reclaim Hartapu’s territory, indirectly mentioned in TKH 1, which was lost to the Phrygians across the Halys since 850 BC. These territories, added by Hartapu to the state later known from Assyrian sources as Tabal, reflect his efforts to settle the Muški along the Halys, observable through pottery links between Kaman-Kalehöyük and Porsuk IV.
Archaeological evidence proves the presence of the Muški in Central Anatolia (Halys Bend) sometime before their first Assyrian attestation on the other side of the Taurus under Ninurta-apil-Ekur (1191–1179 BC). This corrects the misapprehension, connecting the Muški with Gordion. The arrival of the Phrygians in Anatolia is associated with the radical cultural modifications at the end of phase YHSS 7B at Gordion, c. 900 BC, corresponding to the simultaneous desertion of European sites associated with the Bryges.
A discussion of the literary material from this period demonstrates the necessity of a new approach to Early Israel and its possible relations to Retenu, a term designating an Asiatic neighbor of Egypt.
People´s invasion, necessary.
The paper identifies a sizable group of Cretan artifacts produced in a Levant setting beginning with the Middle Bronze Age. It can be explained only by the existence of at least one palatial centre of production (probably in the Pentapolis), which, given the region's political situation, still eludes sufficient archaeological investigation.
The evidence permits the new discussion of representations of Cretans in Theban graves, which, near the end of the reign of Thutmose III, turned away from the archetypical Aegean Cretan embassies and were replaced with figures of acculturated Levantine Cretans.
The watershed moment leading to the abandonment of the prototypical Aegean image of the Cretans must be identified with the presentation of ʺgiftsʺ by the Mycenean embassy recorded for Thutmose III's 42nd
year in his annals. The correlation of the modifications in the Theban tombs imagery and the annals of Thutmose III reiterates the traditional interpretation of the fashion change of the visiting Aegeans in these
representations as illustrating regime change in Crete and also documents the acculturation of the "outremer" Aegeans within their Asian environment.
The new chronolgy of the Cretan settlement in the Levante is also important for the discussion of Early Israel, since it once provided an important synchronisation factor for the biblical events.
Due to the limitations imposed by the journal, I can not post the paper online yet. Please let me know, if you should be interested in the paper. I will send you a copy.
The last question is seemingly the easiest to answer thanks to the existence of a toponym in the Alalakh archives (the latter core territory of the Palasatini state) read by Wiseman (1951) as Ḫa-zi-lu-uḫ-e, which because of its attestation continuity (it appears even in Ugarit as ḥasīlu) must be the equivalent of the Gen. 10:14 and 1 Chron. 1:12 "Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came).”
The earliest level finds at Tell Tayinat, possibly documenting semi-nomadic beginnings of the site by ca. 1200 BCE, show a complete lack of the later so characteristic aegeanizing LH IIIC pottery, considered to be symptomatic for the Philistine. Quite to the contrary, the earliest levels show an exclusivity of the Anatolian Plain Wares, which beginn no earlier than 1140 BCE to very slowly get a growing number of LH IIIC Wares mixed to the assemblage (beginning by a meagre 5 % of the assemblage).
The only possible conclusion concerning the Northern Philistines is, that they represent Anatolian settlers coming from other regions of the former Hittite empire, slowly accomodating within a larger Sea-People phenomenon dominated by Milet - whose pottery production they beginn to imitate.
The paper proposes the identification of the Philistine group with the Palaa, Hittite subjects in Paphlagonia. Contemporary migrations also traced back to Paphlagonia by late antique historiography, like that of the Aenetii to Illyria, led to similar ethnic formations named among others Palaeste (and Pala-rioi, Pala-unos, Paleis, Pali-ros). The -este suffix in Illyrian place names (Tergeste, Ateste,Praeneste, Humiste, Bigeste) and the addition of the ethnical appurtenance suffix, -ini (Pala-este-ini, Tergestini, etc.) explain both name forms known for the southern and norther Philistines. The equivalent suffix -asti is documented also in Hittite and is thus made probable also for Palaic. Even the double form of attestation of the ethnic name Pa/Wa-lasatini is easily explainable in Palaic, which is the only Bronze Age Anatolian language to display the labial fricative leading to regular alternative spellings with pa/wa (example wu/pu-la-a-ši-na- a kind of bread).
Concerning Egypt there is a re-adjustment of the revolt of Amenmesse to a date during the very reign of Merenptah, which was made necessary by new archaeological finds and a re-consideration of the written record, which precludes all reconstruction attempts of his reign made hitherto: either as overlapping with that of Sethos II. or preceding it and following to Merenptah. This corresponds exactly to the stories combatted by Josephus (Manetho, Chairemon, Apion), as also echoed in the prophecies of the Lamb and of the Potter. Certainly, is the mention of Moses and Joseph in these stories not historical – going back to ancient propaganda provided for example by pChassinat III (Ramses V.), itself a deformation of the Bata story contemporary with the events at the time of Merenptah. Already Grandet saw some kind of relation linking the retrospective historical picture drawn by pHarris I to the stories concerning the so-called “guerre des impurs” in Manetho. One should regard the turbulences during the reign of Merenptah, in which the Israelites played a major role according to most sources, as the major event at the end of the New Kingdom sounding the end of the Egyptian colonial empire in Asia.
Concerning Early Israel it is shown that the changing pattern of archaeological evidence in the hill-country may be explained solely within the context of the Egyptian civil war, which ended with an expulsion of the Israelite supporters of Amenmesse. Any tentative to additionally link the re-sedentarisation of the hill-country with the biblical Exodus is therefore fortuitous and unmotivated. The more so, because rests of the literature of the time of the Amenmesse revolt allude to a much longer prehistory of Egyptian-Israelite contacts.
I added here a couple of notices to the official publication, which I have left out in NABU on grounds of brevity.
instead with two different individuals. The first assumption leads to a sequence of grand viziers which is in strong contradiction for example with the archaeological record at Tell Fekheriye, where Aššuriddin
is attested till to the end of the middle-Assyrian occupation, while Šulmānu-mušabši, the grandvizier, is entirely absent. BATSH 4, 9 can be read as alluding to the death of Šulmānu-mušabši and not to the preparations for his installation as a grand-vizier. The related question concerning the real position of the subordinate official Sîn-mudammeq under Aššur-iddin is discussed and results in a rejection of his identification as a vizier.
In den abschließenden Gesprächen wurde die Idee geboren, dass Bányai eine Überarbeitung seines Artikels unter Einbeziehung der Stellungnahmen verfasst und diese zur Kommentierung nochmals den Referenten zukommen lässt. Die jeweiligen Kommentare sind—mit Namenskürzeln gekennzeichnet—direkt nach dem betreffenden Absatz eingefügt worden bzw., sofern es sich um Literaturergänzungen handelt, in den Fußnoten beigefügt worden.
Mit dem erneuten Aufgreifen des Problems der Herrscherreihenfolge von Schabako und Schebitko und den Kommentaren zu den einzelnen Argumenten hoffen wir, die Diskussion auch in einem weiteren Rahmen anzustoßen.
I invite you to take share in the session following to the previous discussion of my "Northern Philistines Reconsidered" paper. Professor Amihai Mazar and professor Aren Maeir have raised a number of legitimate questions regarding my thesis of a late Philistine settlement of the Levante and their non-Aegean identity. I now offer herewith a detailed answer to their gentle critique.
As so often, can be the answer to a critique, a critique itself. However, targeting ideas and not persons.
Thanks for your joining the discussion.
Your contribution and opinion is greately appreciated.
More linguistic evidence for the explanation of the Homeric Halizones as an allusion to the provenance of the Hittites
Additional linguistic evidence for the explanation of the Homeic Amazones in connection with the Hittites
More linguistic evidence for the explanation of the name Attarišiya as a reduplication similar to that in the name Attarima (as read in the Kölutolu text by Masson) also appearing in Madduwatta
Since I do not intend to go in publication modus with every addition, I choose the - in the meanwhile proven - way of direct publication over Academia.edu. Any other minor or major additions, modifications, to the issue, will be continuously added to this file.
Der Artikel ist zwar längst überarbeitet und in mehreren Artikel aufgespalten, er bleibt dennoch von Interesse, wenn man von seinen anfänglichen "shortcommings" absieht bis zur Publikation der daraus entstanden überarbeiteten Artikel.
Die Untersuchung mykenischen Griechenlands wird unter dem Titel "Die mykenische Staatenwelt: zwischen Mykene und Theben" in dem Band Kelder, J.M., and Waal, W.J.I. (Eds.), From LUGAL.GAL to wanax. Great Kings in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. Leiden, (vermutlich 2018)