ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

necessity of considering Elishah as a Greek land, because of its mainly Greek neighbours, would disappear. Elishah would thus appear as land in the neighbourhood of Danuna, N. Syria; and of Kittim, Cyprus and of Tarshish, Tarsus; and to a less degree in the neighbourhood of Javan, Ionia. It would then be entirely comparable to the eastern Asia. Minor place Tarsus, with which it is mentioned, and-appearing. as it thus would, among mainland countries of N. Syria and Asia Minor, and the word island having been eliminated.-there need be no necessity to see in Elishah anything but a mainland country also, nor would there be any reason to see a specially Greek atmosphere in its surroundings.

If the above equation should stand, Elishah will appear in exactly the position, which the evidence to be brought forward in this article assigns to Alashia, i. e. on the coast, in the neighbourhood of Danuna (N. Syria), and as it is in the North, therefore it must be near Cilicia (Tarsus) and Cyprus (Kittim). Any probability in the theory, that Elishah is Cyprus, is weakened by the name Kittim, which is often considered to stand for this island. The children of Javan thus would form a compact group round the shores of the N. E. Levant; the father being the next coast people sufficiently important to be known by name at so great a distance. The father perhaps was considered by the Hebrews as the most typically western in culture and dress; the children composed the outlying eastern fringe of this strange people, who extended round the N. W. borders. of the Semitic countries and for an unknown distance back. In such a case the influence of Elishah would not be on the side of the identity of Alashia with Cyprus, but is on the side of a mainland position.

§ 10. Thus then of the various possibilities, both the first three and now these two which, at one time seemed to point towards Cyprus as Alashia, are found either to be not conclusive, or else to be capable of bearing another interpretation. To this must be added one more piece of evidence, which though negative is of some force in militating against the identity of Alashia and Cyprus. It has already been brought forward by Mr. Hall1) and is, that though considerable excavations have been carried on in Cyprus, yet no traces of cuneiform have been found in the island, except the stele set up by Sargon 2), and the imported cylinder seals of various dates3). Hence no native use of cuneiform has been found up to

reported from Alashia at this time there is nothing improbable in this view. Thus then Dodanim may well be N. Syria; or if it is preferred still to refer the name to the neighbourhood of Ionia, the name would stand at this date not for Greeks, but for Pre-Greeks.

1) PSBA XXXI, 1909, p. 228.

2) Oberhummer, Die Insel Cypern, p. 9.

3) Sayce, Trans. Soc. Bibl. Archy V, p. 441.

the present, yet we know cuneiform to have been used in Alashia, which contributed its quota to the Tell el Amarna Correspondance. On the other hand we know from the addresses of various of the writers of these Tell el Amarna letters, that this very imperishable form of writing was commonly used on the mainland, and although very little excavating has been done in Syria, yet already one hoard of cuneiform tablets has come to light at Tell Ta'annek1). This piece of negative evidence, coming as it does on the top of so much that is inconclusive for Cyprus, becomes almost transformed into positive evidence, that Alashia cannot be Cyprus. On the strength of the resemblance between the two names, Alashia has been identified with the little island 'Elaovooa off the coast of west Cilicia. However before this could be accepted it would be necessary to show, that there was a thriving copper industry in this island, and even then the position would be too far west to fulfil the requirements of the lists of neighbours 2). The same may be said of the Aleian Plain in Cilicia3).

§ 11. Having found the probabilities, which seemed to point to Cyprus to be wanting, we can now approach the established facts, which are known about Alashia. They are:

1. Her position on the sea-coast.

2. Her position as given on the monuments, in which can be included the lands, with which she is mentioned in the Pap: Anastasi.

3. Her intimacy with Hatti and Shankhar (Singara), as shown in the Tell el Amarna Letters.

4. Her copper trade.

These are the solid facts, which must form the basis of any theory upon the subject of Alashia. The facts themselves cannot be disputed, however much the ensuing theory may be. Hence the less elaborate a theory be the nearer it is to the bald facts, and hence the less liable to be disputed. With this intention we can now proceed to examine each of these facts.

Apart from her copper export the most noticeable thing about Alashia is, that she is a maritime land. For in the first place we find that Wenamon's ship was driven by contrary winds to the land of Alasa1). Moreover the king of Alashia in letter 29 of the Tell el Amarna Letters

1) Sellin, Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta'annek in Palästina. Published in Denkschriften der K. Akad. d. Wiss., Wien 1906, Vol. LII.

2) Niebuhr, Studien und Bemerkungen, 1894, p. 101. Nöldeke, Zeitschr. für Äg. Sprache, 1900, p. 152.

3) Identification said to have been suggested by Sayce (Sir W. Ramsay, The Cities of S. Paul, p. 118).

4) BAR IV, § 591.

speaks of one of his ships; as also in letter 33, which is probably from him too, and with this last letter he sends a piece of a ship. Hence it is certain, that this land was situate on the sea-coast.

To discover what coast this was, it will be necessary to examine the Geographical Lists.

§ 12. Those which give data as to the position of Alashia are the six inscriptions nos. 10. 13. 15. 16. 19. 20 of the chronological list of passages, which is appended to this article. These six are extracted and grouped together here.

10. Seti I. Kheta. Naharain. Alasa. Akko.

[blocks in formation]

15. Rameses II. Asy. Alasa. Kheta. Singara. Keftiu.

[blocks in formation]

19. end of XIX dyn. Alasa. Kheta. Singara. Amorite Land. Tikhsi. 20. Rameses III. Kheta. Qode. Carchemish. Arvad. Alasa.

The evidence contained here for the position of the land is wonderfully unanimous. The loosest determination is that of Seti, no. 10, which places it between Naharain on the north and Akko (St. Jean d'Acre) on the south. No. 13 may not refer to Alasa at all as the inscription is damaged, but in any case the southern neighbour is Megiddo, which is comparable to St. Jean d'Acre, and the northern is Ḥamtu, a place the position of which is unknown, but which Müller1) classes with Alasa itself as a southern vassal of the Hittites. We have here a fairly clear boundary line outside of which it will be useless to search. This line runs N. E. from Akko to the neighbourhood of Aleppo and Naharain. From the remarks made above we know that Alashia was on the coast, therefore within this area, which Seti has delimited for us, we need only trouble about the coastline. Of this coastline anything to the south of Arvad is eliminated, as it was in the hands of the Egyptians, Thothmes III having conquered Arvad itself in campaigns V and VI. All Egyptian territory is eliminated as the king of Alashia approaches the Pharaoh as an equal, and there is no clear record of an invasion of Alasa by Thothmes III2). Hence

1) Asien und Europa 236. 262.

2) Unless perhaps the two forms nos. 213 and 236. (Sethe, Urkunden der XVIII. Dyn. p. 790, 791) in the lists of Thothmes III should represent Alasa, though they are not identical. Either or both may be tentative efforts of the scribes to transliterate the name, but from their positions in the lists they appear to be inland places not far from Aleppo and the Euphrates, and not on the coast. On the other hand from this inland position they may well represent the Alshe of the Assyrian inscriptions, and the Boghaz-Keui tablets, which land is known to be in this neighbourhood. If however they should finally prove to represent Alasa, it would mean, that this land was situated on the coast with a possible hinterland stretching inland to this neighbourhood.

Alashia's coastline must be north of Arvad. To this position in the neighbourhood of Arvad, which we have deduced on other grounds agrees no. 20 Rameses III's list of states attacked by the advancing barbarians. In this list Alasa is placed next to Arvad, as if in its neighbourhood, and as if to support Arvad, another inscription no. 19 names the neighbouring Amorite land, as if it were one of the neighbours of Alasa. These lists of neighbours agree together wonderfully, and admit of no doubt as to which group of nations Alasa belongs. In each of the six groups the nations are those of the extreme north of Syria, and of these especially Kheta and Singara, which are named more often than any other lands; Kheta being named five and Singara three times. These two lands will appear again as neighbours of Alasa in § 13, but from quite a different and even non-Egyptian source. In fact they are so closely connected with Alasa, that we need feel no qualms in accepting the restoration as Alasa of the broken name, which occurs with them in no. 16.

It must also be observed, that Alasa is mentioned in connection with inland not coast countries, some of them in the far interior of the mainland. But had this land been Cyprus one would have expected the continental lands, with which it was grouped to have been on the coast. Therefore from a consideration of the geographical lists, which give Alasa and her neighbours, we are led to conclude, that Alasa was on the sea-coast of Syria, north of Arvad, and therefore was a neighbour of the inland nations of the far North1).

§ 13. On turning to the few pages of ancient political history, which have been opened to us in the Tell el Amarna Correspondance, a singular confirmation of the above connections between Alashia and this pair, Kheta and Singara, is found. Out of all the nations, which he might have mentioned, the king of this land only names these two, for in letter 25 the king of Alashia shows himself very well posted in far inland affairs, for he writes to the Pharaoh warning him against the king of Hatti, and even the king of far distant Singara2). Moreover the same letter shows

1) The passage in Letter 81 seemingly contradicts this view. The reader is however referred to the later translation in Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, p. 499 letter 114 which reads "Frage ihn, ob ich ihn nicht (von) Alašia an dich gesandt habe", which is very different, though the note on p. 1212 still reflects the meaning suggested in the older translation. The passage is evidently obscure. The new translation is in full agreement with our position for Alashia, i. e. on the north of Gebal, but does not show whether in Cyprus or on the mainland. According to Knudtzon's translation Gebal is thus on the way from Alashia to Egypt and its prince forwards the passenger on his journey.

2) Sanhar as it is spelt in the cuneiform. It is considered by Müller (Asien, p. 279) to be the same as the Egyptian Sangara, as also by E. Meyer, (Festschrift für G. Ebers, 1897, p. 63).

us that these kings, one of whom we know to have been stirring up trouble further to the South in Syria, were very anxions to gain the goodwill and co-operation of the king of Alashia. Now had this country been situated in an island barely visible from the coast, Alashia's sympathies can have been of little interest to Hatti, and of still less interest to the mid-continental Singara, and in such a case Alashia's close knowledge of continental politics would be more surprising, than it would be, were it a large and important state on the mainland in the immediate neighbourhood of Hatti itself. In this latter case both the knowledge of Alashia and the overtures of the others would be quite natural. More than this, we find in letter 31 that Alashia apparently had connection with Canaan, though unfortunately this letter is much mutilated.

This habitual mention of Alasa with Kheta and Singara-twice at least, perhaps three times, on the part of the Egyptians in the Geographical Lists, and once by the king of Alashia himself-can hardly be a mere chance, but must be significant of a very close connection indeed.

Hence it would appear, that all this evidence from various sources agrees to a remarkable extent, and that so far as it can be interpreted appears to refer to the mainland and-to put it at the lowest estimatedoes not appear in any way distinctive of Cyprus.

§ 14. Lastly the copper trade of Alashia must be examined. As has already been seen § 2 this might from mineralogical reasons be distinctive of either Cyprus or the mainland. As we are dealing with a time, when copper was not called Cypriote but Asiatic, this evidence of the copper gravitates at once to Syria. A comparative table of the copper and copper-producing lands reported in the Annals of Thothmes III will show, that this epithet was not applied without reason. The copper from Asy is omitted, as that will be dealt with in the section devoted to this land (§ 18). To this table is prefixed the Alashian copper mentioned in the Tell el Armarna Letters.

[blocks in formation]
« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »