Therefore there is no reason why there should not have been a thriving copper industry in Syria in ancient days, and in fact we find copper to have been so conspicuous a product of that land, that the epithet applied to it by the Egyptians is not Cypriote, as in classical days, but Asiatic1). § 3. In view of this Cyprus can no longer hold a unique position as the copper-producing land of antiquity. We are therefore at liberty to examine afresh the evidence of the Egyptian monuments as to the position of Asy and Alashia, and the first question which springs to our minds is, how will these changed conditions affect the hitherto difficult question of the export of ivory tusks from these lands? If the transference of these lands from the island of Cyprus to the mainland of Syria will do away with this difficulty, then at the very outset our thesis obtains support. As a matter of fact, if Asy can be freed from Cyprus and assigned to N. Syria, the evidence of the ivory not only ceases to be a difficulty, but falls in with all the other products of these countries as a natural thing. This is the case because we already know that elephants were common in the XVth cent. B. C. in N. Syria, as the Syrians in the tomb of Rekhmara are depicted bringing a live one as tribute, and moreover Amenemheb) gives a lively account of the hunting of 120 elephants in Niy on the Euphrates. Again in the thirteenth campaign of Thothmes III 5 tusks are brought from Syria), and also in the forty-first year (?) Rutennu brings 18 tusks1). This is just what is represented in the tombs, as for instance in Rekhmara, where the Syrians bring a pair of tusks, while in Menkheperrasenb the Kadesh people bring one, and possibly a second. th In N. Syria then ivory was fairly generally obtainable in the XIV t and XVth cents. B. C., but usually in very limited quantities). It is in just such limited quantities as the above named, that Asy and Alashia send their ivory, for in the Annals of Thothmes III Asy sends three tusks, and again three tusks appear from Alashia in the Tell el Amarna Letters 6). § 4. So then the evidence of the ivory trade fits in with the new evidence as to the occurence of copper, and unless some serious objection can be raised to the proposed situation of Asy and Alashia in N. Syria, D hmt stt Newberry, 1) Breasted, Ancient Records II. §§ 45. 755 etc. The Life of Rekhmara pl. XVIII. Further references to Breasted will be given under the title BAR. 5) It continued so at least into the XIth cent. when Tiglath Pileser I killed ten elephants and captured four alive in Kharran. King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria pp. 85. 139. 6) See table of products § 30. 1* this position must stand, in that it solves the difficulty of the ivory tusks. For this difficulty has been one of the most serious in considering these names to represent Cyprus. We will now proceed to a discussion of the evidence to be obtained from the Egyptian monuments as to these lands, their products, their position, and anything else we can learn about them. It will perhaps be best to begin with a discussion of the evidence to be obtained as to the position of Alashia, as that land had not been supposed to represent Cyprus until Max Müller suggested its identification with Asy. Alashia. The Land of Alashia appears under two forms-Alashia and Alasa. These are known to be merely forms of the same name, Alashia being the cuneiform rendering, and Alasa being the hieroglyphic. The cuneiform rendering A-la-ši-ia is obtained from the Tell el Amarna Letters, which include a number from the king of this country. That the Egyptian name Alasa represents the cuneiform Alashia is substantiated by letter 29'), which bears in the cuneiform text the address Alashia (A-la-ši-ia) as its place of origin, and which is endorsed in Egyptian hieratic „Letter of the Prince of Alasa" It is thus beyond dispute, that Alashia and Alasa represent the cuneiform and hieroglyphic versions of the same name, and it can only be regretted that proof so indubitable as this, is as rare as it is in archæology. § 6. Alashia originally was placed both by Max Müller) and by Maspero3) in Syria about the mouth of the Orontes river, along the coast. Müller confines it to the country south of this river, while Maspero makes it stretch to the foot of the Amanus Mountains, on the north of the river. But in 1895 Müller tried to show, that Alashia was only another form of Asy, which he accepted as Cyprus. To put it shortly, his view comes to this; that as is well known a liquid is often left unexpressed in the hieroglyphic writing of native Egyptian words, as for instance romeṭ „men“ and henket beer", which are commonly written rt and hkt. Hence, he suggests, a foreign word might also suppress a liquid, and such a foreign word as is written in the hieroglyphs A-si-y might stand for Assiy(a), which might stand again for Alsiy(a) or Arsiy(a). But as it stands and without more proof this theory does not meet with general acceptance1). 1) The Tell el Amarna Letters. Winckler's Edition 1896 p. XVIII. 3) Rec. de Trav. X, 1888 p. 210. Struggle of the Nations 1896 map opposite p. 142. 4) As for instance Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations 1896 p. 142 note 3 and map facing, and all the Egyptologists with whom I have dicussed the question. Ed. Meyer however accepts the identification: Festschrift für G. Ebers 1897 p. 65. § 7. Thus Müller would transfer Alashia from the mainland to yprus. He supported this contention mainly by an appeal to the copper exports, and the neutrality shown by the king. However he did not bring orward any evidence to show that Alashia was an island rather than a oast land in any locality. But in favour of the island theory he brought orward the neutrality, which Alashia preserved between the Hittites and the Pharaoh, as being more likely in a state situated in an island like Cyprus, than in one situated on the mainland. But it should be remarked that the king of this land was not the only ruler, who still believed in the prestige of Egypt, for many of the vassal princes had no wish to revolt, but remained true to their suzerain. Were the old position of Alashia on the Syrian coast to be accepted, his attitude of awaiting the turn of events would not be surprising seeing that his land would then lie between the two rival powers, and he would naturally be anxious to stand well with the winner. The support lent to the Cyprus theory by the production of copper has now been shown1) not to be valid in the attempt to distinguish Cyprus from the mainland in the north of Syria, i. e. the original position assigned to Alashia. Thus of these three arguments in favour of the identity of Alashia with Cyprus, the copper is found to be quite inconclusive; the neutrality is less easily to be explained in an island, than in a mainland state situated in the position originally assigned to Alashia: and there remains the attempt to identify the name Asy with Alasa, which even if proved beyond possibility of doubt, would yet not imply an identity with Cyprus, for the fact of there being a thriving copper industry on the continent shakes the very foundations of this equation of Asy and Cyprus. § 8. There are still two more possibilities, which have been considered to point towards Cyprus as the land of Alashia. Firstly the title of Alcoóras found in an inscription from Cyprus to which must be added the Cypriote place names Alasso, Ailasyka and Arsos). Secondly the equation of the name Alashia with the Biblical Elishah. The epithet Alastotas is applied to Apollo in an inscription found at Tamassos3), and which is taken by Jensen) to prove that Alashia is the name of Cyprus. But Jensen himself admits, that the possibility of a foreign origin is not to be excluded. Now it is an axiom of archaeology, that too much weight must not be attached to a resemblance between 1) § 2. 2) Von Lichtenberg MVAG 1906 no. 2: Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte von Kypros p. 7. 3) R. Meister, Die griechischen Dialekte II, 171. 4) Zeitschr. für Assyr. X, 1895/6, p. 380. two names of different dates, unless supported by other independent evidence. Therefore this name standing, as it now does, alone could not of itself outweigh the other intersupporting pieces of evidence for the continental position of Alashia, even if it were certain that the title referred to the district, in which the inscription was found. But if the god were the local deity, what need is there of giving him an epithet of locality? He is just "Apollo", in whom all other forms must be absorbed, unless: definite steps are taken to preserve their identity. Does not this title then imply, that (1) its bearer was the god of Alas, but that (2) he was not native to Tamassos, but was imported thither from Alas, and that in the struggle for existence with the local competition, he had to preserve his identity by adding his patronymic? This appears to be a custom common to imported gods, such as the Baal-Lebanon found in the famous inscription on the bronze bowl, which was bought in Cyprus1) where this god is addressed by a citizen of Qarthadasht); or again the Boeotian sanctuary of the imported god Apollo of Delos, which was called the Delion3); or the epithet Cretagenes which was applied to Zeus in Gaza); or the statement ovat dì oi ovyyerées avtov Aù Kagiq3), which was made about the family of Isagoras at Athens as if that were a clue to its origin which was otherwise unknown; or the temple of the Paphian Aphrodite in Tegea which is stated by Pausanias to have been directly due to influence from abroad, for he says it was founded by Laodice who was living in Paphos6) or finally the temple of the Achaean Demeter, which is stated to have been built in Athens by foreigners-the Gephyraeans who fled to Attica from the Boeotians 7). Hence this title Aaotótag would imply, that the god 1) Corp. Insc. Sem., Vol. I, 1, pp. 22 ff., no. 5. 2) There is no need to suppose that the bowl must be imported, as was done at one time (Renan, Journal des Savants 1877, p. 491 ff. Clermont-Ganneau, The Athenaeum, Apl. 17, 1880, p. 504) for Schrader (Sitzungsber. d. königl. preuß. Akad. d. Wissenschaft. 1890, p. 337 ff.) has shown clearly that there was a Qarthadasht in Cyprus and that it was probably Kition. Hence when an object bearing this name occurs in Cyprus, it is presumably of Cypriote origin. This bowl therefore shows that the foreign Baal-Lebanon was worshipped in the island. 3) Herodotus VI, 118. 4) Steph. Byz., Gaza. 5) Herodotus V, 66. 6) ἔστι δὲ καὶ Δήμητρος ἐν Τεγέᾳ καὶ Κόρης ναός ἃς ἐπονομάζουσι Καρπο φόρους, πλησίον δὲ Αφροδίτης καλουμένης Παφίας· ἱδρύσατο αὐτὴν Λαοδίκη, γεγονυία μέν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον ἐδήλωσα, ἀπὸ ̓Αγαπήνορος ὃς ἐς Τροίαν ἡγήσατο ̓Αρκάσιν, olzovoa de ev Пlago. Pausanias, Bk. VIII, Ch. 53, § 7. 7) οἱ δὲ Γεφυραῖοι υπολειφθέντες ὕστερον ὑπὸ Βοιωτῶν ἀναχωρέουσι ἐς ̓Αθήνας· καί σφι ιρά ἐστι ἐν ̓Αθήνησι ἱδρυμένα, τῶν οὐδὲν μέτα τοῖσι λοιποῖσι Αθηναίοισι, ἄλλα τε κεχωρισμένα τῶν ἄλλων ἱρῶν καὶ δὴ καὶ ̓Αχαιίης Δήμητρος igóv te xai őgyia. Herodotus V, 61. I owe this reference and the two preceding ones to the kindness of Prof. Myres. was imported rather than native to Cyprus. As for the place names, à though these are of much importance, yet names resembling Alashia ar e not confined to Cyprus but are to be found elsewhere in this neighbe urhood i. e. Arsus (mod) on the N. Syrian coast, and the island of Elaovõбa off the Cilician coast. § 9. The other possibility, which has pointed towards Cyprus, is the comparison, which Conder1) made of the name Alashia with the Biblical Elishah. Elishah is not known to be Cyprus, but has been identified as many places2). This identification again led to the island theory, as in Ezek. XXVII, 7, a word " is applied to this land. This word has been translated, and generally read „Isles" as in this passage The Isles of Elishah". But it is known, that this word stands equally well for „coasts, bo rders", and does not necessarily imply an Island3). It has also been sai d. that Elishah in Gen. X, 4, 5 appears in a Greek entourage and would therefore be suitable to Cyprus, which was a Greek island. Now the sons of Javan are said to be Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. Javan is doubtless Ionia, Tarshish has been compared to Tarsus, and Kittim has been generally supposed to be Cyprus. There remains Dodanim or Rodanim, as it has sometimes been amended. This has been supposed to be Rhodes in accordance with the LXX reading Pódiot, in which case Elishah would certainly appear in a company mainly composed of Greek lands and islands. But there is another name much nearer in form to Dodanim than Rhodes, and if it were possible to see in Dodanim the name so well known from Egyptian sources - Danuna (a people of N. Syria)4), then any 1) Conder. PEFQS 1892, p. 45. 2) As 'Ekaovoga west of Tarsus, which island has been mentioned by Niebuhr as a possible identification of Alashia itself (Studien und Bemerkungen, 1894, p. 100), as the Aeolians, as Crete, Italy, Carthage and many others (Encyclo: Biblica Elishah, and Robertson, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 471. Notes on Javan). 3) Brown Driver and Briggs. Hebrew English Lexicon N. Also Gen: X,5 RV and 18: XX, 6 where this word is used of Philistia. 4) Müller, OLZ III, 290, considers the best emendation of Dodanim to be Donanim which would then be comparable to the Danuna of the Egyptian monuments. These people are among the Sea Raiders from the west coasts of Asia minor. Rameses III speaks of them as being in their isles in the Great Harris Papyrus (BAR IV, § 403). In the Tell el Amarna Letters as part of the news of Canaan, Abi-Milki of Tyre reports that the king of Danuna is dead, that his brother has succeeded him, and that his land is peaceful. As he says that this is in answer to a request of Pharaoh's for the news of Canaan there can be no reason for supposing that these Danuna were living anywhere but in Syria, and to this agrees the close knowledge of Danuna affairs, which Abi Milki shows. In view of the raids of another Asia Minor people, the Lukki, |