- the Sea Peoples, XIX - XX Dynasty in Egypt, the Hittites, the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Medittaranean, Egyptology, Ugaritic Studies, The Hittites, The Sea Peoples, Ancient Egyptian Literature, and 16 moreMaritime Archaeology, Prehistory, Aegean Archaeology, Historical Geography, Hittitology, Bronze Age, Aegean Prehistory, Elamite, Assyriologie, IT In Humanities, Sea Peoples, New Kingdom (Egyptology), Ancient Near Eastern History, Ancient Near East (Archaeology), Late Bronze Age, and Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology)edit
Assassination of Xerxes in Greek and Near Eastern sources The article deals with the accounts of Greek authors, as well as Babylonian and Egyptian texts, about assassination of Xerxes in 465 BC. The analysis of the sources allows to... more
Assassination of Xerxes in Greek and Near Eastern sources
The article deals with the accounts of Greek authors, as well as Babylonian and Egyptian texts, about assassination of Xerxes in 465 BC. The analysis of the sources allows to suggest that Artaxerxes, the youngest son of the Persian king, was involved in the plot against Xerxes. The evidence of Ctesias about the rebellion of «other Artabanus» in Bactria after the assassination of Xerxes makes possible to assume that the real name of Xerxes’ second son was Artabanus and not Hystaspes as he is named by the Greek historians. The Satrap Stela also mentions the events that took place in Persia in 465 BC. According to its text, the god Horus overthrew Xerxes and his son in the palace for sacrilege of his temple and priests in Egypt. This data reminds of Aelian’s evidence concerning the assassination of Xerxes by his own son for sacrilege of Belos’ tomb. It seems that the forming of such negative image of Xerxes could be connected with suppression of rebellions by the Persian king in Babylonia and Egypt at the very beginning of his rule, which was accompanied by confiscation of the temples’ wealth and property.
The article deals with the accounts of Greek authors, as well as Babylonian and Egyptian texts, about assassination of Xerxes in 465 BC. The analysis of the sources allows to suggest that Artaxerxes, the youngest son of the Persian king, was involved in the plot against Xerxes. The evidence of Ctesias about the rebellion of «other Artabanus» in Bactria after the assassination of Xerxes makes possible to assume that the real name of Xerxes’ second son was Artabanus and not Hystaspes as he is named by the Greek historians. The Satrap Stela also mentions the events that took place in Persia in 465 BC. According to its text, the god Horus overthrew Xerxes and his son in the palace for sacrilege of his temple and priests in Egypt. This data reminds of Aelian’s evidence concerning the assassination of Xerxes by his own son for sacrilege of Belos’ tomb. It seems that the forming of such negative image of Xerxes could be connected with suppression of rebellions by the Persian king in Babylonia and Egypt at the very beginning of his rule, which was accompanied by confiscation of the temples’ wealth and property.
Research Interests:
The article is devoted to analysis of the lines 36-38 of the 8th regnal year’ inscription of Ramses III in Medinet Habu: “I trusted in this god, the father of the gods[.....the fath]er of mine. I didn’t forget his sanctuary. My wish was... more
The article is devoted to analysis of the lines 36-38 of the 8th regnal year’ inscription of Ramses III in Medinet Habu: “I trusted in this god, the father of the gods[.....the fath]er of mine. I didn’t forget his sanctuary. My wish was strong to double the festivals and offerings in addition to what it was former. My heart was truthful daily. Abomination for me was falsehood [...what] was made by the gods who was satisfied with it. Their arms were for me as a shield of my breast (38) to dispel Dw.w DA.jt who were in my body”. The author shows that two words in hieroglyphic transcription mean evildoers and enemies correspondingly who were in the body of the Pharaoh. Based of parallel context from Medinet Habu, the author comes to conclusion that the body of Ramses III was considered by the inscription’s creators as whole Egypt. Accordingly, the enemies who harm to him were the Sea Peoples which are mentioned in this inscription before.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the meaning of Egyptian word qrn.t that appears in military texts of Merneptah and Ramses III. The Great Karnak inscription of Merneptah attributes the qrn.t to the Libyans and notes its absence among the Sea... more
The article deals with the meaning of Egyptian word qrn.t that appears in military texts of Merneptah and Ramses III. The Great Karnak inscription of Merneptah attributes the qrn.t to the Libyans and notes its absence among the Sea Peoples. It is widely believed that this word means foreskin. This opinion is based on the assumption that the word qrn.t was a loanword from Semitic languages. However, the Egyptian sources clearly show that this is a native Libyan word, and there is no reason to suggest the adoption of such specific vocabulary by the Libyans. Egyptian iconographic and written sources allow reverting to the old hypothesis, made by E. Naville, that this word stands for the so-called penis sheath worn by the Libyans and known from ethnographic data.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The biblical references to the origin of the Philistines from Crete are regularly attracted for the reconstruction of their early history. However, these data belong to a later period in comparison to the Sea Peoples’ migrations at the... more
The biblical references to the origin of the Philistines from Crete are regularly attracted for the reconstruction of their early history. However, these data belong to a later period in comparison to the Sea Peoples’ migrations at the beginning of the 12th century BC. The study allows to assert the creation of this tradition during the 10th century BC, in the reign of king David. The mercenaries Cherethites-Cretans and Pelethites, probably the Philistines, who served as king’s bodyguards, could have become a foundation for these etiological stories. The description of Goliath’s armor is specially attended. His equipment is an amalgam of Aegean and Near Eastern military traditions and cannot be used for the understanding of early Philistine weaponry.
Research Interests:
The study tries to locate Ptolemy’s campaign to ArAmj.w, mentioned in line 6 of the Satrap Stela. None of the previous attempts to do that appears convincing. In our view, the closest match to the name is the toponym , ArAmj, attested on... more
The study tries to locate Ptolemy’s campaign to ArAmj.w, mentioned in
line 6 of the Satrap Stela. None of the previous attempts to do that appears convincing. In our view, the closest match to the name is the
toponym , ArAmj, attested on the base of Pharaoh Taharqa’s statue
(CGC 770). It seems that the graphic transposition of signs G1 and N36
took place. Hence the name on the Satrap Stela could be a tribe-name
ArAmj.w, comparable with Arm.w in Napatian hieroglyphic inscriptions and Arame in Meroitic inscriptions. The fragment in line 6, then, provides a unique information on the military expedition of Ptolemy, Lagos’ son, to Nubia, an event that was not recorded by classical authors.
line 6 of the Satrap Stela. None of the previous attempts to do that appears convincing. In our view, the closest match to the name is the
toponym , ArAmj, attested on the base of Pharaoh Taharqa’s statue
(CGC 770). It seems that the graphic transposition of signs G1 and N36
took place. Hence the name on the Satrap Stela could be a tribe-name
ArAmj.w, comparable with Arm.w in Napatian hieroglyphic inscriptions and Arame in Meroitic inscriptions. The fragment in line 6, then, provides a unique information on the military expedition of Ptolemy, Lagos’ son, to Nubia, an event that was not recorded by classical authors.
Research Interests:
The article deals with controversial fragments of the Satrap Stela. The examination of the sign in line 9 suggests that its phonetic value was sbj. This led to the grammatical reassessment of the translation in lines 8–9 as “... before... more
The article deals with controversial fragments of the Satrap Stela. The examination of the sign in line 9 suggests that its phonetic value was sbj. This led to the grammatical reassessment of the translation in lines 8–9 as “... before <it> (=the Marshland Wadjet) passed into the possession of the rebel Xerxes”. Furthermore, the double meaning of Horus’ epithet HA.t/HA.t(.j) nTr.w xpr Hr-sA in line 11 was suggested. On the one hand, this phrase highlights Horus as the primeval god of creation in Buto. On the other hand, he was considered to be the son of Isis and Osiris, one who came into being later than the other gods, but became the supreme god. Moreover, controversial signs were regarded as the phrase (@r.w... Hr) wd nf sbj(.w). If so, the translation of line 11 may be “(Horus)... overthrew those rebels (namely) Xerxes in his palace and his elder son”.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the identification of the Sea Peoples in horned helmets on the reliefs depictions of the naval battle at Medinet Habu. In the author’s opinion, these warriors are the Weshesh. The other tribes of the Sea Peoples... more
The article deals with the identification of the Sea Peoples in horned helmets on the reliefs depictions of the naval battle at Medinet Habu. In the author’s opinion, these warriors are the Weshesh. The other tribes of the Sea Peoples mentioned in the inscription of the eighth year of Ramses III wear the plumed headgear that is depicted on the reliefs in Medinet Habu. It seems that the second Sea Peoples’ group that participated in the naval battle were the Shekelesh. They arementioned under the wrong name of the Sherden in close connection with the Weshesh and the sea in pHarris I. In the Medinet Habu’ reliefs, these Sea Peoples are connected with the image of a double-bird galley which has a good parallel in the Urnfield culture. The author believes that the Sea Peoples such as the Weshesh and the Shekelesh could originate from Western Mediterranean regions where the Urnfield culture and the onomastics connected with the Egyptian names of some Sea Peoples are attested.
Research Interests:
Safronov A. V. The Ramses III’s inscription and the Trojan War: on the historiography of the discussion The article discusses the translation and interpretation of lines 51–52 from the Medinet Abu inscription, which dates to the 5th year... more
Safronov A. V. The Ramses III’s inscription and the Trojan War: on the historiography of the discussion
The article discusses the translation and interpretation of lines 51–52 from the Medinet Abu inscription, which dates to the 5th year of the reign of Pharaoh Ramses III. For the first time, this inscription drew the attention of the Soviet classicist Vadim Tsymbursky (1957–2009). In 1994 he suggested that lines 51–52 comprise a mention of the Trojan War. However, Tsymbursky did not read Ancient Egyptian and therefore he was not in a position to bring forward a sufficient argument to confirm his suggestion. Russian scholars in the recent years have produced a series of expert studies regarding the topic in question, which, however, have neither confirmed nor rejected the Tsymbursky hypothesis. In 2006, and subsequently in 2019, the author of the present article examined de visu the inscription in question and offered a new interpretation: “(51) Northern foreign lands trembled in their bodies, namely: Peleset, Teker [and Tursha], (52) whose own land was ravaged. Their souls approached their end”. The author puts the Egyptian message into a clear historical context and justifies the possibility to compare the contents of these lines with the Greek epic tradition of the Trojan War.
The article discusses the translation and interpretation of lines 51–52 from the Medinet Abu inscription, which dates to the 5th year of the reign of Pharaoh Ramses III. For the first time, this inscription drew the attention of the Soviet classicist Vadim Tsymbursky (1957–2009). In 1994 he suggested that lines 51–52 comprise a mention of the Trojan War. However, Tsymbursky did not read Ancient Egyptian and therefore he was not in a position to bring forward a sufficient argument to confirm his suggestion. Russian scholars in the recent years have produced a series of expert studies regarding the topic in question, which, however, have neither confirmed nor rejected the Tsymbursky hypothesis. In 2006, and subsequently in 2019, the author of the present article examined de visu the inscription in question and offered a new interpretation: “(51) Northern foreign lands trembled in their bodies, namely: Peleset, Teker [and Tursha], (52) whose own land was ravaged. Their souls approached their end”. The author puts the Egyptian message into a clear historical context and justifies the possibility to compare the contents of these lines with the Greek epic tradition of the Trojan War.
Research Interests:
The history of the «Marshland Wadjet» and the problem of Iranian anthroponyms in the Satrap stela. The article deals with the possible mention of the Persian kings Artaxerxes III and Arses in the late 4th century BC Satrap stela, an... more
The history of the «Marshland Wadjet» and the problem of Iranian anthroponyms in the Satrap stela.
The article deals with the possible mention of the Persian kings Artaxerxes III and Arses in the late 4th century BC Satrap stela, an issue that has long been discussed. Having analyzed all arguments in support of this hypothesis, I reject them and conclude that only the Persian king Xerxes is mentioned in the text. A translation with commentary of lines 7–14 of the stela, mentioning the history of the «Marshland Wadjet» in 500–300 BC, is provided.
The article deals with the possible mention of the Persian kings Artaxerxes III and Arses in the late 4th century BC Satrap stela, an issue that has long been discussed. Having analyzed all arguments in support of this hypothesis, I reject them and conclude that only the Persian king Xerxes is mentioned in the text. A translation with commentary of lines 7–14 of the stela, mentioning the history of the «Marshland Wadjet» in 500–300 BC, is provided.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the issue concerning the destruction of famous commercial city Ugarit in northern Syria (earthquake, enemy invasion). Based on the Akkadian letter RS 94.169 from Urtenu archives, the author joins the opinion that... more
The article deals with the issue concerning the destruction of famous commercial city Ugarit in northern Syria (earthquake, enemy invasion). Based on the Akkadian letter RS 94.169 from Urtenu archives, the author joins the opinion that Ugarit was devastated by the Sea Peoples. In his view, this letter was written by the last king of Ugarit Ammurapi to the Pharaoh Ramses III to ask for military aid but not to the king of Carkemish, as the publishers of RS 94.169 believed. A sudden attack of the Sea Peoples prevented to send the letter to addressee.
Research Interests:
The article presents the first translation of the Rhetorical stela of Ramses III into the Russian language along with its annotation. The stela was discovered in the 19th century in the sanctuary of Meretseger (Theban Mountains). Its text... more
The article presents the first translation of the Rhetorical stela of Ramses III into the Russian language along with its annotation. The stela was discovered in the 19th century in the sanctuary of Meretseger (Theban Mountains). Its text contains important historical information on the wars of Ramses III, as well as data concerning the assimilation of peoples subjugated by the Egyptians. According to the text, the captives adopted the Egyptian language and were integrated into Egyptian society.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Who was the father of pharaoh Siptah? The article is devoted to the question of parentage of the last male Pharaoh of XIX dynasty Siptah and his relationship to the Ramesside dynasty. The author examines three of his predecessors -... more
Who was the father of pharaoh Siptah?
The article is devoted to the question of parentage of the last male Pharaoh of XIX dynasty Siptah and his relationship to the Ramesside dynasty. The author examines three of his predecessors - Merenptah, Sethos II and Amenmessu, each of whom is usually regarded in historiography as Siptah's father. According to the author, there are no facts proving that Sethos II was the father of Siptah. On the contrary, the text on the ostracon CGC 25515 from workmen' village in Deir el-Medina, which mention about construction of Sethos II' royal tomb in Valley of the Kings and his death in his 6th regnal year, designates his successor on the throne Siptah not as the king's son but by very strange epithet "other". The author thinks that this fact can point out the absence of direct parentage between Sethos II and Siptah. Besides the author came to conclusion that Amenmessu could not be the father of Siptah because of the lack of any evidence too. The one argument that is usually used to prove their direct parentage, is the naos from British museum that is lost now. However, his shows that Horus name reproduction contains the inscription which mention the Horus name of Siptah as -||e. It is usually translated as "appearing in (the city) Khemmis". As it is widely accepted, this epithet can supposedly prove the direct parentage between Siptah and Amenmessu because the last bore the epithet «one whom (the goddesses) Isis nursed in (the city) Khemmis». The mention of one and the same place-name in epithets of both the Pharaohs can supposedly point out the direct parentage between the above-mentioned kings. But the author could not be translated as "appearing in (the city) Khemmis", but only as "appearing as the king of Lower Egypt". That is why the epithet of Siptah has nothing to do this the one of Amenmessu, and there are no other arguments to prove their direct parentage. In author's opinion, only Merenptah could pretend to this role. This opinion can be proved by the fact of changing Siptah's throne name from "Ramses-Siptah" on "Merenptah-Siptah" at the beginning of his reign. As it is suggested by many scholars, the mother of Siptah was the Asiatic concubine, and he had no legal rights to ascend the throne. The Great Chancellor Bay, one of the main political figures of end of the XIX Dynasty, mentioned that the accession of Siptah was accompanied by some struggles, and Bay must establish the young king on the throne of his father. One can suggest that Siptah could change his name to prove his legitimacy by reference of the origin from Merenptah.
The article is devoted to the question of parentage of the last male Pharaoh of XIX dynasty Siptah and his relationship to the Ramesside dynasty. The author examines three of his predecessors - Merenptah, Sethos II and Amenmessu, each of whom is usually regarded in historiography as Siptah's father. According to the author, there are no facts proving that Sethos II was the father of Siptah. On the contrary, the text on the ostracon CGC 25515 from workmen' village in Deir el-Medina, which mention about construction of Sethos II' royal tomb in Valley of the Kings and his death in his 6th regnal year, designates his successor on the throne Siptah not as the king's son but by very strange epithet "other". The author thinks that this fact can point out the absence of direct parentage between Sethos II and Siptah. Besides the author came to conclusion that Amenmessu could not be the father of Siptah because of the lack of any evidence too. The one argument that is usually used to prove their direct parentage, is the naos from British museum that is lost now. However, his shows that Horus name reproduction contains the inscription which mention the Horus name of Siptah as -||e. It is usually translated as "appearing in (the city) Khemmis". As it is widely accepted, this epithet can supposedly prove the direct parentage between Siptah and Amenmessu because the last bore the epithet «one whom (the goddesses) Isis nursed in (the city) Khemmis». The mention of one and the same place-name in epithets of both the Pharaohs can supposedly point out the direct parentage between the above-mentioned kings. But the author could not be translated as "appearing in (the city) Khemmis", but only as "appearing as the king of Lower Egypt". That is why the epithet of Siptah has nothing to do this the one of Amenmessu, and there are no other arguments to prove their direct parentage. In author's opinion, only Merenptah could pretend to this role. This opinion can be proved by the fact of changing Siptah's throne name from "Ramses-Siptah" on "Merenptah-Siptah" at the beginning of his reign. As it is suggested by many scholars, the mother of Siptah was the Asiatic concubine, and he had no legal rights to ascend the throne. The Great Chancellor Bay, one of the main political figures of end of the XIX Dynasty, mentioned that the accession of Siptah was accompanied by some struggles, and Bay must establish the young king on the throne of his father. One can suggest that Siptah could change his name to prove his legitimacy by reference of the origin from Merenptah.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the Greek tradition about the movement of Amphilochus and Calhas with their companions across Anatolia to Cilicia and Syria after the fall of Troy which is traditionally regarded as a part of the story of Mopsos and... more
The article deals with the Greek tradition about the movement of
Amphilochus and Calhas with their companions across Anatolia to Cilicia
and Syria after the fall of Troy which is traditionally regarded as a part of
the story of Mopsos and his march to the East. The authors show that this tradition was originally independent from the legends of Mopsos, and that it has a historical parallel to Achaean component of the Sea peoples’ migration under Ramesses III. In the authors’ view, the legends about cooperation of the «Amphilochus – Calhas group» with the «Mopsos group» in Cilicia are also connected on the basis of their general motives (contrary to their fictional and contradictory details in Greek tradition) with the real interactions between various migrant groups of the 12th century BC in Cilicia.
Amphilochus and Calhas with their companions across Anatolia to Cilicia
and Syria after the fall of Troy which is traditionally regarded as a part of
the story of Mopsos and his march to the East. The authors show that this tradition was originally independent from the legends of Mopsos, and that it has a historical parallel to Achaean component of the Sea peoples’ migration under Ramesses III. In the authors’ view, the legends about cooperation of the «Amphilochus – Calhas group» with the «Mopsos group» in Cilicia are also connected on the basis of their general motives (contrary to their fictional and contradictory details in Greek tradition) with the real interactions between various migrant groups of the 12th century BC in Cilicia.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the identification and localization of the place-name Danuna which is mentioned in Akkadian texts of the Late Bronze Age twice. It is usually believed that this country was located in Southern Greece or in Cilicia... more
The article deals with the identification and localization of the place-name Danuna which is mentioned in Akkadian texts of the Late Bronze
Age twice. It is usually believed that this country was located in Southern
Greece or in Cilicia and Syria. Based on the data of Akkadian letters EA
151 и KBo 28.25, Phoenician and Luwian inscriptions from Karatepe,
Çineköy and Arsuz and the inscriptions of Ramses III the author rejects the hypothesis of Danuna’s location in Cilicia and Syria and joins the scholars who identified Danuna with the land of Danaans. In the author’s view, this identification is well confirmed by the reliefs in Medinet Habu where the Danaans did not differ in armour, garments and headgears from the other Sea Peoples whose homeland was somewhere in the Aegean regions.
Age twice. It is usually believed that this country was located in Southern
Greece or in Cilicia and Syria. Based on the data of Akkadian letters EA
151 и KBo 28.25, Phoenician and Luwian inscriptions from Karatepe,
Çineköy and Arsuz and the inscriptions of Ramses III the author rejects the hypothesis of Danuna’s location in Cilicia and Syria and joins the scholars who identified Danuna with the land of Danaans. In the author’s view, this identification is well confirmed by the reliefs in Medinet Habu where the Danaans did not differ in armour, garments and headgears from the other Sea Peoples whose homeland was somewhere in the Aegean regions.
Research Interests:
The theses for the strange conference “Crossroads III – A Stranger in the House” in Prague where the seats for Russian scholars are always limited.
The article is devoted to the Egyptian place-name . This term was initially used by the Egyptians for designation of neighboring regions in Syria and Palestine. But as the author shows, it can be used for designation of different Aegean... more
The article is devoted to the Egyptian place-name . This term was initially used by the Egyptians for designation of neighboring regions in Syria and Palestine. But as the author shows, it can be used for designation of different Aegean regions too. This change of term’s meaning could happen owing to broadening of Egyptian knowledge about northern regions in the second half of the 2nd mill. BC. Based on this fact, the author supposes that the Aegean people could participate in disturbances in Egypt at the end of 13 century BC which led to the change of the ruling dynasty. The author points out that the mercenaries of sT.tjw are mentioned in the stele of Pharaoh Sethnakhte. They were used by his opponents to prevent the Pharaoh from coming to power. In author’s opinion, there are analogies to these historical events in Greek epic tradition according to which some Achaeans arrived in Egypt after the fall of Troy and served there.
Research Interests:
Based on inscriptions of Ramses III from Medinet Habu, the author locates the place of land battle between the Egyptian forces and the Sea Peoples somewhere on the border of Egyptian influence in Lebanon. In his opinion, this can be... more
Based on inscriptions of Ramses III from Medinet Habu, the author locates the place of land battle between the Egyptian forces and the Sea Peoples somewhere on the border of Egyptian influence in Lebanon. In his opinion, this can be proved by the fact of non-mentioning Palestinian toponyms in inscriptions of Ramses III in connection with the Sea Peoples and evidence that Amurru was the last point which was reached by the Northerners. In author’s opinion, the goal of Asiatic campaign of Ramses III against the Sea Peoples was defense of Byblos and other Egyptian vassal city-states on Phoenician shore. The sea battle between the Egyptians and the Sea peoples should be placed separately from the land battle. It seems to be somewhere in the eastern Delta.
Research Interests:
The paper deals with the data of KBo XII.38 which gives an information about two military efforts of the last Hittite kings to conquer Cyprus. The author shows that the first attack on island during the reign of Tudhaliya IV and so-called... more
The paper deals with the data of KBo XII.38 which gives an information about two military efforts of the last Hittite kings to conquer Cyprus. The author shows that the first attack on island during the reign of Tudhaliya IV and so-called «treaty with Alašia» (KBo XII.39) should be connected with the Hittite-Assyrian confrontation between 1244-1235 BC when the Hittites tried to put an embargo on Assyrian trade with Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. The reason for the second campaign under Suppiluliuma II was a necessity to neutralize the Sea peoples’ treatment and to control sea routes for providing safety of Egyptian transports with corn sailing to Anatolia.
Research Interests:
Based on Ugaritic and Egyptian written sources and archaeological data from Palestine and Cyprus, the author examines the social and political system of the Sea Peoples. He shows that most of the migrants were the people of developed... more
Based on Ugaritic and Egyptian written sources and archaeological data from Palestine and Cyprus, the author examines the social and political system of the Sea Peoples. He shows that most of the migrants were the people of developed urban culture at the time of their arrival in Palestine and to Cyprus. On the other hand, some of them did not have any social and political structures as it is mentioned in written sources. In author’s opinion, the Sea Peoples never were a single unit in social sense, but an amalgam of tribes with different level of development
of social and political institutions.
of social and political institutions.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the unpublished letter from Sapinuwa which was made public by A. Suel at the congress of Hittitology in Çorum in 2014. This letter contains a mention of an armed conflict between the Lycians and Cyprus. As announced... more
The article deals with the unpublished letter from Sapinuwa which was made public by A. Suel at the congress of Hittitology in Çorum in 2014. This letter contains a mention of an armed conflict between the Lycians and Cyprus. As announced by the scholar, the letter should be dated by the reign of Tudhaliya II, i.e approximately the first half of the 14 century BC. Based on this dating the present author suggests that chronologically similar parallels for this text can be found in the letter EA 38 and the so-called «Indictment of Madduwatta», which mention Lycian raids to Cyprus too. In his opinion, all of the three documents reflect the intensification of Lycian raids in Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the 15 – early 14 centuries BC because of weakening Hittite control in western Anatolia.
Research Interests:
The authors consider the question who devastated the capital of the Hittite Empire Hattuša and surrounding territory along Halys River at the beginning of 12 century BC. They draw the attention to the information of the inscription from... more
The authors consider the question who devastated the capital of the Hittite Empire Hattuša and surrounding territory along Halys River at the beginning of 12 century BC. They draw the attention to the information of the inscription from Medinet Habu about the destruction of Hatti under the attacks of the «northerners» again who came from the Aegean regions (the so-called Sea Peoples). The authors demonstrate that this report could not be the result of Egyptian scribes’ error because of lack of information in Egypt about current events from abroad. They think that it really concerns the fate of the Hittite central area with its capital. Thus, the seizure of Hattusa should be ascribed to the migrants from the Balkan-Aegean region. They can be attributed as the people with tribe-name Μυσ-/moes- that came from the Strymōn river («the (Eastern) Mušku» of the Near Eastern texts). In authors’ opinion, the Egyptian scribes could regard this group of people as part of the Peleset/Philistines who is mentioned among the Sea Peoples (see ancient name of Strymōn river – Παλαιστινος), or they could not mention them especially at all.
Research Interests:
The article has deal with witnesses of Greek authors about Tyrsenians and Pelasgians in western and north-western Asia Minor. Both of these peoples are regularly confused in Greek tradition. It seems that Greeks believe these peoples are... more
The article has deal with witnesses of Greek authors about Tyrsenians and Pelasgians in western and north-western Asia Minor. Both of these peoples are regularly confused in Greek tradition. It seems that Greeks believe these peoples are close-related. Based on the data of Homer and Conon from Cyzicus the author suggests that the tradition about Tyrsenians and Pelasgians in western and north-western Anatolia came into existence before 8 century BC. In author’s opinion, the historical ground for this tradition can be seen at the beginning of 12 century BC when Eastern Mediterranean underwent the great invasion of the Sea Peoples. Among them the Peleset and the Tursha who correspond to Pelasgians and Tyrsenians of Greek tradition are mentioned by Egyptian inscriptions. The author thinks that the homeland of these tribes should be placed in northwestern Anatolia which was devastated by the war according to inscriptions of Ramses III.
Research Interests:
The paper presents an analysis of Kamose’s Second Stele and focuses on new arguments in favour of the following theses: (1) the «city» Apopi mentioned at the beginning of the stele as attacked is not Avaris, but Cynopolis; (2) Kamose did... more
The paper presents an analysis of Kamose’s Second Stele and focuses on new arguments in favour of the following theses: (1) the «city» Apopi mentioned at the beginning of the
stele as attacked is not Avaris, but Cynopolis; (2) Kamose did not move northwards beyond the limits of Middle Egypt; (3) the toponym of «Avaris» with the determinative «foreign country» on the Second Stele does not refer to the city of Avaris but to the Avaris Kingdom (the «Asiatics» of the First Stele); (4) the Hyksos messenger was sent by Kamose to Tpyḥ wt (Aphroditopolis) from the district of Cynopolis.
stele as attacked is not Avaris, but Cynopolis; (2) Kamose did not move northwards beyond the limits of Middle Egypt; (3) the toponym of «Avaris» with the determinative «foreign country» on the Second Stele does not refer to the city of Avaris but to the Avaris Kingdom (the «Asiatics» of the First Stele); (4) the Hyksos messenger was sent by Kamose to Tpyḥ wt (Aphroditopolis) from the district of Cynopolis.
Research Interests:
The Sea Peoples and Cyprus: history and legendary tradition. The paper deals with the data of Greek legendary tradition about Greek and Trojan colonization of Cyprus after the Trojan war. These data are authentic and go back to the... more
The Sea Peoples and Cyprus: history and legendary tradition.
The paper deals with the data of Greek legendary tradition about Greek and Trojan colonization of Cyprus after the Trojan war. These data are authentic and go back to the historical events of the Late Bronze Age. The author shows that this legendary tradition is confirmed by archaeology and Egyptian written sources which prove the migration of the inhabitants from Southern Greece and North-Western Anatolia to Eastern Mediterranean at the late 13 – beginning 12 BC. The Greek tradition in its turn sheds light on ethnic composition of the Sea Peoples. The author thinks that some of them could have been the Achaeans, the others were connected to the Luwians of Western Anatolia. If so, we should focus our special attention on an inscription dating back to the 5th regnal year of Ramses III. It mentions the great war which devastated the homeland of some Sea Peoples’ tribes and caused their migration to Egypt. If the localization of Egyptian tribe names on North-West of Asia Minor is right, we deal with the first non-Greek evidence of the historical event which is reflected later in Greek epic tradition as Trojan war.
The paper deals with the data of Greek legendary tradition about Greek and Trojan colonization of Cyprus after the Trojan war. These data are authentic and go back to the historical events of the Late Bronze Age. The author shows that this legendary tradition is confirmed by archaeology and Egyptian written sources which prove the migration of the inhabitants from Southern Greece and North-Western Anatolia to Eastern Mediterranean at the late 13 – beginning 12 BC. The Greek tradition in its turn sheds light on ethnic composition of the Sea Peoples. The author thinks that some of them could have been the Achaeans, the others were connected to the Luwians of Western Anatolia. If so, we should focus our special attention on an inscription dating back to the 5th regnal year of Ramses III. It mentions the great war which devastated the homeland of some Sea Peoples’ tribes and caused their migration to Egypt. If the localization of Egyptian tribe names on North-West of Asia Minor is right, we deal with the first non-Greek evidence of the historical event which is reflected later in Greek epic tradition as Trojan war.
Research Interests:
Analysis of the relief on pillar 16 of the Southern temple in Buhen reveals two previously unrecorded elements for the titulatury of Great Chancellor Bay: ‘fan-bearer on the right of the king’ and ‘king’s messenger to Syria and Nubia’.... more
Analysis of the relief on pillar 16 of the Southern temple in Buhen reveals two previously unrecorded elements for the titulatury of Great Chancellor Bay: ‘fan-bearer on the right of the king’ and ‘king’s messenger to Syria and Nubia’. The latter title accords perfectly with the letter RS 86.2230, which was sent by Bay to the last king of Ugarit Ammurapi. The fact that Bay bore the title ‘king’s messenger to Syria and Nubia’, and had a direct relationship with the Ugaritic king, suggests that under Siptah he had taken control of Egyptian foreign affairs.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the first part of the article the author considers the figure of “Great Chancellor of the Entire Land” Bay, who became exeptionally influential under Pharaoh Siptah and even claimed that he had “established the king on the seat of his... more
In the first part of the article the author considers the figure of “Great Chancellor of the Entire Land” Bay, who became exeptionally influential under Pharaoh Siptah and even claimed that he had “established the king on the seat of his father”. The author suggests that Bay could have been of Syrian origin. In that case his influence could be due to the ties of relationship with Pharaoh Siptah, who, in the author’s opinion, was son of Pharaoh Merneptah and his Syrian concubine Šoteraja.
In the second part of the article the author examines a relief on pillar 16 of the temple of Horus of Buhen (according to R. Caminos) showing Pharaoh Siptah making offerings to the goddess Bastet. Behind Siptah there is a figure of an official holding a fan (xw) in his hand. The official’s name is not preserved, but the combination of titles “king’s messenger to Syria (#Arw) and Nubia (KS)” and “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand” was extremely rare under the XIX dynasty. An analysis of official’s titles under Siptah shows that neither any “fan-bearer” was “king’s messenger”, nor did any “king’s messenger” bear the title of “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand”. The only official who is regularly depicted together with Siptah on his representations (Gebel es-Silsileh, Deir el-Bahri, Aswan) is “Great Chancellor” Bay. This gives the author grounds to suggest that the “nameless official” on pillar 16 of the temple in Buhen is none other than Bay. This makes it possible to add to the list of Bay’s titles two new ones, unknown before: “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand” and “king’s messenger to Syria and Nubia”. The latter title falls in well with the letter RS 86.2230 from Ugarit, where Bay is called “chief of the bodygards of the king of Egypt”. The fact that Bay was in direct touch with Ammurapi, the last Ugaritic king, allows the author to suppose that under Siptah he could have taken control of foreign affairs. The title of “chief of the bodyguards” may give a clue to the question about the forces that supported Bay when he elevated Siptah to the throne of Egypt. In Ugaritic letter Bay was called as LU.GAL ERIN.MEŠ hu-ra-de4. Ugaritic term hrd indicates the warriors who served on the person of the king. This elite group of warriors included Shardana detachment. That is why the author suggests that the bodyguards who were headed by Bay could consist partly of the Sea Peoples.
In the second part of the article the author examines a relief on pillar 16 of the temple of Horus of Buhen (according to R. Caminos) showing Pharaoh Siptah making offerings to the goddess Bastet. Behind Siptah there is a figure of an official holding a fan (xw) in his hand. The official’s name is not preserved, but the combination of titles “king’s messenger to Syria (#Arw) and Nubia (KS)” and “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand” was extremely rare under the XIX dynasty. An analysis of official’s titles under Siptah shows that neither any “fan-bearer” was “king’s messenger”, nor did any “king’s messenger” bear the title of “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand”. The only official who is regularly depicted together with Siptah on his representations (Gebel es-Silsileh, Deir el-Bahri, Aswan) is “Great Chancellor” Bay. This gives the author grounds to suggest that the “nameless official” on pillar 16 of the temple in Buhen is none other than Bay. This makes it possible to add to the list of Bay’s titles two new ones, unknown before: “fan-bearer on the king’s right hand” and “king’s messenger to Syria and Nubia”. The latter title falls in well with the letter RS 86.2230 from Ugarit, where Bay is called “chief of the bodygards of the king of Egypt”. The fact that Bay was in direct touch with Ammurapi, the last Ugaritic king, allows the author to suppose that under Siptah he could have taken control of foreign affairs. The title of “chief of the bodyguards” may give a clue to the question about the forces that supported Bay when he elevated Siptah to the throne of Egypt. In Ugaritic letter Bay was called as LU.GAL ERIN.MEŠ hu-ra-de4. Ugaritic term hrd indicates the warriors who served on the person of the king. This elite group of warriors included Shardana detachment. That is why the author suggests that the bodyguards who were headed by Bay could consist partly of the Sea Peoples.
Research Interests:
The lexeme Dbj occurs several times in New Kingdom texts. Its meaning is usually given by the Ancient Egyptian dictionaries and lexicographic works as «army, troops». In author’s opinion, this meaning is too wide and indistinct for this... more
The lexeme Dbj occurs several times in New Kingdom texts. Its meaning is usually given by the Ancient Egyptian dictionaries and lexicographic works as «army, troops». In author’s opinion, this meaning is too wide and indistinct for this word. He analyzed all the New Kingdom contexts of its use and came to the conclusion that it meant «troops of foreign mercenaries» who served in the Egyptian army. Their ethnic origin can be identified by using unusual determinative of a warrior in horned helmet which accompanies the word in the inscription of Ramses III. 5th regnal year from mortuary temple in Medinet Habu. Such helmets were typical headgears of the Sherden warriors.
Research Interests:
The article deals with dating the letter RS 88.2158. The text contains the answer of the unnamed Pharaoh to the unpreserved letter of Ugaritic king, which had been sent in Egypt before, and includes citations from it. Among other things,... more
The article deals with dating the letter RS 88.2158. The text contains the answer of the unnamed Pharaoh to the unpreserved letter of Ugaritic king, which had been sent in Egypt before, and includes citations from it. Among other things, the king of Ugarit mentions the name of the Pharaoh Merneptah (lines 12–13 of RS 88.2158). That is why this text was dated from the reign of this Egyptian ruler by all previous scholars. However, the author points out that the mentioning the Pharaoh’s personal name by the vassal ruler is extremely unusual for the international correspondence between Egyptian kings and their vassal counterparts of Syro-Palestinian region. The mention of Merneptah’s personal name in RS 88.2158 can be explained only by the suggestion that the matter concerns a deceased king. In author’s view, RS 88.2158 should be dated back to the time after the death of Merneptah, to the beginning of the reign of his son and successor Sethos II. Based on the new date for RS 88.2158, the author considers Egyptian-Ugaritic and Hittite-Ugaritic relations at the end of the 13 BC.
Research Interests:
A. V. Safronov. "The Trojans in Libya: Greek reminiscences about participation of inhabitants of Western Anatolia in the Sea Peoples’ movement" The article deals with the data of Herodotus (IV, 191) and Pindar (Pyth. V, 79–86) who... more
A. V. Safronov. "The Trojans in Libya: Greek reminiscences
about participation of inhabitants of Western Anatolia
in the Sea Peoples’ movement"
The article deals with the data of Herodotus (IV, 191) and Pindar (Pyth. V, 79–86) who mentioned the Trojans in Libya. Based on the Egyptian inscriptions and reliefs from 19th and 20th dynasties the author finds historical parallels to this information. In his view, the evidence of Greek writers goes back to the tradition which reflected real events connected with the collapse in the Aegean and Western Anatolia at the end of 13 – beginning 12 BC and with the migrations of the Sea Peoples in Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and Libya.
about participation of inhabitants of Western Anatolia
in the Sea Peoples’ movement"
The article deals with the data of Herodotus (IV, 191) and Pindar (Pyth. V, 79–86) who mentioned the Trojans in Libya. Based on the Egyptian inscriptions and reliefs from 19th and 20th dynasties the author finds historical parallels to this information. In his view, the evidence of Greek writers goes back to the tradition which reflected real events connected with the collapse in the Aegean and Western Anatolia at the end of 13 – beginning 12 BC and with the migrations of the Sea Peoples in Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and Libya.
Research Interests:
The article deals with the dating of Ugaritic letter RS 34. 129 mentioning Shekelesh, one of the tribes belonging to the "Sea Peoples». Using the data of letters RS 18.038, RS 88.2158, RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523, the author assumes that RS... more
The article deals with the dating of Ugaritic letter RS 34. 129 mentioning Shekelesh, one of the tribes belonging to the "Sea Peoples». Using the data of letters RS 18.038, RS 88.2158, RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523, the author assumes that RS 34. 129 was written by the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV not long before 1219 BC (according to Middle Egyptian chronology of the New Kingdom). The author believes as well that the data of RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523 provide the information proving that the Ugaritie king
Ammurapi's reign lasted for 30 years at least. In the last part of the paper the author reconstructs Hittite-Ugaritic relations at the end of the 13th century BC. In his opinion, temporary decline of the Hittite kingdom during the short reign ofAmuwanda III was the cause of Ammurapi's attempt to seek protection of Pharaoh Memeptah. But the event s in Egypt after Memeptah 's death , connected with the struggle between Sethos II and Amenmessu, made Ugarit come back under the rule ofthe next and last Hittite king Suppiluliuma II.
Ammurapi's reign lasted for 30 years at least. In the last part of the paper the author reconstructs Hittite-Ugaritic relations at the end of the 13th century BC. In his opinion, temporary decline of the Hittite kingdom during the short reign ofAmuwanda III was the cause of Ammurapi's attempt to seek protection of Pharaoh Memeptah. But the event s in Egypt after Memeptah 's death , connected with the struggle between Sethos II and Amenmessu, made Ugarit come back under the rule ofthe next and last Hittite king Suppiluliuma II.
Research Interests:
Safronov A.V. The Early Iron Age states Palistin in Syria and (Ah)hiyawa in Cilicia: a reflection of the Sea Peoples’ migrations in the Greek epic tradition // Proceedings of the Joseph M. Tronsky XVI Memorial Annual International Conference Indo-European Comparative Linguistics and Classical Philology, June 18-20th, Saint Petersburg, 2012. Saint Petersburg, 2012, p. 750 – 760 (in Russian with English summary).more
The paper considers data about two Early Iron Age states, Palistin in Syria and (Ah)hiyawa in Cilicia, established by migrant Sea People tribes in the early 12th Century B.C. Based on Ramses III inscriptions, archaeological data from... more
The paper considers data about two Early Iron Age states, Palistin in Syria and (Ah)hiyawa in Cilicia, established by migrant Sea People tribes in the early 12th Century B.C. Based on Ramses III inscriptions, archaeological data from Eastern Mediterranean, and the Greek epic tradition about Amphilochus and Mopsus (who after the fall of Troy moved with their companions to Cilicia, Syria and Phoenicia), the the paper argues that the Greek epic tradition captured two waves of migrations in the early 12th Century B.C. The first wave of these migrations came from the Southern Aegean after the collapse of the Mycenaean world at the end of LH IIIB period. The other one was connected with Western Anatolia where, according to Ramses III Inscriptions, a great war had taken place. The emergence of the Early Iron Age states Palistin in Syria and (Ah)hiyawa in Cilicia, established by different ethnic groups of the Sea Peoples on their routes to Southern Levant, confirms the mixed and long-lasting processes of Sea Peoples infiltration from the Aegean and Western Anatolia to East Mediterranean regions.
Research Interests:
In December of 2006 the stela of the High Priest of Amun Bakenkhons, the contemporary of the Pharaoh Setnakht was found in Luxor. Unfortunately this important monument was published by the first editor M. Boraik with the great deal of... more
In December of 2006 the stela of the High Priest of Amun Bakenkhons, the contemporary of the Pharaoh Setnakht was found in Luxor. Unfortunately this important monument was published by the first editor M. Boraik with the great deal of inaccuracies both in transliteration and translation. That’s why the author gives his own translation and philological comments of the stela.
On the base of his own analysis and comparison of stela of Bakenkhons with the other sources of the XXth dynasty (P. Turin 1879 verso I – II; Elephantine stela of Setnakht; P. Harris I) the author came to such a conclusion:
1.The 4th regnal year of Setnakht is fictive and in fact it is corresponded to the the second real year of his reign.
2.Setnakht began his struggle for ascending the throne moving from the South, probably from the Elephantina region where he was a military chief.
3.The Theban priesthood supported Setnakht in his efforts. Probably the priests of Amun called to him for help as the nearest military power to Thebes because they were frightened by the oppression of the common people who began to destroy the temples in Thebes.
On the base of his own analysis and comparison of stela of Bakenkhons with the other sources of the XXth dynasty (P. Turin 1879 verso I – II; Elephantine stela of Setnakht; P. Harris I) the author came to such a conclusion:
1.The 4th regnal year of Setnakht is fictive and in fact it is corresponded to the the second real year of his reign.
2.Setnakht began his struggle for ascending the throne moving from the South, probably from the Elephantina region where he was a military chief.
3.The Theban priesthood supported Setnakht in his efforts. Probably the priests of Amun called to him for help as the nearest military power to Thebes because they were frightened by the oppression of the common people who began to destroy the temples in Thebes.
Research Interests:
Safronov, Alexander V. Never existed custom of circumcision among the Achaeans (the meaning of Egyptian word qrnt) // Vestnik Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. "Istoriya i politicheskie nauki" (=Bulletin of Moscow State Regional University. "History and Political Science". M., 2010, № 1, P. 107 - 113.more
Abstract. The author reconsiders the meaning of the word Qrnt in Late Egyptian, which is usually considered to be a Semitic loanword with the sense ‘foreskin’. The author shows that this word can’t be a loanword from Semitic languages.... more
Abstract. The author reconsiders the meaning of the word Qrnt in Late Egyptian, which is usually considered to be a Semitic loanword with the sense ‘foreskin’. The author shows that this word can’t be a loanword from Semitic languages. Adducing new arguments the author reverts to É. Naville’s and F. von
Bissing’s opinion who thought that the word qrnt meant ‘a sheath for phallus’. Such semantics of this word allows to overcome a difficulty with the identification of Sea Peoples’ tribe
Akaiwasha with Achaean Greeks because Egyptian texts mention about absence of Qrnt among Akaiwasha’ people. If the word qrnt meant a foreskin, such identification could not be right
because the custom of circumcision was not inherent for Indo-Europeans.
Bissing’s opinion who thought that the word qrnt meant ‘a sheath for phallus’. Such semantics of this word allows to overcome a difficulty with the identification of Sea Peoples’ tribe
Akaiwasha with Achaean Greeks because Egyptian texts mention about absence of Qrnt among Akaiwasha’ people. If the word qrnt meant a foreskin, such identification could not be right
because the custom of circumcision was not inherent for Indo-Europeans.
Research Interests:
Safronov A.V. The date of pLouvre 3136 and the early appearance of the Philistines in Egypt and Palestine. // Transactions of the State Hermitage XLV. St. Peterburg Egyptological Readings 2007 - 2008 in commemoration of Oleg Dmitrievich Berlev on the occasion of his 75th birthday. Papers of the conference. St. Petersburg, 2009, P. 249 - 262 (in Russian with English summary)more
Research Interests:
The author reconstructs a fragment of the inscription dated with 5th year of Ramses’ III reign (lines 51–52, Fig. 2) and gives his own translation: «The northern hill-countries quivered in their bodies, namely Peleset, Tjeker, [Tursha].... more
The author reconstructs a fragment of the inscription dated with 5th year of Ramses’ III reign (lines 51–52, Fig. 2) and gives his own translation: «The northern hill-countries quivered in their bodies, namely Peleset, Tjeker, [Tursha]. Someone devastated their land, their spirit came to the end». The author points out that the suffix-pronoun of the third person of plural -w could be used in indefinite-personal sentences in the Late Egyptian. The author supports his translation by the Ramses’ III inscription dated with 8th year of this pharao’s reign (lines 34–35; Fig. 4): (As for) foreign land […] their towns were destroyed, devastated at the moment. Their trees and their people became ashes. They asked their hearts: «Where shall we go?» Their chiefs went [….on] their backs to Egypt». In author’s opinion both inscriptions witness about the devastation of the homeland of Peleset, Tjeker and Tursha as a result of the war.
Then the author examines the Egyptian names of the Sea peoples – Tjeker, Peleset, Tursha. Не criticized A. Rainey’s and E. Edel’s identification of the tribal name Tkrw in Egyptian with Sicules. The author considers the Tjeker as Teukroi inhabitants of Troas that were mentioned in the Greek tradition. As for the Peleset, they are identified with Pelasgoi the initial form of which is reconstructed as *Pelastoi on the base of Hesihius’ gloss (Hesich., 1296). The Tursha are identified as Tursenoi. The author notes interchangeability of Pelasgoi and Tursenoi in the Greek tradition. He believes that this fact points at the close connection between those tribes. It is confirmed by the Egyptian sources which record a joint attack of the Peleset and Tursha on Egypt in the reign of Ramses III (KRI. V. 91:8). On the base of archaic Greek tradition the author places both tribes in the north-west of Asia Minor. The migration of the inhabitants from this region to the Eastern Mediterranean is maintained with the data from Greek tradition about arriving of the population from Troas to Cyprus and Palestine after Trojan war and archeological data as well (so-called Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus, pithos burials in Troas and Palestine in 13–12 BC). In author’s opinion, the reason which caused Peleset, Tjeker, Tursha to migrate to Syria and Palestine was the war in the north-west of Asia Minor mentioned in Ramses’ inscriptions. According to the author, the Trojan war is the only equivalent to this historical event. The author believes that the unknown enemy who devastated the homeland of those tribes were the Achaeans in Greek tradition.
At the end of the article the author reconstructed the order of the events in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the late 13 – the early 12 BC. The destruction of the Mycenaean centres in South Greece at the end of 13 cent. BC caused the Achaean population to leave their homeland for the Eastern Mediterranean. One of the waves of migrating groups was aimed at Troas. The war between the arriving Achaeans and the autochthone population resulted in devastation of the north-west of Asia Minor and migration of the inhabitants of this region to Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt. This war left traces both in Egyptian inscriptions about the devastation of the homeland of Peleset, Tjeker and Tursha and was engraved in Greek memory as the cycles of legends about the great battle for Troy.
Then the author examines the Egyptian names of the Sea peoples – Tjeker, Peleset, Tursha. Не criticized A. Rainey’s and E. Edel’s identification of the tribal name Tkrw in Egyptian with Sicules. The author considers the Tjeker as Teukroi inhabitants of Troas that were mentioned in the Greek tradition. As for the Peleset, they are identified with Pelasgoi the initial form of which is reconstructed as *Pelastoi on the base of Hesihius’ gloss (Hesich., 1296). The Tursha are identified as Tursenoi. The author notes interchangeability of Pelasgoi and Tursenoi in the Greek tradition. He believes that this fact points at the close connection between those tribes. It is confirmed by the Egyptian sources which record a joint attack of the Peleset and Tursha on Egypt in the reign of Ramses III (KRI. V. 91:8). On the base of archaic Greek tradition the author places both tribes in the north-west of Asia Minor. The migration of the inhabitants from this region to the Eastern Mediterranean is maintained with the data from Greek tradition about arriving of the population from Troas to Cyprus and Palestine after Trojan war and archeological data as well (so-called Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus, pithos burials in Troas and Palestine in 13–12 BC). In author’s opinion, the reason which caused Peleset, Tjeker, Tursha to migrate to Syria and Palestine was the war in the north-west of Asia Minor mentioned in Ramses’ inscriptions. According to the author, the Trojan war is the only equivalent to this historical event. The author believes that the unknown enemy who devastated the homeland of those tribes were the Achaeans in Greek tradition.
At the end of the article the author reconstructed the order of the events in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the late 13 – the early 12 BC. The destruction of the Mycenaean centres in South Greece at the end of 13 cent. BC caused the Achaean population to leave their homeland for the Eastern Mediterranean. One of the waves of migrating groups was aimed at Troas. The war between the arriving Achaeans and the autochthone population resulted in devastation of the north-west of Asia Minor and migration of the inhabitants of this region to Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt. This war left traces both in Egyptian inscriptions about the devastation of the homeland of Peleset, Tjeker and Tursha and was engraved in Greek memory as the cycles of legends about the great battle for Troy.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Данная монография является серией законченных очерков по спорным вопросам истории позднебронзового века в Восточном Средиземноморье в период с XIV по начало XII в. до н.э., связанных, однако, между собой общей темой, а именно... more
Данная монография является серией законченных очерков по спорным вопросам истории позднебронзового века в Восточном Средиземноморье в период с XIV по начало XII в. до н.э., связанных, однако, между собой общей темой, а именно передвижениями так называемых «народов моря». К концу указанного периода этот
конгломерат племен различного происхождения стал представлять серьезную угрозу для существования государств Малой Азии, Леванта и Восточного Средиземноморья и, в конечном итоге, согласно надписи Рамсеса III явился причиной гибели Хеттского царства, Каркемиша, Угарита, Амурру и других государств региона.
конгломерат племен различного происхождения стал представлять серьезную угрозу для существования государств Малой Азии, Леванта и Восточного Средиземноморья и, в конечном итоге, согласно надписи Рамсеса III явился причиной гибели Хеттского царства, Каркемиша, Угарита, Амурру и других государств региона.