Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:21:26.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How old was the Ankara Silver Bowl when its inscriptions were added?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

S.P.B. Durnford
S.P.B. Durnford
Affiliation:
c/oBritish Institute at Ankara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The artefact known as the Ankara Silver Bowl bears two short Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, each in a different ‘handwriting’. They tell us about the origin of the bowl in the year that Tudhaliya labarna conquered Tara/i-wa/i-zi/a. Unparalleled phrasing and tantalising historical allusions make dating and interpretation problematic. The conquest mentioned is widely held to be that of Taruisa in the Troad by the 14th-century bce Hittite king Tudhaliya I/II, but epigraphy points to a Karkamiš origin for the inscriptions and probably to a post-Empire date. Treating the text as contemporary with the conquest requires either that the bowl be classed as an exceptional Empire document or that a later Tudhaliya is intended. This paper offers a new approach. It accepts a late date, offers an amended translation and proposes that the narrative be viewed as literature alluding to the past and not as contemporary chronicle. The bowl's possible status as a relic prompts questions about the transmission of history, motives for alluding to the past and the words chosen for the purpose. An interpretation of sign *273 is ventured within a speculative scenario that encompasses the bowl's various oddities.

Özet

Ankara Gümüş Kasesi olarak bilinen eser, herbiri farklı ‘elyazısıyla’ yazılmış iki kısa Luvice resim yazısı taşır. Bu yazıtlar, Tudhaliya labarna'nın Tara/i-wa/i-zi/a'yı fethettiği yılda kasenin kökeni hakkında bilgi verir. Benzeri olmayan anlatım tarzı ve yanıltıcı tarıhı göndermeler, tarihlendirmeyi ve yorumlamayı sorunlu hale getirmektedir. M.Ö. 14. yy.'da Hitit kralı I. veya II. Tudhaliya'nın Troad bölgesindeki Taruisa'yı ele geçirmesinden genişçe bahseder fakat epigrafi, yazıtlar için Karkamış kökenine ve muhtemelen İmparatorluk sonrası bir tarihe işaret eder. Metnin bu fetihle aynı döneme ait olduğunu düşünmek için, ya kasenin sıradişı bir İmparatorluk belgesi olması ya da daha sonraki bir Tudhaliya'dan bahsedilmiş olması gerekmektedir. Bu makale yeni bir yaklaşim ortaya koymaktadır. Geç bir tarihi kabul etmekte, düzeltilmiş bir çeviri sunmakta ve hikayenin o döneme ait tarihsel bir kayit olarak deǧil de, geçmişten bahseden edebi bir eser olarak algılanması gerektiǧini öne sürmektedir. Eski eser olarak kasenin olası durumu, tarihin aktarılması konusunda bazı sorular akla getirmektedir, geçmişten bahseden motifler ve kelimeler bu amaç için seçilmiştir. Kasedeki çeşitli çelişkileri de içeren şüpheli bir senaryo dahilinde, *273 işaretinin yorumlanması riskli bir girişimdir.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 60 , December 2010 , pp. 51 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckman, G. 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 7). AtlantaGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T. 2002: Life and Society in the Hittite World. OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T. 2003: ‘History’ in Melchert, H.C. (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: 27–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites – New Edition OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T. 2006: The Trojans and their Neighbours. London and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catalogue des textes hittites (= CTH). Ed. Laroche, E.. Paris 1971. http://www.mesas.emory.edu/hittitehome/CTHHP.htmlGoogle Scholar
Chicago Hittite Dictionary (= CHD). Vol. P. Eds Güterbock, H.G., Hoffner, H.A., van den Hout, T.P.J.. Chicago 1997Google Scholar
Durnford, S.P.B. 1971: ‘Some evidence for syntactic stress in Hittite’ Anatolian Studies 21: 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1993: ‘A bowl epigraph of the official Taprammi’ in Mellink, M.J., Porada, E., Özgüç, T. (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography. Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara: 715–17Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1997: ‘A Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription on a silver bowl in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara’ Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1996 Yilliǧi 1997: 7–24Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions Vol 1 The Inscriptions of the Iron Age (Studies in Indo-European language and culture 8/1). Berlin and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2003: ‘Scripts and texts’ in Melchert, H.C. (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: 128–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2005: ‘A Hieroglyphic inscription on a silver bowl’ Studia Troica 15: 193–204Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 2006: ‘The inscription’ in Bunnens, G. (ed.), A New Luwian Stele and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib – Masuwari. Louvain and Paris: 11–32Google Scholar
Jansoone, G. 2007: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Museum_of_Anatolian_Civilizations054_kopiel.jpgGoogle Scholar
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi (= KBo) 4. Leipzig 1920Google Scholar
Künzl, E. 2008: ‘Celtic art and tourist knick knacks’ Current Archaeology 222: 22–27Google Scholar
Laroche, E. 1960: Les Hiéroglyphes Hittites. Première partie, L'dénture. ParisGoogle Scholar
McNeill, I. 1963: ‘The metre of the Hittite epic’ Anatolian Studies 13: 237–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchert, H.C. 1993: Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
Melchert, H.C. 2003: ‘Language’ in Melchert, H.C. (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: 170–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mora, C. 2007: ‘Three metal bowls’ in Alparslan, M., Dogan-Alparslan, H., Peker, H. (eds), Festschrift in Honour of Belkis Dinçol and Ali Dinçol. Istanbul: 515–21Google Scholar
Morris, J. 1977: The Age of Arthur. LondonGoogle Scholar
Singer, I. 1999: ‘A political history of Ugarit’ in Watson, W.G.E., Wyatt, N. (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies 39: 603–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, I. 2001: ‘The treaties between Karkamis and Hatti’ Studien zu den Boǧazköy-Texten 45 -Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie Würzburg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999. Wiesbaden: 636–41Google Scholar
Starke, F. 1997: ‘Troia im Kontext des historischpolitischen Umfeldes Kleinasiens in 2. Jahrtausend’ Studia Troica 7: 447–87Google Scholar
Wilhelm, G. 2004: ‘Hurrian’ in Woodard, R.D. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: 95–118Google Scholar
Yakubovich, I.S. 2008: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language Vol. 1. ChicagoGoogle Scholar