--- In
AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jdcroft@...>
wrote:
Michael wrote
> John, it seems that K-F-T and K-P-T-R are two different places, as
> they are two different words.
Michael I can see it is true that one of the names by which
Egyptians
referred to their country was "Hwt-ka-Ptah" (Ht-ka-Ptah, or Hout-ak
Ptah) , which means "Temple for Ka of Ptah", or more
properly, "House
of the Ka of Ptah". The hieroglypics are clear "house" (Hwt) - "ka
arms" (ka) - "square" (p-) - "loaf" (-t-) - "twisted cord" (-ah) -
"divine name determinative". I can accpet that this may reside
behind the (H)KPT(R) name. But then you write
> The Egyptians refer to K-F-T not K-F-T-R. I'm not sure if you read
> Jon and Walter's recent posts on the issue and the texts they
> quoted, but from the Ugarit text it was clear that K-P-T-R was in
> Egypt and thus different than the place K-F-T.
Yes, I can accept that Ugaritic KPTR may be Egypt, and Keftiu (KFTW)
is different from Htkaptah (KPTR). This is not problematic for me
in
the slightest.
> And from Jon's quote of the Egyptian texts' listing of various
> places Keftiu was listed with it seems Syria is a likely
> geographical area for Keftiu.
Jon, you may have seen my earlier point that at the start of the
18th
Dynasty Egyptian ideas of the northern Mediterranean were hazy.
Tomb
inscriptions I pointed to yesterday show Aegean peoples and Syrians
mixed up together as coming from the north. It is clear that the
Minoan shipping that dominated the Eastern Mediterranean (as shown
in
the Linear B inscriptions from Knossos), like crew of ships today,
were drawn from many nationalities. There is a Linear B inscription
that even refers to "an Egyptian" being a crew on one vessel. And
it
is also true that Aegean vessels tended to approach Egypt from one
of
two direections
Route 1: Sail south to Cyrenica and then eastwards along the African
shoreline to Egypt.
Route 2: Sail east to Cyrpus and then the Levantine ports,
approaching Egypt from the Northeast.
Vessels on this second route would have picked up Syrian goods and
Syrian sailors too.
> In support of this, it seems that whenever Egyptians label a man as
> from Keftiu he seems to represent Syrians. But when Egyptians
> illustrate a man who is clearly Cretan/Aegean the term Keftiu is
> not used.
Michael, I am not sure of this. Keftiu is used repeatedly in
association with "northern islands" (I know Jon insists that
these "Northern Islands" were in fact the arms of the delta but this
is not the view that is held by most who work in this field - I go
with Pierre Montet (and the others) who have demonstrated to my
satisfaction that "northern islands" from the time of the Second
Intermediary Period down to the end of Egypt, in fact referrs to the
Arc of Islands that extends from Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, the
Cyclades,
the Peloponnesse, the heal and toe of Italy, the Lipari's, possibly
Corsica and Sardinia, Sicily and Malta). As for labelling a man who
is "clearly Syrian" it seems that in the tomb paintings where Keftiu
is used, there are always people dressed in Aegean kilts or Cod-
pieces, coloured red (like the Egyptians) as well as people covered
from nick to calf and coloured cream (as in the Egyptian tradition
for Syrians). In such cases the word Syrian seems to be used AS
WELL
AS Keftiu, and to refer to te second of these two different cultural
types of atire.
> In addition to this, there is the student's writing board found in
> Egypt "To make names in Keftiu," and the Keftiu names were Hurrian
> and Semitic, not Minoan.
I am aware of this, but I understand that the board is incomplete
and
there is some debate over its interpretation. There are also those -
like Gordon and others who hold Minoan is in fact a Semitic language.
> This would fit a Keftiu location in Syria or somewhere else where
> Hurrian and Semitic were common.
Yes, if accepted it would weaken the case for Keftiu being closer to
this part of the world. If the association of Keftiu with Akkadian
Kaptara is not the HKTPaH of Egypt, then as many have suggested a
location of Keftiu in Cyprus (or even in Cilicia although that is
less clear as Akkadian texts make it clear it was not accessible by
land). Hurrians and Semitics have been found on this island from
the
Late Middle Bronze Age if not before.
Personally, given the current debate about it in the acadmenic
journals (Michael, if you are interested I can give you half a dozen
jounal articles which debate the topic), I feel that the Egyptians
had at first only a hazy notion of the location of Keftiu, and that
it was used to designate the most easterly of the "Northern
Islands" -
namely Cyprus and Crete interchangably at first, until the
realisation that Cyprus in fact had another name "Alaysia" (found in
the Amarna archive). By the mid 18th Dynasty, Egyptian concepts of
Geography had firmed considerably. They were exchanging diplomatic
treaties with Arzawa in Western Turkey and had a clearer idea of the
whole area from Hattusas to Pylos at least.
I know Jon "dissassembled" the Amenhotep inscription of sites in the
Aegean (which some have seen as an early periplus - i.e. list of
ports in order of arrival) of the Aegean, claiming them to be
Syrian,
but I find Jon's insistence that Egyptians knew nothing of the
Aegean, when there was so clear evidence of Aegean evidence in Egypt
(and Egyptian presence in the Aegean) a case of splitting hairs. It
is not a view shared by most and so on this matter I am prepared
to "agree to disagree".
Hope this helps
Regards
John
--- End forwarded message ---