What's in a Name?

In previous Bronze Age posts I have looked at both when and where my project would be set; namely north western Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. Continuing with this theme, I now want to look at another of the ‘five Ws of journalism’, specifically who?

On a simplistic level I will be looking at Greeks and Trojans but it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. Referring back to the Wikipedia map, shown in a previous post, it can be seen that there are numerous names shown, some of which will be familiar, some less so.

In this post I will be taking a closer look at some of these but before we look at the terminology it may be useful to examine some of the naming protocols that we take for granted.

Homer ponders nomenclature

It is a curious fact that, for instance: 

1)     Mycenaeans weren’t Mycenaeans

2)    Minoans weren’t Minoans

3)    Hittites weren’t Hittites.

Uh…..what’s he on about then?

Well put simply these are names given to particular Bronze Age cultures by archaeologists. In some cases we don’t know what the ancient peoples actually called themselves. For instance, take the Mycenaeans; the first time I came across the term was probably in the relevant WRG army list – sad I know but there you go – and ever since I have more or less believed that there was an ancient people called the Mycenaeans. I’m not sure who actually coined the phrase but the name Mycenaean seems to have been applied to a particular phase of Bronze Age Greek culture largely as a result of Schliemann’s excavations at the site of ancient Mycenae. As this seemed to be the most prominent site in Greece then it came to stand for the whole Greek culture of that time.

Similarly, the Bronze Age civilisation of Crete was named the Minoan civilisation by Sir Arthur Evans, the excavator of the palace of Knossos. As Knossos is associated with King Minos, he of Minotaur and labyrinth fame, the civilisation was named after that legendary king.

Turning now to the Hittites, it gets even more confusing. According to Cline, this is actually a misnomer as the name was adopted by scholars, to refer to the Late Bronze Age Anatolian kingdom, simply because the Bible referred to Hittites; whereas the so-called Hittites actually referred to themselves as the ‘people of the Land of Hatti’. As the Bible actually places the Hittites in Canaan this is a bit odd, especially when one considers that it has been postulated that these ‘Canaanite’ Hittites were successors of a long lost kingdom and have been termed Neo-Hittites to distinguish them from their ancient ancestors. Could it not be that the Neo-Hittites are the real deal and the people of Hatti are misnamed? Dunno – frankly I’m confused.

So now that we have seen that the names of various Bronze Age societies are often modern confections let’s take a look at some of the pertinent appellations actually originating from the Bronze Age.

For the Bronze Age ‘Greeks’ we don’t really know what they called themselves but we can perhaps get an idea by looking at the traditional myths and legends from that era, in particular the poems of Homer. This approach seems to have been taken by many scholars but is by no means universally recognised as a valid method.

In the Iliad, or at least the Penguin edition translation of the Iliad, the Greeks are collectively referred to as Achaeans and, to a lesser extent, Danaans or Argives. The confederation of ‘Greek’ states, that fought the Trojan War, included contingents from all over the Aegean world including mainland Greece and the islands. This alliance was led by Agamemnon of Mycenae but is habitually referred to by one of the aforementioned names, in particular Achaeans. Of course this is the English version and the original term in the Greek alphabet (according to Wikipedia) is something more like Ἀχαιοί (Akhaioí).

Similarly, we can also look at how the Iliad describes the Trojans. These are often referred to as Dardanians or in Greek Δάρδανοι (Dardanoi); whereas, Troy itself is more frequently referred to as Ilios (hence the Iliad). Of course these are the Greek terms and we still don’t know what the ‘Trojans’ called themselves. However, there is a possibility that name of Troy itself appears in the Hittite archives. These mention a city called Wilusa (or Wilusiya) which some scholars have identified with Troy. It is argued that the original spelling of the Greek Ilios began with a digamma (part of the archaic Greek alphabet), so the argument goes something along the lines of Ilios = Wilios = Wilusa. Furthermore, although the precise location of Wilusa has not been identified it does appear to have been somewhere in north western Anatolia.

So those are our main protagonists but what of the other names appearing on our map? Perhaps the most controversial is the land of the Ahhiyawa (or Akhiyawa as it’s sometimes written). This mysterious land makes a couple of dozen appearances in the Hittite records, over several centuries. It is sometimes referred to as overseas and its leader is occasionally accepted to be of high enough status to be considered a Great King. The location of Ahhiyawa is still a subject of debate but some scholars equate the Akhiyawa with the Greek Akhaioí or Achaeans. Although this association was first made early last century it is still a matter of dispute.

To the far south of Troy we have the kingdom of the Lukka; often identified as classical Lycia. The Lukka appear at times to have been vassals of the Hittites and appear in the list of Hittite forces at Kadesh (as does Wilusiya). Once again, this identification is disputed but the Lukka are often described as one of the ‘Sea-Peoples’ so I intend to come back to these in a later post.

Between Troy and the Lukka we have the region marked Arzawa. I’m not going to look at this region too closely, at the moment, mainly because I don’t yet understand it! However, for now, it is enough to note that this is one of many kingdoms in the area sometimes allies or vassals of the Hittites, at other times in open opposition to them. It is also the region of the Assuwa confederation (which is sometimes said to be the origin of the term Asia). This was a confederation of 22 states, in western Anatolia, that were at one time in conflict with the Hittites; these included Wilusiya and possibly also the Lukka.

So in conclusion, I suppose I need to put names to my prospective protagonists. I like the idea of Akhiyawa or Akhaioí for the Greeks. It may not be correct but let’s indulge in a bit of Bronze Age ImagiNations! I’d like to get away from the classical feel of Greeks and Trojans and Akhiyawa just seems to pull us more into the world of Bronze Age Anatolia. I suspect that they will be facing the Dardanoi of Wilusiya. I know I’ve used the Greek term, Dardanoi, for the Trojans but I’m at a loss for something better. Wilusians just seems to me to be too reminiscent of Sci-Fi!