Гомер и история Восточного Средиземноморья

Vasmer, 1970 - Vasmer M. Die Slaven in Griechenland. Lpz., 1970.

Vaux, 1969 - Vaux R. de. La Ph'enicie et les peuples de la mer.
– Melanges offerts `a Maurice Dunand. T. 1. Beyrouth, 1969.

Ventris, Chadwick, 1959 - Ventris M., Chadwick J. Documents in Mycenean Greek. Cambridge, 1959.

Ventris, Chadwick, 1973 - Ventris M., Chadwick J. Documents in Mycenean Greek. 2-nd ed. Cambridge, 1973.

Vermeule, 1964 - Vermeule E. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago, 1964. •

Vetter, 1948 - Vetter E. Die etruskische Personennamen le-"oe, left, le ft a und die Namen unfreier oder halbfreier Personen bei den Etruskern.
– Jahreshefte des "Osterreichischen Arch"aeologischen Instituts in Wien. 1948, Bd. 37.

Vian, 1959 - Vian F. Recherches sur les «Posthomerica» de Quintus de Smyme. P., 1959.

Vian, 1959a - Vian F. Histoire de la tradition manuscripte de Quintus de Smyme. P., 1959.

WainwrighL 1952 - Wainwright GA. Asiatic Keftiou.
– AJA. 1952, vol. 56.

Wainwright, 1963 - Wainwright GA. A Teukrian at Salamis.
– JHS. 1963, vol. 83.

Walberg, 1976 - Walberg G. Northern Intruders in Мус. Ill С?

– AJA. 1976, vol. 80.

Watkins, 1976 - Watkins C. Observations on the Nestor’s cup inscription.
– HSL 1976, vol. 80.

Watkins, 1986 - Watkins C. The language of the Trojans.
– TTW.

Watkins, 1987 - Watkins C. Questions linguistiques palaites et louvites cun'eiformes.
– Hethitica. Louvain `a-la-Neuve. 1987, t. 8.

Webster, 1964-Webster ISL. From Mycenae to Homer. L., 1964.

Weickert, 1959 - Weickert C. Neue Ausgrabungen in Milet.
– Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet und im Vorderen Orient. B., 1959.

Weippert, 1981 - WeippertM. Kreta.
– RLA. Bd. 6, Lief 3^t. 1981.

Whitman, 1958 - Whitman C.H. Homer and the heroic poetry. Cambridge, 1958.

Wiesner, 1963 - WiesnerJ. Die Thraker. Stuttgart, 1963.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1886 - Wiiamowitz-Moellendorf U. von. Isyllos von Epidauros. B., 1886.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1895 - Wiiamowitz-Moellendorf U. von. Euripides. Herakles. Bd. 1. B., 1895.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1903 - Wiiamowitz-Moellendorf U. von. Apollon.
– Hermes. B., 1903, Bd. 38.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1916 - Wiiamowitz-Moellendorf U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. В., 1916.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1924 - Wiiamowitz-Moellendorf U. von. Hellenistische Dichtung in derzeit des Kallimachos. Bd. 2. В., 1924.

Wood, 1985 - WoodM. In search of the Trojan war. L., 1985.

Zgusta, 1964 - Zgusta L. Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prag, 1964.

Zgusta, 1984 - Zgusta L. Kleinasi"atische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg, 1984.

Zwiecker, 1921 -ZwieckerJ. Sarpedon.
– RE. 2-te Reihe. 1921, Hbd. 3.

Annotation

In their book, Homer and History of the Eastern Mediterranean, L.A. Gindin and V.L. Tsymburski suggest their own reconstruction of historical actualities underlying the myths concerning the great military expedition of the Achaean Greeks against the Trojan capital, Ilios. The authors combine traditional methods of historical analysis with the available archaeological data and profound research of the linguistic relicts which shed light on the early ethnical history of Troy.

In the introductory Chapter 1, History Belongs to a Poet, the authors explain their attitude towards the Homeric question in its two main issues: both concerning the genesis of the poems and their historical value for a researcher. The opinion is expressed according to which each of the three rival trends in Homerology (namely, analyticism, unitarianism and the point of view regarding the Homeric poems as a traditional kind of oral epos) reflects one actual corresponding aspect of the genesis of «The Iliad» and «The Odyssey». Thus, the folkloristic school of Homerology exposes characteristic features of the formulaic technique used by Homer in his versification, ranging from standard word combinations (or set expressions) to the repertory of traditional images and scenes. Analyticism reveals strife between different versions and variants in the pre-Homeric tradition; the strife that had been integrated by the Poet’s artistic intention - perhaps to the point of merger of the earlier epic portions into his discourse. Lastly, Unitarian approach explains the systems of images and plots of «The Iliad» and «The Odyssey» from the viewpoint of integrity of the Poet’s conception which is in many respects unique for ancient epic. This conception is determined by the two topics which coexist in either of the Homeric epics: the declared topic of a hero’s fate (e.g. fate of Achilles or Odysseus), and the implicit topic of the heroic epoch nearing its end. The most complicated and diverse interrelations of metaphorical and metaphysical nature are established between the two abovementioned topics in the discourse; as a result of this, the Homeric relation obtains the multitude of functional dimensions. Each of the delineated three trends in Homerology sees in the concept of «Homeric historicism» somewhat different meaning. For a supporter of the folkloristic school, historicism of Homer lies primarily in his use of the formulae/clich^s which preserve some or other actualities of the long-gone past. For an analyst (meaning here a follower of the analytical

school) the said historicism is in the dynamics of the interacting and developing earlier versions whose vague shapes can be discerned behind the Homeric text; in the dynamics reflecting those of history itself. Lastly, an Unitarian sees the Homeric historicism in the artistic skill using which the Poet reconstructs image of the epoch as of a space of time permeated with a single meaning, connected with a singe action that prevails over diversity of individual plots and stories.

In the Part 1, The Aegean and the Trojan War (Chapters 2 to 4), the authors seek to determine the true meaning of those developments which had come into Greek tradition under the name of the Trojan War in the context of the Late Bronze history of Asia minor and the Eastern Mediterranean - so far as that history can be reconstructed on the basis of the Hittite, Greek (Mycenaean) and Egyptian written records.

The Second Chapter, Hittite Evidence on the Achaeans in Anatolia of the 15-13 Centuries B.C., offers an analysis of the Hittite written sources mentioning the land of Ahhijawa; the authors see in the latter Mycenaean Greece including its Anatolian territorial possessions. Now that the works of H. Otten, A. Kammenhuber and F. Schachermeyr are available the earliest of those documents (the so-called «Text Concerning Madduwatas») can be dated back to the end of the 15 century B.C., and the latest records (fragments of the time of Tuthalijas IV) to 1250-1220 B.C. The authors argue that the influence of Ahhijawi in Asia Minor was decisively getting stronger in the second half of the 14 century B.C.

– after Mursilis II defeated the kingdom of Arzawa that had been the biggest state in the Western Anatolia. The heyday of Ahhijawa’s power came in the early 13 century B.C., when Hattusilis III in the «Letter Concerning Tawagalawas» addresses the king of Ahhijawa as an equal (if not regarding the latter as a stronger partner) and expresses in humble terms his regret for their contention of late and for the war waged to capture the city of WiluSa. He also names the city of Milawa(n)da (Miletus) in Asia Minor an Achaean possession.

Under the rule of Tuthalijas IV (the second half of the 13 century B.C.) the political picture undergoes major changes. Since that time the king of Ahhijawa is expunged from the document listing the «great kings», and the ruler of Milawa(n)da is regarded as a subject of the Hittite king; moreover all the dealings with that ruler are conducted without the prior consent of Ahhijawa. It is quite evident that certain developments taking in the Achaean metropolis of the Balkan Peninsula were apt to undermine the Achaean Greeks’ position in Asia Minor. The text KUB XIII, 13 is dated to that epoch. It informs us of the defeat suffered by the king of Ahhijawa in the Seha River Country (later Mysia) - this fact exactly corresponds to Greek tradition relating the inauspicious beginning of the Trojan war when invading by mistake Mysia instead of Troad, the Achaeans had been repelled by local population (a «Pseudo-Iliad» of a sort!). Using this evidence, we can correlate historical prototype of the Trojan war with certain crises of Greek history of the second half o^ the 13 century B.C.

In Chapter 3, Wiluia-Ilios and Trui$a-Troy, the authors follow the example of many scholars in identifying the Hittite period toponyms of Asia Minor - WiluSa and T(a)ruifa - with the Homeric Ilios and Troy. They also support this identification with a number of new arguments. Thus, the book demonstrates that the most important developments in interrelations between the Hittite kingdom and Ahhijawa in the late 14 and early 13 centuries B.C. were centred round WiluSa, the city viewed by Achaean kings as almost a part of the Greek world. It must be stressed that the overriding points of those interrelations came to be the extremely strong influence exerted by Ahhijawa in the Western Anatolia of the early 13 century B.C., as well as the power vacuum evident there by the end of the century, i.e. by the time of the Trojan war. That political vacuum was primarily due to the crisis suffered by Ahhijawa and to the inimical attitude towards the Hittites assumed by the natives of the Western Anatolia. The latter can largely be identified with the tribes referred to by Homer as the allies of Ilios in its struggle against the Achaeans. Besides that, the authors seek to substantiate a supposition that some personae featuring in the Trojan cycle epics - Agamemnon, Alexander/Paris, et al.
– could have had their prototypes at a much earlier period of history (at the turn of the 14 and 13 centuries B.C.). By the time of the Trojan war they must have become vague figures of the past whose legendary deeds got later mixed with memories of the crucial epoch of the Mycenaean Greece.