Abstract

The following article has to be conceived as one of my responses to a long standing and enigmatic question-mark which I have been carrying incessantly in mind since my first acquaintance with cuneiform writing and archaeology: Are there interactive implications between archaeological record and textual context in Hittite Anatolia at all? One might promptly and spontaneously expect that as a principle there must have been close relations between both sorts of data, since, first of all, they are mental and material products of the same people. Why are, then, the results gained from comparisons of archaeological and philological material disappearingly feeble considering that Hittitology is in a very lucky position in being supplied abundantly by both sorts of material? The temporary results gained from the comparative studies by other scholars as well as by myself were often disappointingly meagre. This is one of the reasons why I have frequently pointed out in a pessimistic way inconsistencies between archaeological objects and information supplied by the written sources in Hittite culture.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.