Abstract
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 63-74 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Göttinger Miszellen |
| Volume | 258 |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Ugarit
- Egypt
- Near East
- Middle Bronze Age
- New Kingdom
- Middle Kingdom
- Toponyms
- Orthography
- Amenhotep II
- Foreign relations
- Late Bronze Age
Cite this
}
Further observations on Ugarit and Egypt in the Early New Kingdom. / Cooper, Julien; Mourad, Anna-Latifa.
In: Göttinger Miszellen, Vol. 258, 2019, p. 63-74.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Further observations on Ugarit and Egypt in the Early New Kingdom
AU - Cooper, Julien
AU - Mourad, Anna-Latifa
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - A recent and elucidating article by Federico Zangani has rightly sought to integrate the name Ugarit into records of the earlier New Kingdom by associating the word IkAT of the Memphis and Karnak stele of Amenhotep II with Ugarit. The argument as to whether these texts mention historical Ugarit has undergone extensive debate by both Egyptian philologists and Semiticists, with several waves of revision and acceptance.The main point of dissension is whether the writing and phonetics of IkAT accurately transcribe Ugarit or rather another placename entirely. This small contribution builds on Zangani’s work and also proposes another possibility, that the Amenhotep II orthography is indicative of an earlier epoch of knowledge of Ugarit in the Middle Kingdom. It additionally clarifies the situation of writing foreign toponyms in this text and the period more generally.
AB - A recent and elucidating article by Federico Zangani has rightly sought to integrate the name Ugarit into records of the earlier New Kingdom by associating the word IkAT of the Memphis and Karnak stele of Amenhotep II with Ugarit. The argument as to whether these texts mention historical Ugarit has undergone extensive debate by both Egyptian philologists and Semiticists, with several waves of revision and acceptance.The main point of dissension is whether the writing and phonetics of IkAT accurately transcribe Ugarit or rather another placename entirely. This small contribution builds on Zangani’s work and also proposes another possibility, that the Amenhotep II orthography is indicative of an earlier epoch of knowledge of Ugarit in the Middle Kingdom. It additionally clarifies the situation of writing foreign toponyms in this text and the period more generally.
KW - Ugarit
KW - Egypt
KW - Near East
KW - Middle Bronze Age
KW - New Kingdom
KW - Middle Kingdom
KW - Toponyms
KW - Orthography
KW - Amenhotep II
KW - Foreign relations
KW - Late Bronze Age
M3 - Article
VL - 258
SP - 63
EP - 74
JO - Göttinger Miszellen
T2 - Göttinger Miszellen
JF - Göttinger Miszellen
SN - 0344-385X
ER -