The Discussions of the Textbook “History of Ancient Orient” by V.I. Avdiev in the late 1940s – early 1950s.
Ivan A. Ladynin (Moscow), Natalia S. Timofeeva (Moscow)
The paper is built on the documents from the archives (the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Department of Ancient History, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University; the Russian State Archive for the Social and Political History – RGASPI) added with the published reviews. It shows that the notorious failures and omissions in the textbook by Avdiev (its first and second editions of 1948 and 1953) were well demonstrated in the discussions of its manuscript and in the immediate reviews. The character of the criticism directed against the textbook shows that in the epoch of the “Stalinist empire style” (1940s) academic competence, and not the loyalty and orthodoxy of theoretical schemes became again the accepted criterion for evaluating a research or a university course.
Astrological text Ἀποτελέσματα by Manetho is in many respects untypical for hexametric poetry of the Imperial period. First, it has larger proportion of spondees (31%) than any extant extensive Greek text, although in this period hexametric poetry had strong tendency to use more dactyls. Second, the proportion of shorter and longer words in the poem is very close to that of Homer and in particular Hesiodus unlike Hellenistic and late epic texts. Furthermore, Manetho prefers penthemimeral caesura to word-break κατὰ τρίτον τροχαῖον and often uses elision (almost 70 per 100 verses). These peculiarities are important and evident enough to let us speak of special modeling of Greek hexameter by Manetho as opposed to Nonnian reformation of epic verse.
The Tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel and its ‘World of Doubles’: An Interpretation of the Monument in the Light of the Egyptian Elite’s Mood of the Early Hellenistic Time.
The article shows that the traditional scenes of defunct’s confronting deities in the chapel of the tomb of the priest Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel near Hermopolis (late 4th century B.C.) are connected exclusively with the posthumous destiny of Petosiris’ relatives that died before him; the decoration of the pronaos that was dedicated to himself was marked with considerable Hellenization and reproduced the archaic model of the “World of Doubles” typical for private tombs of the Third Millennium B.C. Probably Petosiris urged to achieve the posthumous existence according to this model, independently of gods, as he thought it impossible to contact gods effectively in the early Macedonian time, when, in his ideas, there was no ritual sacral ruler in Egypt.
The article deals with the transmission of the Iranian words in the Late Middle Egyptian text of the Satrap Stela (311 B.C.). The problematic fragment with such word is the story about the domain of the ‘Land-of-Wadjet’, which has once been alienated from the possessions of the Buto temples by a foreign ruler named #SryS. Historically it must be Artaxerxes III during or after his invasion in Egypt in 343 B.C. but the name-form corresponds to the Old Persian Xšayṛšān, i.e. Xerxes. This can be explained by a possibility of not only the name Xerxes being used as a generic for Persian kings, like in some Classical texts (the idea by W. Spiegelberg and P. Briant) but also by the confusion of the two names in their Greek form, due to their common component Ξέρξης/–ξέρξης. Unlike Xerxes’ authentic Egyptian cartouches, the hieroglyphic transcription of the Satrap Stela does not show -yṛ- present in the Persian name but absent in its Greek form. Besides the word “satrap” as a denotation of the Satrap Ptolemy, though transmitting the Iranian *ḫšaθrapāna, appears in the title of a document, which must have undoubtedly been Greek originally (Pdrmyz p(A) xSdrpn ~= Πτολεμαίος ὁ σατράπης). One concludes that the use of initially Iranian words was motivated for the compilers of the text by the Greek, and not Iranian, language practice; this is no surprise due to the short duration of the Persian domination in 343-332 B.C. and to the wide presence of Greek-speakers in Egypt after the Macedonian conquest. However, the hieroglyphic transcription of these words corresponds to their Iranian form known in Egypt since at least the 5th century B.C.: probably, the compilers of the text did not care to invent a brand-new transcription for their Greek forms. The only possible exception is the alleged transcription of the name ‘Arses’ (Wr-siA-z ~=Ὀάρσης < ὁ Ἄρσης): the Greek name-form might have been reproduced here, as the original Persian form remained unknown.