다나오스 이전의 아르고스 왕조와 힉소스

Abstract

I. There are not only the so-called paraiahs of scholarship like Martin Bernal, who think that the myths relating to Danaus contain the core of historical facts. Frank Stubbings wrote in ‘The Rise of Mycenaesan Civilization’, a chapter of Cambridge Ancient History(3rd edtion, 1975), as follows. Thus the legendary conquest of Danaus, and the arrival of a new dynasty at Mycenae, which seems necessary to explain the efflorescence of material culture we observe in the Mycenae Shaft Graves, may be regarded as one and the same thing. That is to say that, in tune with the tradition, we may postulate the conquest of the Argolid by some of the displaced Hyksos leaders from Egypt in the early sixteenth century BC. (vol. 2, part 1, p. 636) Martin Bernal criticizes him. In this way then Stubbings was working within the Ancient Model. Indeed one of the chief flaws in his scheme is his fidelity to its canon that the Hyksos arrived in the Argolid as ‘suppliants’ after their expulsion from Egypt by the 18th Dynasty. The 16th century BC is when the ancient chronology for the Parian Marble set the arrival of Danaus and when modern chronology puts the expulsion of the Hyksos. This perfect conjunction is marred by the fact that even before the redating of the Thera eruption, it was generally acknowledged that the earliest Shaft Graves came from the 17th century. Now, we know that they have to have been dug even earlier, nearer 1700 than 1600 BC. Thus, this part of his scheme and of the Ancient Model is untenable. (Black Athena, vol. 2, p. 403) Bernal argues that Danaus arrived around 1700 rather than around 1500 BC in the view of archaeological evidences. However, Stubbins also argues that Hyksos material culture influenced Greece much earlier. …and it may well be that we ought ourselves to view the advances of Middle Minoan III and the rise of Mycenaean civilization as both phases in one big westward movement󰠏the same movement, conceivably, that in a yet earlier phase had produced the Hyksos domination of Egypt. (CAH3, vol. 2, part 1, p. 638) Both Stubbings and Bernal agree that Hyksos material culture appeared in Greece with the advance of MMIII(according to Stubbings, 1700-1600 BC; according to Bernal, 1730-1675). While Stubbings emphasizes the influence from Crete, M. Bernal argues for Hyksos conquests of Mycenaean Greece. II. Although Bernal regards Danaus as the historical figure around 1700 BC, that is, around the Hyksos arrival in Egypt, ancient Greek writers unanimously mentioned that Danaus had been expelled from Egypt and had arrived in Greece. According to the Parian Marble, he arrived in Greece in 1511/10 BC. Then, did ancient Greek writers not mention the Hyksos who came to Greece before the arrival of Danaus? I suggest the possibility that the dynasty in Argos before Danaus was Hyksos dynasty. [표]The Thera eruption can be the basis of a chronology to reconstruct the geneaology of Argolian kings before Danaus. I accept the theory of some scientists that 1628 BC is the year of the Thera eruption. For example, Sturt Manning established 1628-1626 date in Nature (1988.3). The flood of Deucalion, which is regarded as one of the phenomenona caused by the Thera eruption, happened in the reign of Triopas the Argolian king, according to Diodorus(v.81.1-3). The problem in reconstructing the genealogy of Argolian kings is whose daughter Io was, that is, whether she was Inachus’ or Iasus’. I argue that Io is Iasus’ daughter(see the genealogical table above). Ⅲ. Pausanias described how Danaus arrived at Argos and became the king like the following. The reason why Danaus founded a sanctuary of Apollo Lycius was this. On coming to Argos he claimed the kingdom against Gelanor, the son of Sthenelas. Many plausible arguments were brought forward by both parties, and those of Sthenelas were considered as fair as those of his opponent; so the people, who were sitting in judgment, put off, they say, the decision to the following day. (Pausanias, ii.19.3) Danaus secured the Argolian kingship not by battle, but by judgement. Triopas the Argolian king had two sons, Iasus and Agenor. Iasus succeeded him. Argos flourished in the reign of Iasus so that there were terms such as ‘Iasidae(Iasian people)’ and ‘Iasian Argos’(see Strabo, viii.6.9). However Crotopus, the son of Agenor, succeeded Iasus because Io, the daughter of Iasus, went to Egypt(Pausanias, ii.16.1). Pausanias continuously describes that Danaus “stayed the succession to the kingdom of the descendants of Agenor.” Danaus must have demanded the Argolian kingship from Gelanor on the ground of being Iasus’ sixth generation, that is, the right of priority in the succession. If Danaus’ demand for the succession should be justified, the Argolian dynasty before Danaus must be the Hyksos dynasty. See how Theras, the son of Autesion, became the king of Thera(Herodotus, iv.147). The reason why archaeologically Mycenaean Greece was of the Hyksos material culture from around 1700 BC is the Hyksos’ conquest of Greece, rather than the indirect influence through Crete.