{"title":"Ḫinduwa: Kindye还是Kandyba ?","authors":"Zsolt Simon","doi":"10.52093/hara-202101-00020-000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the linguistically impeccable identification of Ḫinduwa with Kindye is excluded by geography and the identification of Ḫinduwa with Kandyba is problematic both linguistically and geographically. Only a third settlement that must be close to Tlos fits the attested geographical information.","PeriodicalId":224972,"journal":{"name":"Hungarian Assyriological Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ḫinduwa: Kindye oder Kandyba?\",\"authors\":\"Zsolt Simon\",\"doi\":\"10.52093/hara-202101-00020-000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper argues that the linguistically impeccable identification of Ḫinduwa with Kindye is excluded by geography and the identification of Ḫinduwa with Kandyba is problematic both linguistically and geographically. Only a third settlement that must be close to Tlos fits the attested geographical information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":224972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hungarian Assyriological Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hungarian Assyriological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52093/hara-202101-00020-000\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hungarian Assyriological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52093/hara-202101-00020-000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues that the linguistically impeccable identification of Ḫinduwa with Kindye is excluded by geography and the identification of Ḫinduwa with Kandyba is problematic both linguistically and geographically. Only a third settlement that must be close to Tlos fits the attested geographical information.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
