Hieroglyphic Luwian Research Articles

Le mot carien pour ‘chef’, une nouvelle racine anatolienne et un changement phonétique carien-grec

Abstract In this paper, I analyse the Carian gloss σουαγγελα, attested in Stephen of Byzantium. I propose that possible cognates of γελα ‘king’, the second element of the gloss, may be identified in Hittite, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian, and possibly cuneiform Luwian. This analysis incidentally provides viable etymologies for certain Armenian lexemes, which can now be considered as loanwords from Anatolian languages (specifically Luwian). The new Carian etymology enables the reconstruction of an Anatolian root meaning ‘head’ (vel sim.), accounting for most Anatolian lexical material through conservation or trivial semantic shifts. Additionally, it offers evidence for a sound change that likely occurred during borrowing of words from Carian into Greek. In the final section, I tentatively propose that the first element of the compound σουαγγελα also reflects an authentic Carian word. Through this contribution, I aim to demonstrate that even a seemingly uncertain item like a gloss can prompt a reevaluation of a set of words and uncover previously unnoticed etymological connections.

A Goddess and a City or How to Read the Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign MANUS+MANUS

This paper argues that the unusual determinative MANUS+MANUS of the goddess Pahalati in Hama that resisted explanation until now can be understood due to its new attestation in the logographic spelling of a Cilician toponym. It will be shown that an earlier attempt that identified MANUS+MANUS as a variant of MAGNUS, the city as Urušša, and the name of the goddess as a Phoenician-Luwian mixed phrase meaning ‘Great Lady’, is palaeographically, linguistically, and geographically impossible. A clue to the decipherment of MANUS+MANUS is provided by the homo(io)phonous settlement in Cilicia, Pahra-, which explains how the same sign could have been used both as a determinative and as a logogram in accordance with the regular rules of the usage of the determinatives.

First Haykides And The “House Of Torgom” (Some comments on the problem)

In the article is discussed the “Torgomian” hypothesis of the Armenian ethnogenesis in regard to which until now scholars could not arrive at consensus. The study of various sources (written - cuneiform Hittite, Assyrian, Urartian, Hieroglyphic Luwian, classical Greek, linguistic, archaeological, mythological, etc.) points on the historical context in the history of the Armenian Highland which could fit our information drawn by Khorenatsi for the period of the First Haykides. Definitely, that period should be characterized by 1) the absence of considerably big political organization in the Highland, 2) the absence of more or less durative Assyrian control over several political entities in the south, 3) mobility of population.

A Bull Statue with Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription (MARAŞ 16) in Kahramanmaraş Museum and the Chronology of the Late Hittite Kingdom of Gurgum

In this article, an edition of an unpublished inscription (MARAŞ 16) on a basalt bull statue of the 8th century BCE from Maraş is presented. Unlike the two rulers by the name of Larama known in Gurgum history, the author of the inscription is a third Larama, son of Hunita. The implications of this new datum for the chronology of the Gurgum dynasty are briefly discussed as well.

Luviler ve Aramiler Arasındaki Dinsel Etkileşim

Two peoples that stood out with their unique languages in ancient history: Luwian and Arameans. These two peoples with different cultures and origins meet in Northern Syria in the 10th century BC. They mostly acted together against the Assyrian state in the political units known as the Neo-Hittite principalities. Luwians and Arameans decide to live together in this geography rather than conflict. By adopting the Hieroglyphic Luwian, the Arameans used this language especially in monumental buildings. Because, Hieroglyphic Luwian was the most suitable writing for transferring the texts that were desired to be permanent to monumental structures. Similarly, Aramaic reached the Greek world through the Luwians. Thus, Aramaic language has been the common language of agreement of different communities, especially in commercial relations. It is inevitable to experience cultural interactions in the geography where the language spreads. As a matter of fact, the Aramean Moon cult Sin became a very popular cult among the Luwians. Even, the Aramean cult of Sin surpassed the Luwian cult of the Moon, Arma. Apart from this, Luwian cults Tarhu and Runta and Aramaic cults Hadad and Rešeph are seen as equivalents of each other.

A New Interpretation of the Opening Lines of the Assur Letters

Abstract In this paper a new interpretation of the hatura-clauses in the Hieroglyphic Luwian Assur letters will be presented. First of all, it will be argued that the Hieroglyphic Luwian lexeme hatura-, which is usually connected to the Hittite verb ḫatrae- ‘to send’, ‘to write’ and translated as ‘letter’, is in fact related to the Hittite word ḫattuli- and Cuneiform Luwian ḫattulaḫid-, meaning ‘health’,‘wellbeing’. Secondly, the article will suggest that the Hieroglyphic Luwian word api, which is usually translated as ‘back’, or ‘again’, primarily functions as a discourse marker. Lastly, it will be proposed that the Hieroglyphic Luwian word for ‘letter’ or ‘message’ is (*205)atun(i)-. These new interpretations yield a better understanding of the opening lines of the Assur-letters and elucidate some other opaque passages of this intriguing correspondence.1

The Hieroglyphic Luwian genitive case

Abstract Descriptions of Hieroglyphic Luwian grammar assert that the genitive endings ‑as(a) and ‑asi are interchangeable; their distribution is said to be random rather than governed by any conditioning factor. However, recent studies have shown that the ending ‑asi is geographically and chronologically restricted in the corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian texts, which suggests that the distribution is not entirely random. In this paper, it is argued that in texts from the “‑asi area” - where texts containing both endings are found - the genitive endings are distributed in a non-random way. Genitives in ‑as(a) are dependent on neuter gender head nouns, whereas genitives in ‑asi are dependent on common gender head nouns. This means that, syntactically, Hieroglyphic Luwian genitives resemble genitival adjectives by agreeing with the gender of their head. Although several counterexamples exist, they are probably caused by translation errors, by language change in late Hieroglyphic Luwian, and possibly by the fact that -as(a) may reflect -asa as well as -as. Finally, a new account of the historical development of Luwian genitives is presented.

Luwian and Sanskrit action nouns in *-i̯-eh2-

Abstract The Luwian nominal class of common gender a-stems, which has been argued to reflect Proto-Indo-European stems in *-eh2-, has not yet been explored to a full extent. In Cuneiform Luwian, a number of action nouns in -a- c. derived from verbs in -i(ya)- (< *-i̯e/o-) have been noticed by scholars, but a larger analysis of all examples including Hieroglyphic Luwian is still lacking. It is the goal of the present paper to fill this gap. After a synchronic analysis of all examples, their stem formation will be compared to a similar derivational process found in Sanskrit. Consequently, the comparative evidence will shed light on the function of the suffix *-eh2- in Proto-Indo-European, including Anatolian.

The Survival of the God Name Šarruma in Cilician Names in the Greek Sources

Abstract This paper studies some Cilician names attested in Greek sources that contain the element ζαρμα-. The two main interpretative hypotheses – a connection to Luwian zalma-, or a connection to the god name Šarruma/Šarma- – are critically analysed. The conclusion reached is that while the ambiguity of ζαρμα- cannot be resolved, it is highly likely that both -sarma and -zarma really existed as different elements in the formation of personal names in Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian. There was probably a tendency towards confusion between -sarma and -zarma, caused by phonological proximity and semantic crossing of certain names.

Abracadabra, or “I Create as I Speak”: A Reanalysis of the First Verb in the Katumuwa Inscription in Light of Northwest Semitic and Hieroglyphic Luwian Parallels

Previous translations of the Katumuwa Inscription have either rendered the first verbal phrase (qnt ly) “I commissioned for myself,” or “I acquired for myself.” No scholars have yet defended the possibility that it simply means “I made.” In fact, this is likely the case given the typical monumental rhetoric of Northwest Semitic and Hieroglyphic Luwian monumental inscriptions. In particular, a comparison with verbs of monumenting in Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions suggests that the monumenting phrase in the Katumuwa Inscription was calqued on a Luwian phrase. This difference is significant because it reveals an important aspect of the inscription’s monumentality and the Syro-Anatolian conception of the stele. The stele that Katumuwa created was not understood merely as the inscribed object. Rather, the monument was the conjunction of material object, ritual engagement, and the resultant manifestation of the monument’s commissioner. There was no monument apart from Katumuwa, whose voice was preserved in the inscription and whose presence could be reactivated through ritual. Therefore, Katumuwa did in fact “create” the stele as he spoke through it to his monument’s users.

The spelling and phonology of the dental stops in Hieroglyphic Luwian

Abstract This paper investigates the distribution and use of the Hieroglyphic Luwian signs □ <ta> (L 100) and □ <ta> (L 29), expanding on and reacting to Rieken 2010. It appears <ta> and <ta> are used contrastively not only in a select subset of texts from the Karkamiš region, but in large parts of the Hieroglyphic Luwian corpus in general. Word-internally, <ta> appears to be used wherever we expect to find a short stop (either voiced or voiceless), while <ta> is used for long (fortis) stops. This suggests that consonantal length was at least a phonetic feature in Hieroglyphic Luwian.

Signs of length

Abstract In Vertegaal 2017, it was argued that plene spellings(〈CV-V〉 sign sequences) in Hieroglyphic Luwian can be divided into two types: space-fillers on the one hand, and non-fillers on the other. This article focuses on plene spellings of the latter kind, as attested in texts from the Iron Age (CHLI). It is demonstrated that these non-filler plene writings are non-randomly distributed across morphemes and lexemes, indicating that this mode of spelling marks a phonetic feature. Using secure etymologies and analyses, it is proposed that non-filler (“linguistically real”) plene spellings mark the presence of long vowels or disyllabic sequences. The validity of this hypothesis is subsequently tested against less secure and doubtful etymologies as well as counterexamples. Finally, it is concluded that the hypothesis holds, thereby providing, for the first time, direct evidence for the writing of vowel length in Hieroglyphic Luwian.

“Chariots” in contact: on the value of the signs *91, *92 and *94 of Hieroglyphic Luwian

Abstract In this paper, I will re-examine the evidence for the interpretation of a complex compound logogram of the Hieroglyphic Luwian syllabary, PES(2). SCALA.ROTAE. I will also offer an improved interpretation of the text of the Korkun stela. Finally, I will tentatively suggest that the specific meaning of the compound logogram PES(2).SCALA may depend on the contact with the semiotic inventory of the cuneiform writing system.

Filling in the Facts

AbstractThis article explores the use of <CV-V> sign sequences (

A New Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription from Pancarlı Höyük: Language and Power in Early Iron Age Samʾal-YʾDY

Previous articleNext article No AccessA New Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription from Pancarlı Höyük: Language and Power in Early Iron Age Samʾal-YʾDYVirginia R. Herrmann, Theo van den Hout, and Ahmet BeyazlarVirginia R. HerrmannInstitute for Near Eastern Studies, University of Tübingen* Search for more articles by this author , Theo van den HoutOriental Institute, University of Chicago Search for more articles by this author , and Ahmet BeyazlarGaziantep Cultural Property Protection Regional Council Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Near Eastern Studies Volume 75, Number 1April 2016 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/684835 Views: 672Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref © 2016 by The Journal of Near Eastern Studies. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Timothy Hogue Abracadabra, or “I Create as I Speak”: A Reanalysis of the First Verb in the Katumuwa Inscription in Light of Northwest Semitic and Hieroglyphic Luwian Parallels, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381 (Apr 2019): 193–202.https://doi.org/10.1086/703142David Kertai , Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29, no.11 ( 2019): 81.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000379Virginia R. Herrmann Urban organization under empire: Iron Age Sam’al (Zincirli, Turkey) from royal to provincial capital, Levant 49, no.33 (Apr 2018): 284–311.https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1453719Virginia R. Herrmann Appropriation and Emulation in the Earliest Sculptures from Zincirli (Iron Age Samʾal), American Journal of Archaeology 121, no.22 (Dec 2021): 237–274.https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.121.2.0237

Bemerkungen zum Ursprung einiger Merkmale der anatolischen Hieroglyphenschrift

Summary The article critically reviews the hypotheses on the origin of the Hieroglyphic Luwian script and the stages of its development. Several specific features of the script are explained within their phonological, pragmatic and cultural contexts. It is suggested that the ambiguity of the Ca/i signs originated in the creation of new signs on the basis of words with a/i-stem alternations by way of the acrophonic principle. Another characteristic of the Empire and early Iron Age texts, the frequent omission of the endings of syllabically written verbal forms, was established in analogy to the logographic writings for verbs, which were probably common in economic texts. The influence of the sealings on Hittite rock inscriptions may be detected not only in the fact that many of them are written in relief (instead of being incised), but also in the remarkable spelling convention of the “initial-a-final”: The long vertical sign of initial a- can optionally shift to word-final position, because there is more space in the middle of the seal than on itsmargin.

‘The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder Beams’: The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa

‘The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder Beams’: The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa

Pronominal Morphology in the Anatolian Language Family

In the following article, the pronominal morphology from four major ancient Anatolian languages (Hittite, Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian and Lycian) will be treated. It will be argued that apart from a few elements of unclear origin, the pronouns in these languages are for the most part built up of morphemes that can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European.

Philology and linguistics: when data meet theory. Two case studies I: the case of Hieroglyphic Luwian

To write about philology and philologists in English is never easy because, as argued in the Introduction, the meaning of these words is still ambiguous. In some traditions, those who study texts for literary or cultural purposes are called philologists (here I shall refer to them as literary philologists), but those who work on the history of language may also be called philologists (I shall refer to them as linguistic philologists). The link is provided by the study of texts, but not all historical linguists work on texts. They may concentrate on fieldwork and change in progress, or on comparative reconstruction based on oral sources, or on the theory of change, and, if so, they probably prefer to be called linguists. However, in a number of instances, perhaps the majority, a detailed analysis of long-term change inevitably depends on written material of different dates. The result is that the literary philologists and the linguistic philologists may find themselves working on the same data, but with different aims: for the linguistic philologists the language rather than the content of the text is the main point of interest. In fact we are dealing with three categories: literary philologists, linguistic philologists and linguists. They are all linked, but the link is not always straightforward; the linguistic philologists are also linguists (vice versa is not true), but the literary philologists are not. In practice the two types of philologist approach their subject differently. The linguistic philologists concentrate on the history of the language, need chronologically arranged data, and may find what they need in compilations (grammars, lexica, etc.), which in their turn are based on texts. Often enough, however, they are obliged to turn to the primary sources, i.e. to texts, and to apply philological techniques (textual criticism, palaeography, epigraphy, analysis of sources, etc.) to those texts. On the other hand, the literary philologists are trained in the study of texts, concentrate on their interpretation, and do not think of themselves as linguists, though they agree that a thorough knowledge of the language in which the texts are composed is essential. Obviously they use grammars and lexica, but they are put off by what they see as the theoretical mumbo-jumbo of linguists and by a technical terminology which they find impenetrable. Consequently they reject the notion that they have much if anything to learn from the linguists (or linguistic philologists) and may think that the only real philology is the one they practise. In the context of a collection of papers by young researchers who were invited to think about the interface between linguistics and philology, it may be useful to address this second type of philological reaction, all the more so because the number of people who were trained as literary philologists (as I was), but feel close to linguistics, is declining. I extract from my earlier work two concrete examples of textual interpretation which depend on more general linguistic considerations, while at the same time providing data that may have more general implications for linguistics. Transactions of the Philological Society Volume 109:3 (2011) 207–219

Four Notes on Taita King of Palistin with an Excursus on King Solomon's Empire

The paper adds four observations to an earlier note (Sass 2010a) in which the author suggested placing Taita, king of Palistin (Hawkins 2009), in the 10th century, probably towards its end. The paper addresses Taita and the settlement of the Sea Peoples; Taita and hieroglyphic luwian; Taita and the southern levant; and Taita and egypt. An excursus on two 10th-century levantine empires—those of the historical Taita and the biblical Solomon—is also added.