A I H N NVESTIGATION OF THE IEROGLYPHIC L < > UWIAN SIGN SA 5 Patrick Skipworth Leiden University 2016 Patrick Skipworth Abstract The Hieroglyphic Luwian script has a number of apparent homophonic symbols (homographs), primarily within the <ta> and <sa> series and “presumably to be explained in terms of original distinctions either lost or not yet established by us”.1 The purpose of this paper will be to determine whether an underlying phonetic (or possibly phonological) quality distinct from the other <sa> signs can be identified for the sign <sa >. 5 An accurate picture of the Hieroglyphic Luwian syllabary is key to understanding the language hidden beneath the script. In studying the nature of this sign, the scholar of Luwian will be better able to understand the phonetic and phonological system of Hieroglyphic Luwian, and to connect it to that of Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European. The paper will begin with an extended introduction detailing the historical position and linguistic features of the Luwian languages, as well as a brief discussion of the Anatolian Hieroglyphic script. Following this, data reflecting the distribution of the <sa > sign in the corpus will be presented 5 alongside a discussion of the sign's linguistic environments. The next section will suggest possible interpretations of this data, utilising primarily comparative and etymological arguments. The paper will conclude with a suggested interpretation of the sign. 1 Hawkins 2000: 5. An investigation of the Luwian Hieroglyph <sa > 5 Contents 1 Introduction to the Luwian languages .......................................................................................... 4 1.1 The Luwian corpus and Luwian history ................................................................................ 8 1.2 The decipherment of the Anatolian Hieroglyphs ................................................................ 11 1.3 Reading Hieroglyphic Luwian ............................................................................................ 13 1.4 A note on Rhotacism in Hieroglyphic Luwian .................................................................... 16 2 The Hieroglyphic Luwian sign <sa > ........................................................................................ 18 5 2.1 <sa > environments ............................................................................................................. 19 5 2.2 A note on HLuw. asaza- ..................................................................................................... 20 2.3 The ‘thorn’ <+ra/i> following <sa> signs ........................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Counter-examples: <sà+ra/i> ....................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 <sa +ra/i> ..................................................................................................................... 23 x 2.4 Re-examining the relationship between the ‘thorn’ <+ra/i> and the <sa> signs ................ 25 2.5 <sa> forms with rhotic elements other than the forms <+ra/i> ........................................... 26 2.6 <sa > word-internally or word-initially without the ‘thorn’ <+ra/i> .................................. 28 5 2.6.1 <sa -sa +ra/i-la-i> ....................................................................................................... 28 5 5 2.6.2 <sa ?-x+ra/i-ha> ......................................................................................................... 29 5 2.6.3 <x-sa -hi> ..................................................................................................................... 30 5 2.7 Word-final <-sa > ................................................................................................................ 31 5 2.8 Summary of evidence .......................................................................................................... 34 3 Determining the phonetic or phonemic quality of <sa > ........................................................... 35 5 3.1 Etymological and comparative analysis of <sa > forms ..................................................... 36 5 3.2 HLuw. /r/ and forms in <sa +ra/i> ...................................................................................... 36 5 3.2.1 The feminising suffix -s(a)ra/i- ................................................................................... 36 3.2.2 kutasari- and hatas(a)tari- ........................................................................................... 38 3.2.3 was(a)ra- and isarwila- ............................................................................................... 39 3 Patrick Skipworth 3.2.4 sarli- ............................................................................................................................. 40 3.3 Returning to asaza-, and the form ANNUS-na-ha-sa -ha .................................................. 42 5 3.4 Possible counter-examples .................................................................................................. 44 3.4.1 The genitival adjective –asa/i- and usa/i- ........................................................................ 44 3.4.2 Interpretation of forms in <sà+ra/i> ............................................................................. 45 3.4.3 Interpretation of forms with rhotic elements other than <+ra/i> ................................. 46 3.5 <sa > in word-final position ................................................................................................ 50 5 3.5.1 Nominative singular in /-s/ and genitive singular in /-as/ ............................................ 51 3.6 Phonetic character of <sa > ................................................................................................. 52 5 3.7 Phonemic character of <sa > ............................................................................................... 52 5 4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 54 5 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 55 List of maps and tables Fig. 2.1 – Occurrences of <sa> signs ................................................................................................. 18 Fig. 2.2 – <sa > environments .......................................................................................................... 19 5 Fig. 2.3 – Occurrences of <sa> signs with the 'thorn' <+ra/i> ........................................................... 21 Fig. 2.4 – Revised occurences of <sa> signs with the ‘thorn’ <+ra/i> .............................................. 25 Fig. 2.5 – Cases of <ri+i> and <ru> preceded by <sa> signs ............................................................ 26 Fig. 2.6 – Word-final <sa > cases ...................................................................................................... 31 5 Fig. 2.7 – Location of word-final <sa > cases ................................................................................... 32 5 Fig. 2.8 – <sa > distribution .............................................................................................................. 34 5 Fig. 3.1 – Phonetic function of <sa > sign ........................................................................................ 52 5 An investigation of the Luwian Hieroglyph <sa > 5 1 Introduction to the Luwian languages The first section of this paper will present a description of the Luwian languages, their scripts and the people and places by and in which they were spoken. This description will naturally not be exhaustive. Some of the information presented will be essential to the following discussion of the sign <sa >, while the rest will hopefully help to establish to the reader the significance of the 5 Luwian languages to the study of Indo-European languages in general, and the current status of scholarly opinion and understanding on some notable aspects of the language. The Luwian languages are members of the Anatolian language family2 of Indo-European languages. This means they share many features with their Anatolian siblings, and together these languages form a group distinct from the other members of the Indo-European family. Some of the features of the Anatolian family3 have been identified as reflecting the Proto-Indo-European mother-language more closely than those features visible in the other Indo-European (but non- Anatolian) languages. This had led some to posit an 'Indo-Hittite4 hypothesis', which takes into account the earliest stage of Proto-Indo-European following which the Pre-Anatolian language speakers left the Urheimat. The remaining Proto-Indo-European speakers continued to innovate together5 for a period, before splitting into their respective branches. An accurate picture of Proto-Anatolian for comparison with the other Indo-European branches is essential for determining the validity of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. While a great deal of Anatolian evidence comes from our understanding of Hittite, it is a serious error to reconstruct the Proto-Anatolian language without repeated reference to the other Anatolian languages, including Luwian. Comparison with multiple languages allows us to distinguish innovations which have taken place within, for example, Hittite from archaic features in fact continued from Proto- Anatolian, and possibly from Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Hittite. For this reason, the Luwian languages may have a significant role to play in comparison with Hittite for developing a better understanding of the nature of Proto-Anatolian and the strength of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, primarily due to the Luwian languages' relatively wide-attestation in both the quantity of available 2 This designation is linguistic and does not, of course, include any and all languages which have a clear connection with Anatolia (such as Phrygian, which is Indo-European but not a member of the Anatolian family, although it was spoken in Anatolia). 3 The most striking of these may be the absence of a feminine grammatical gender which may be considered an archaism, reflecting the inherited ‘Indo-Hittite’ system. – Melchert (Forthc.): 21. 4 Originally suggested by Sturtevant (1926). 'Indo-Anatolian' would be a more suitable term. 5 As ‘Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European’ (PNIE). 5 Patrick Skipworth material and the geographic area and chronological span over and during which they are attested. Historically, Luwian was spoken throughout parts of Anatolia and modern-day north-western Syria during the Bronze and early-Iron Ages. For the greater part of the second millennium BCE, the Hittite Empire dominated Anatolia politically.6 Three significant Indo-European groups co- existed in the region, identified by the Hittites in their written record by their languages: the palaumnili (speakers of Palaic, the language of Palā in northern Anatolia), the luwili (speakers of Luwian) and the nešili (the Hittite speakers themselves, who named their language for their previous centre at Kaneš).7 At the foundation of the Hittite kingdom (c.1650 BCE), Hattušili I began the programme of writing on clay tablets in Hittite, Luwian, Palaic and some non-Anatolian languages, perhaps taking the Cuneiform script and the scribes themselves from the north Syrian regions which were a focal point of his wars.8 However, while amongst its siblings Hittite retained an important position as the primary language of royalty and the administration “this need not indicate continuing political supremacy by a particular ethnic group. Rather it reflects the retention of an important dynastic tradition”.9 The ethnic or linguistic make-up within the Hittite Empire may in fact have been significantly Luwian and indeed, following its fall (alongside the Mycenaean) at the end of the 2nd millennium during the ‘Bronze Age Collapse’, Luwian-dominated societies and civilisations emerged in the previously Hittite lands, primarily in southern Anatolia.10 The two extant Luwian 'languages' are known as Cuneiform Luwian (henceforth CLuw.) and Hieroglyphic Luwian (henceforth HLuw.). These designations refer to the scripts in which both these languages are written. The Cuneiform script is utilised for CLuw. in essentially the same manner as it is for Hittite.11 Conversely, the functionality and origins of the Anatolian Hieroglyphic script12 are less clear. On the basis of the acrophonic quality of some symbols (discussed in section 1.3) and the development of the script within Anatolia there may appear on the surface little reason to assume the Luwian Hieroglyphs were not developed “von den Luwiern, für das Luwische, in luwischen Landen”.13 However, the earliest signs available to us which resemble the Luwian Hieroglyphs, appearing on official seals from the Hittite Empire, contain only names or logographic titles which 6 Bryce 2005: 19. 7 Bryce 2003: 27. All these languages are members of the Anatolian family. 8 Hawkins 2003: 129. 9 Bryce 2005: 18. 10 Bryce 2003: 27. 11 The same is the case for Palaic. – Melchert 1994: 12. 12 Often referred to as ‘Hieroglyphic Hittite’, particularly in the older literature. 13 Güterbock 1956: 518. An investigation of the Luwian Hieroglyph <sa > 5 cannot be positively identified as written in the Luwian language.14 Usually, they are enclosed by a Cuneiform inscription consisting also of personal names and titles. For these early inscriptions, “even though the names and titles on seals are attributable to a language, these texts are not in a language. There is no linguistic way to show that their language is either Hittite or Luvian”.15 By the early 13th century, Hittite rulers were indeed creating Hieroglyphic inscriptions which can be confidently identified as containing Luwian words, but these earlier seals raise the possibility that the Hittites developed the script themselves for use with their own language. The development of this new script may have had a “nationalistic”16 function for the Hittites, distinguishing native language writings from those Cuneiform texts written also in, for example, Akkadian, particularly among the illiterate for whom the “pictographic shapes would be easily recognizable”.17 However, the development of the Anatolian Hieroglyphic script may have taken place even earlier than these seals suggest. References within Hittite texts to both the LÚDUB.SAR (‘scribe’) and the LÚDUB.SAR.GIŠ (‘scribe-on-wood’) suggest a division of scribal practices, and Waal (2011) has argued that this widespread tradition within the Empire of writing on wooden boards refers to the practice of writing documents in Anatolian Hieroglyphs, and further suggests that the significantly-developed nature of the script in the 13th century seals implies their use must have in fact preceded this date.18 Waal argues that the Hieroglyphic script would have been used for texts of a more everyday character than those written in Cuneiform, this Hieroglyphic scribal tradition responsible for “daily economic texts, provincial records and the records of the common people”.19 However, with such uncertainty surrounding the linguistic content of the early Hieroglyphic seals and since any Hittite wooden writing-boards have apparently perished in the Anatolian climate, the question of the origin of the Anatolian Hieroglyphic script still remains open. As a linguistic classification the distinction between HLuw. and CLuw. on the basis of script is far from comfortable,20 and the exact status of the two Luwian languages has been debated at length with the possibility of clear dialectal divisions (isoglosses) within CLuw. (e.g. Hattuša, 14 Hawkins 2003: 167. 15 Yakubovich 2010: 296-7. 16 Yakubovich 2010: 295. 17 Yakubovich 2010: 296. 18 Waal 2011: 32. 19 Waal 2011: 31. 20A single language may be written in multiple scripts, there is no reason to assume an underlying linguistic distinction: consider e.g. the glagolitic and cyrillic alphabets of Old Church Slavonic, or the kanji, kana and rōmaji scripts of modern Japanese. 7 Patrick Skipworth Ištanuwa Luwian) being proposed.21 However, between HLuw. and CLuw. some non-trivial distinctions in grammar and lexicon can be observed.22 Furthermore, innovations within CLuw.23 preclude any theory that HLuw. is only a later descendant of CLuw. It is harder to establish significant differences in phonology and phonetics (if there are any) given that the phonemic system of each language has to some extent been established based upon the assumption of equality with the other language. Throughout this paper, CLuw. will be referred to repeatedly for comparative evidence. 1.1 The Luwian corpus and Luwian history It seems worthwhile at this point to present a discussion of the corpus within which the Luwian language or languages are attested, focusing primarily on the HLuw. corpus, and a brief history of the Luwian speaking peoples. The linguistic content of these texts will provide the primary basis of evidence for the investigation of <sa >. 5 The CLuw. corpus consists almost exclusively of religious practices and rituals, although some fragmentary texts may in fact be letters.24 There are multiple theories as to Hittites’ purpose in writing down such information, but it is clear that the texts demonstrate a unique Luwian religious system of magic and festival rituals, although “from an early date Hattian and Hurrian elements can also be detected penetrating into Luwian religion”.25 On the basis of these texts and comparison with Hittite material, it has been theorised by some26 that the Luwian speaking region of Anatolia in this period probably stretched from near the Aegean to present day south-eastern Turkey and north- western Syria, making them by far the most widespread Indo-European people in Anatolia. Others argue for a more restricted area.27 No CLuw. texts, however, can be linked to the farthest-west region, and identification of rituals as originating in the central-Anatolian historical Hittite 'Lower 21 E.g. Yakubovich (2010) argues that certain features of CLuw. forms from Hattuša display HLuw. elements such as the imperfective suffix -zza (p.55) which distinguish them from the rest of CLuw. and lend them to closer association with HLuw. 22 E.g. cf. HLuw. acc.pl.c. -nzi but CLuw. acc.pl.c. -nz. 23 E.g. the absence of a genitive case in CLuw., which must be due to loss of the PIE case, but which is preserved in HLuw. – Melchert 2003: 171. 24 Hawkins 2003: 139. 25 Hutter 2003: 215. 26 E.g. Bryce (2003). 27 E.g. Yakubovich (2010) argues that the western-most regions of Anatolia within the core of the Arzawan kingdom were never Luwian speaking but rather Proto-Carian, aside from Luwian-speaking Hittite officials brought in following the conquest of that kingdom by the Hittite Empire. An investigation of the Luwian Hieroglyph <sa > 5 Land' is also far from simple. It seems clear that many Luwian speakers were also present in Hattuša (where these texts were stored in the archives): on the basis of the increasing number of Luwian words (marked and unmarked as such) in Hittite texts and the creation of grand Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions towards the end of the Empire, a gradual language shift seems to have been taking place throughout Hittite society whereby “the Hittite politically and militarily dominated an increasing Luwian-speaking or increasingly Luwian-speaking population”.28 The growing presence of Luwian can be observed as “structural interference features imposed by contact with Luvian came to be generalized in New Hittite”.29 Turning to the HLuw. corpus, we are presented with a far wider variety of content. Religious rituals exist alongside myths and stories, but we also find histories, letters, seals and even ledgers recording traded goods. This variety is matched also by the physical nature of the texts which may be anything from monumental, ornate reliefs in stone depicting exquisitely detailed images of animals, people and objects, to documents scratched onto lead or clay in a cursive hand which renders the same symbols barely recognisable by comparison alone. This variety is again matched by the long chronological span during which these inscriptions were created, the earliest originating during the period of the Hittite Empire around the turn of the 15th century BCE on seals and a century and a half later on large monuments, the latest appearing at the end of the 8th century or beginning of the 7th century BCE,30 a total period of well-over half a millennium. This long chronological span makes Luwian the only Anatolian language to continue to be recorded in writing from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, all other 2nd millennium BCE Anatolian languages being unattested following the collapse of the Hittite Empire. The Luwians themselves continued to form a major cultural, political and linguistic group within Anatolia and the Near-East, as demonstrated by bilingual inscriptions in Phoenician and Luwian. Texts originating from the Empire are few and are mainly restricted to western and central- western Anatolia, and Hatti. Conversely, those of the Iron Age period are limited to south-central and south-east Anatolia: the so-called Neo-Hittite states, many of which did in fact continue the regal and political traditions of the Hittite Empire, although not its language. Karkemiš, for example, itself a major centre in the Hittite period, remained an important city-state thriving off trade due to its location on the Euphrates and continued to create artistic and epigraphic monuments in an 28 Van den Hout 2006: 234. 29 Yakubovich 2010: 308. 30 Hawkins 2000: 2. 9 Patrick Skipworth archaic style.31 Perhaps because of this, it was referred to as Hatti by the Assyrians, and the Luwian- speaking kings of Karkemiš held the same aspirations themselves, claiming the ancient title of ‘Great King’.32 31 Hawkins 2000: 74, 81. 32 Hawkins 2000: 73.