35

The principality of Que, known under such a namefrom Neo-Assyrian sources and situated on the

Cilician plain, was one of the so-called Neo-Hittite states.The term ‘Neo-Hittite’ is commonly applied to a numberof polities which arose in the territory of southwesternAnatolia and northern Syria after the collapse of the empireof Hattusa in the early 12th century BC. Eventually mostof them were absorbed into the Assyrian Empire by theend of the eighth century BC (with instances of sporadicre-emergences in the seventh century). This term is essen-tially an exonym, used in recollection of the fact that thelands stretching from Melid in the north to Hama in thesouth were collectively called Ḫatti by their eastern neigh-bours, the Assyrians (Bryce 2012: 52). Their inhabitants

were presumably known as ḥittīm, ‘Hittites’ in the Hebrewtradition, although the actual usage of the ethnonym ḥittīmin the Bible is somewhat blurred (Bryce 2012: 67–75).This designation is not ethnically based, but rather reflectsthe lingering geographic association of the Neo-Hittitepolities with the empire of Hattusa.

Judging by local inscriptions, the actual ethnic identityof the Neo-Hittite elites was rather heterogeneous. Theruling dynasties of Carchemish and Melid, for example,traced back their genealogies to the rulers of Hattusa andcomposed their hieroglyphic inscriptions in the Luwianlanguage (Bryce 2012: 83–84, 98–99). These states can beregarded as the true cultural heirs to the empire of Hattusa,where the Luwian language came first to be associated

Anatolian Studies 65 (2015): 35–53© British Institute at Ankara 2015

doi:10.1017/S0066154615000010

Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia

Ilya Yakubovich

Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russian Federation sogdiana783@gmail.com

AbstractThe relationship between the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the bilingual texts emanating from Cilicia has neverbeen systematically studied from the philological viewpoint. In this paper I endeavour to demonstrate that a convergingset of formal arguments supports the primary character of the Phoenician versions of the ÇİNEKÖY and KARATEPE1 bilinguals and the secondary character of their Luwian versions. I interpret this as a metaphor for the relationshipbetween two ethnic constituents of the Neo-Hittite principality of Que, whose coexistence was earlier argued for onindependent grounds. According to the proposed interpretation, the Phoenician language was emblematic of the rulersof Que, who claimed Greek descent and therefore attempted to distance themselves from the traditional elites of theneighbouring Neo-Hittite states. The use of the Luwian language was a concession to the indigenous population of Que.The adoption of Phoenician as a language of written expression by the Greek colonists in Cilicia happened at the pointwhen the Linear B script had been forgotten and represented the first step toward the creation of the Greek alphabet.

ÖzetKilikya’da bulunan iki dilli metinlerin Luvice ve Fenikece versiyonları arasındaki ilişki hiçbir zaman filolojik bakışaçısıyla sistematik olarak incelenmemiştir. Bu makalede, ÇİNEKÖY ve KARATEPE 1 iki dilli metinlerinin Fenikeceversiyonlarının birincil özelliğini ve onların Luvice versiyonlarının ikincil özelliğini destekleyen bir dizi resmi argümanınkesiştiği gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu, daha önce başka sebeplerle tarafımızca savunulduğu gibi, Neo-Hitit dönemiQue prensliğinde birlikte yaşamış olan iki etnik yapının arasındaki ilişki için bir metafor olarak yorumlanmaktadır.Önerilen yoruma göre Fenike dili, Yunan soyundan geldiklerini iddia eden ve bu nedenle kendilerini komşu Neo-Hititdevletlerinin gelenekçi elitlerinden ayrı tutan Que yöneticilerinin bir simgesi olmuştur. Luvi dilinin kullanımı Que yerlihalkı için istisnai bir durumdur. Kilikya’da Yunan kolonistlerce Fenike dilinin yazılı anlatım dili olarak kabul edilmesi,Linear B yazısının unutulduğu dönemde ortaya çıkmış ve Yunan alfabesinin oluşturulması yönünde ilk adımı temsiletmiştir.

Ilya - are CEBELİREİS DAĞI and CEBEL İRES DAĞI one and the same? I noticed two references to CEBEL İRESDAĞI and revised them to CEBELİREİS DAĞI. Is this correct?

Anatolian Studies 2015

with hieroglyphic inscriptions (Yakubovich 2010a: 297–99). A very different sociolinguistic situation is attested inSam’al, where the official inscriptions were composed inthree Semitic languages: Phoenician, Ya’udic (Sam’alian)and standard Old Aramaic (Tropper 1993: 5). The namesof the local rulers are in part Anatolian and in part Semitic,but the name of the country literally means ‘north’ inAramaic, and therefore its formation must have beenconnected with the northward migrations of Aramaeantribes (Bryce 2012: 169–75). An intermediate situation canbe observed in Hama, where rulers with Anatolian namesissued Luwian inscriptions in the ninth century BC, but adynasty of Aramaean origin held sway a century later(Bryce 2012: 134–38).

In comparison with the above cases, the sociolinguisticsituation in Que is considerably harder to interpret. Apartfrom a handful of seals, whose authenticity and prove-nance cannot always be reliably established, it can bestudied on the basis of the monumental inscriptions (ortheir groups), namely İNCİRLİ, KARATEPE, ÇİNEKÖY,HASSAN-BEYLİ and CEBELİREİS DAĞI. The first fourof these monuments are commonly dated to the eighthcentury BC, while CEBELİREİS DAĞI probably origi-nated a century later, at a point when one is no longer sureabout the existence of the principality of Que. All five ofthem have Phoenician versions, İNCİRLİ, KARATEPEand ÇİNEKÖY have Luwian versions and the İNCİRLİinscription also features an Akkadian version. On the otherhand, no Semitic personal names are attested in theseinscriptions in connection with local individuals, while themajority of names in the monumental deed of transferCEBELİREİS DAĞI appear to be Luwian in origin (Payne2006: 130). The name of Azatiwada, a de-facto ruler ofQue and commissioner of the great KARATEPE inscrip-tion (KARATEPE 1), is also clearly Luwian, and so arethe names of scribes mentioned in the related Luwianinscription KARATEPE 4. By contrast, no Luwianetymologies impose themselves for the royal namesAwarku (KARATEPE, HASSAN-BEYLİ) and Waraika(İNCİRLİ, ÇİNEKÖY, CEBELİREİS DAĞI). A largegroup of scholars prefers to regard these two names asvariant spellings of the same personal name *Awarika (cf.Gander 2012: 292–94), but even such a solution does notyield a convincing Luwian etymology of the hybrid name.

It is a matter of general agreement that the indigenouspopulation of Cilicia spoke a form of Luwian before thecollapse of the empire of Hattusa (Bryce 2012: 153–54;cf. Yakubovich 2010a: 272–85). As mentioned above, theLuwian language continued to be in use in those Neo-Hittite principalities that maintained their local elites andharkened back to the old imperial traditions. If oneassumes that Que represented one such state, it is reason-able to expect that Luwian was its principal official

language. The written use of Phoenician could then beexplained as an attempt to accommodate the internationallingua franca of the time, the simpler and more accessibleform of writing. This can be called the indigenist hypoth-esis. By contrast, if the Luwian-speaking groups lost theirgrip of Cilicia in the Neo-Hittite period, then one possibleinterpretation of the written use of Phoenician would bethe assertion of a separate cultural identity by the newelites, in contrast to the rulers of the neighbouring states.The written use of Luwian alongside Phoenician couldthen be taken as a concession to the native populationgroups of Que. The assumption that outsiders took controlof the Cilician plain after the collapse of the empire ofHattusa can be called the migrationist hypothesis.

In order to discriminate between these two hypotheses,it is useful to take a closer look at the multilingual inscrip-tions emanating from the principality of Que. Since theLuwian version of the İNCİRLİ inscription remainsunpublished and is apparently badly preserved, myanalysis will focus on the KARATEPE 1 and ÇİNEKÖYbilinguals. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that a conver-gent set of arguments pleads for the primary character ofthe Phoenician version in both cases under consideration.I interpret this result as being better compatible with themigrationist hypothesis, i.e. supporting the existence ofsubstantial non-Luwian components among the elites ofQue. But before moving to a philological analysis it isappropriate to undertake a brief review of the migrationisthypothesis.

According to the current state of the debate, the ethnicgroup commonly seen as supplying the new elites to theprincipality of Que is not that of the Phoenicians but of theGreeks. Although no local inscriptions in the Greeklanguage have been found for the relevant place andperiod, a number of new discoveries and methodologicaladvances made since the year 2000 have strengthened thecase for Greek presence in Early Iron Age Cilicia. Bycontrast, there seem to be no arguments for significantPhoenician presence in Cilicia in the same period, apartfrom trade connections (cf. Lipiński 2004: 138–43).

The strongest philological argument for the Greekmigration hypothesis comes from the local attestations ofthe name of Mopsus. The seer Mopsus (Μόψος), whoallegedly lived at the time of the Trojan War, wasmentioned already apud Hesiod according to Strabo14.1.27, but the later Greek tradition also portrays him asa founding figure. Although the mythological activities ofMopsus stretch all along the western and southern coastsof Asia Minor, his specific connection with Cilicia isreflected in the local Hellenistic toponyms Μοψουκρήνηand Μοψουεστία (Vanschoonwinkel 1990). The discoveryof the KARATEPE inscriptions provided an earliertestimony for this association. It had been known since

36

Yakubovich

1948 that the ruling house of Que was called bt mpš, ‘thehouse of Mopsus’, in the Phoenician version of theKARATEPE 1 inscription, while later the name mpš wasalso identified in the ÇİNEKÖY and İNCİRLİ texts. TheLuwian phrase, muksassan parni, ‘to the house ofMopsus’, yields the stem muksa- as an equivalent ofPhoenician mpš (KARATEPE 1 § 21).

As long as one resorts to purely philologicalarguments, the ‘Cilician Mopsus’ could be regarded as aninstance of interpretatio graeca based upon an accidentalsimilarity of the Greek and local Cilician names (thus, forexample,Vanschoonwinkel 1990; Gander 2012). But anapplication of historical linguistic methodology yieldsdifferent results. Since the counterparts of Hebrew ש (sin)and ש (shin) have been neutralised in the Phoenician soundsystem, Phoenician mpš can be regarded as a directborrowing of Greek Μόψος (cf. Krebernik 2007: 129). Bycontrast, Luwian muksa- can only represent the adaptationof an earlier form of the same name, which is attested asmo-qo-so in Mycenaean transmission (KN De 1381.B andPY Sa 774: Ventris, Chadwick 1973: 562). The inherited

labiovelars are preserved in Luwian up to the eighthcentury BC, and therefore the character of correspondencebetween the Phoenician and Luwian forms suggests thatthey reflect diverging paths of phonological adaptation ofa Greek labiovelar (Oettinger 2008). One has to assumethat the Greek name *mokwso- was taken over by theLuwian speakers before the disappearance of the Greeklabiolvelars (*mokwso- > muksa-), while the borrowing ofthis name into Phoenician postdates this process (*mopso-> mpš). The former inference is all the more likely, giventhat the personal name Muksus is attested in an admittedlyunclear context (KUB 14.1 rev. 75) in the Hittite 14th-century composition known as ‘The Indictment ofMadduwatta’, which makes frequent references to theactivities of the land of Aḫḫiya- (Mycenaean Greece or itspart) in southwestern Anatolia and Cyprus. In this case,too, one has to assume the adaptation of a Greek labiovelarbefore its disappearance (*mokwso- > mokso-, spelled mu-uk-šu), since the inherited Anatolian labiovelar would havebeen preserved in some form in Hittite and yielded thespelling **mu-uk-ku-šu (vel sim).

37

Fig. 1. The northeastern Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age.

Anatolian Studies 2015

Thus although the earliest attestation of the nameMopsus may come from Anatolian sources, linguisticconsiderations plead for its Greek origin. Furthermore,they find a good correlation in the archaeological record.The Late Helladic IIIc pottery, commonly dated to the12th to 11th century BC, made its way in large quantitiesto the Cilician plain, whereas only small numbers of theearlier Late Helladic IIIa–b potsherds have been found inthis region. Gunnar Lehmann (2007: 512) summarisesthis evidence with the claim that the ‘impact of LateHelladic ceramic styles on the material culture of Ciliciais comparable only to the Land of the Philistines and the‘Amuq plain’. While the intrusive origin of the Philistinesin southern Levant is reflected in the Biblical record,scholars lacked for a long time comparable internaltextual confirmation for the ‘Amuq plain, and thiscomplicated the direct link between philological andarchaeological data in the instance of Cilicia. Thesituation has changed with linguistic advances leading tothe identification of the land of Walistina in the Luwiantexts (Rieken 2010; Rieken, Yakubovich 2010: 215–16)and the discovery of a variant Palistina for the sametoponym (Hawkins 2011: 41a; but cf. already Harrison2007). Part of the kingdom of Palistina/Walistina,probably to be interpreted as Falistina, was situated in the‘Amuq plain, since this area yielded the Luwian inscrip-tion TELL TAYINAT 1 containing a mention of aWalistinean king (frs 3–5, l.1; Hawkins 2000: 2.366).Thus the philological record supports the presence ofintrusive population groups in all the areas with thehighest concentrations of Late Helladic IIIc pottery in theeastern Mediterranean.

The migration of new population groups to theLevantine coast in the early 12th century BC is describedin Egyptian sources as the ‘Sea People’ invasion.According to the Medinet Habu historical texts, thepharaoh Ramesses III fought a motley coalition of diverseethnic groups, who had arrived from unspecified islands,crushed a number of states on their way and eventually settheir camp in the land of Amurru. Many details of thisaccount are apparently fanciful, but the Amurru connectionis probably not, since the Late Bronze Age land of Amurruroughly overlaps with the Early Iron Age kingdom ofPalistina/Walistina (cf. Kahn 2011). One of the ‘SeaPeople’ groups mentioned in the Medinet Habu texts isdnỉn, which is traditionally rendered as Denyen insecondary literature, but frequently identified with theAkkadian term danuna of the Amarna Letter 151, line 52.This mid 14th-century letter of Abi-Milku, king of Tyre,informs the Egyptian pharaoh, among other things, of thedeath of the king of Danuna and a fire in the royal palaceof Ugarit (Moran 1992: 238). Since the reports of thevassal Levantine princes collected in the Amarna archive

primarily deal with regional affairs, Danuna must havebeen located in the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps not farfrom Ugarit. This, in turn, corroborates its comparisonwith the dnnym, the designation of the population of Quein the Phoenician versions of the KARATEPE 1 andÇİNEKÖY inscriptions (cf. Hawkins 2000: 2.40, n.21).As shown by Emmanuel Laroche, this Phoenician termgoes back to the Luwian possessive adjectiveaddanawan(ni)-, ‘Adanean’ (cf. Vanschoonwinkel 1990:295–96 with references). This adjective is derived fromthe name of the Anatolian town which is attested asAdaniya in Hittite sources and still known as Adana today.

If the triple comparison Denyen – Danuna – dnnym canbe maintained, this implies that the inhabitants of Ciliciaparticipated in the ‘Sea People’ coalition according to theopinion of Ramesses III (Bryce 2012: 154; cf. Adams,Cohen 2013: 659, n.12). This need not be seen as a contra-diction with the etymologies proposed for other membersof the ‘Sea People’ coalition, which support their connec-tion with the Aegean (for example Ekwesh = ‘Achaeans’?)or even the western Mediterranean (for example Shekelesh= ‘Sicilians’?). The migrations of the ‘Sea Peoples’ arenormally not perceived in modern scholarship as a coor-dinated long-range offensive campaign, but rather as asequence of local ethnic movements caused by the collapseof respective complex societies (Killebrew, Lehmann2013: 5–6; cf. Oettinger 2010). It is thus perfectly possiblethan the plain of Adana merely represented the last inter-mediate stop of the displaced population groups, beforesome of them continued their way east and pitched theircamps in the ‘Amuq plain, while others consolidated inCilicia under the rule of the ‘house of Mopsus’. At anyrate, the proposed identification of Denyen is linguisticallysuperior to its frequently cited alternative, which impliescomparison with Greek Δαναοί, ‘Danaeans’, since thelatter ethnonym is probably rendered as tnjw in the earlierEgyptian transmission (Adams, Cohen 2013: 658, n.11; cf.Latacz 2004: 130–31).

A new possible argument for the Aegean origin of theQue elites emerged with the publication of the ÇİNEKÖYinscription. As we shall see below, the familiar ethnonymdnnym in the Phoenician version of the ÇİNEKÖY inscrip-tion turned out to correspond to the toponym Hiyawa (orHiyawi) in its Luwian version. The similarity of thistoponym with Aḫḫiyawa-, which was the designation ofMycenaean Greece or a part of it in the Hittite sources ofthe Empire period, did not elude the first editors of theinscription (Tekoğlu , Lemaire 2000: 981–84). They alsotook notice of the fact that the Cilicians were formerlycalled Ὑπαχαίοι, literally ‘Sub-Achaeans’, according toHerodotus 7.91. The mention of the Hiyawi-people inconnection with Lukka/Lycia in an Akkadian letter sent toUgarit by the last king of Hattusa, Suppiluliyama II, was

38

Yakubovich

initially perceived as an additional piece of supportingevidence for the etymological connection between theplace names Hiyawa and Ahhiyawa (Singer 2006; cfSinger 2013). The Luwian endonym Hiyawa almostcertainly underlies the exonym Que known to us fromAssyrian sources (Simon 2011: 263).

Recently, however, the proposed etymology of Hiyawacame under attack by Max Gander (2011: 48–56). Ganderjustly points out that the aphaeresis */axxijawa/ > /xijawa/would have been irregular in the Luwian language of the13th century BC, when the toponym or ethnonym Hiyawiis first attested. Even more importantly, he draws historicalconclusions from the observation of Ivo Hajnal (2003: 41)that the fragmentary toponym Hiya[...] is attested in aCilician context in the annals of Arnuwanda I, king ofHattusa (early 14th century BC). A restoration of thistoponym as Hiyawa militates against its Greek origin,since there is no independent evidence for Greek settle-ments in southeastern Anatolia at such an early date.

The arguments of Hajnal and Gander (further elabo-rated in Simon 2011) undermine to some extent theoriginal etymological identity of Hiyawa and Ahhiyawa.Much, however, will depend on the reception of the recentproposal of Oreshko (2013), who argues that the name ofAhhiyawa is attested without aphaeresis in KARATEPE1. The sequence á-*429-wa/i- was traditionally read as*Adanawa- because of its Phoenician correspondencesdnnym, ‘Danuneans’, and ‘mq ’dn, ‘plain of Adana’. Atthe same time, the use of different names – Adanawa(KARATEPE 1) and Hiyawa (ÇİNEKÖY) – for the sameprincipality of Que, in the same language and within thesame tradition, would be unique in the Neo-Hittite worldand is acknowledged as a puzzle (Bryce 2012: 154).Oreshko argues that the sign *429, which does not occurin the first millennium corpus outside KARATEPE 1,need not be read as <DANA>, but can be assigned a value<HIYA> in this inscription. In support of his suggestionhe adduces the graphic similarity between *429 and thesecond millennium sign *306, which has the syllabicvalue <hí>.

Oreshko’s arguments cannot be fully evaluated beforethe publication of the recently found ARSUZ inscriptionswhere the logogram *429 and the syllabic spelling Hiyawaoccur side by side (see now Dinçol et al. 2015). Philolog-ical discussion will determine whether these can be takenas variant spellings of the same toponym or must refer totwo different entities, which would then falsify Oreshko’sclaim. On the other hand, an argument in favour ofOreshko’s theory, which its author does not use, is the non-existence of a phonetic spelling á-ta-na-wa/i-. The Luwianphrase á-ta-na-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+LA+LA-za inKARATEPE 1 § 37 is to be interpreted as attana-wan-zawal(i)l-an-za, ‘Adanean plain’, a derivative of á-ta-na-,

‘Adana’, while the toponym á-*429-wa/i- is never writtenwithout <wa/i> in the same inscription. It is also worthmentioning that the toponym Adanawa is not attested withsuch a suffix in any other sources, while Luwian á-ta-na-corresponds to Phoenician ’dn.

The attempts to find additional Greek elements in theQue inscriptions are to be judged each on its own valueand probably would not have been advanced if theirauthors were not convinced on independent grounds thatGreeks were present in Cilicia in the Early Iron Age. Theleast problematic is perhaps the suggestion that the nameof the king Awarku (Phoen ’wrk, Luwian á-wa/i+ra/i-ku-sa) mentioned in the KARATEPE 1 and HASSAN-BEYLİinscriptions represents an adaptation of the Greek personalname Ἔυαρχος, literally ‘fit for ruling’ (Krahmalkov 2000:38–39). The main drawback of this hypothesis is the lackof independent evidence for such a name in a Ciliciancontext, but it was frequent enough in various parts of theGreek-speaking world, including Cyprus (Lipiński 2004:120–21). Also noteworthy is the attempt to find a form ofthe Greek name Ῥοῖκος, syllabic Cypriot wo-ro-i-ko,literally ‘crooked, lame’, behind the royal name Waraika(Phoenician wryk(s), Luwian wa/i+ra/i-i-ka-sá) inİNCİRLİ, ÇİNEKÖY and CEBELİREİS DAĞI, which isalso attested as Urikki in Neo-Assyrian transmission(Lipiński 2004: 122). One may object that this would be arather peculiar name to give to a royal offspring, butEdward Lipiński mentions that it was common among theCypriote kings of Amathus in the Classical period.

Philip Schmitz (2009) offers the interpretation of Phoe-nician krntryš, an epithet of Baal in KARATEPE 1, asGreek *κορυνητήριος, ‘mace-bearing’, with a reference tothe attested Phoenician divinity b‘l ṣmd, ‘Baal of theMace’. This etymology is somewhat weakened by the lackof actual attestations of the Greek form *κορυνητήριος,but the latter would represent a regular adjectival deriva-tive of the attested κορυνήτης, ‘mace-bearer’. Lessgrounded, in my opinion, are the attempts of Schmitz(2008) to attribute Greek origin to the personal namesnww˹l˺[x?]nmš, ṣṣš, and ˹kl˺[x]pyš in the inscriptionPho./S.I. belonging to the KARATEPE complex (Çambel1999: 69). As the author himself acknowledges, his inter-pretation of these names as Ϝουλαμώνυμος, Τιτυός and thecommon noun κλινοποιός, ‘maker of beds or bedsteads’,competes with Anatolian etymologies in two of the threecases, and in each of these three instances his reasoninginvolves restitution of fragmentary names or linguisticspeculations.

On the other hand, one can point to a number of factsthat cannot be regarded as direct arguments in favour ofthe migrationist hypothesis, but receive an elegant expla-nation if it is accepted. It is not to be forgotten in thisconnection that the territory of Que corresponded to a part

39

Ilya - noteaddition ofreferenceto theARSUZarticle +addition tobiblio

Anatolian Studies 2015

of the Bronze Age kingdom of Kizzuwatna, which wascharacterised by a close cultural symbiosis between theLuwians and Hurrians (Hutter 2003: 251–52 with refer-ences). Thus the Greek residents of Cilicia would representthe most suitable intermediaries for transmitting the fabulaof the Hurrian Kumarbi epic, which is now commonlyrecognised to underlie the plot of Hesiod’s Theogony (West1997: 279–80). The colonised Cilicia would also providean ideal milieu for the transmission of certain loan-wordsinto Greek. This holds, for example, for the winged horseΠήγασος, ‘Pegasus’, who is first mentioned in theTheogony, where he carries the lightning and thunderboltof Zeus, and therefore can be connected with the Luwian

divine epithet pihassass(i)-, ‘of lightning’. The Storm-godpihassass(i)- was the patron deity of the Hittite kingMuwattalli II, who took residence in Tarhuntassa, situatedsomewhere in Cilicia (cf. Hutter 2003: 269–70 with refer-ences). In addition, the late Luwian aphaeresis in the wordfor ‘Assyria’, seen in Suriya- (ÇİNEKÖY § 6), may havepaved the way for the transmission of the shorter formΣυρία, ‘Syria’, to the Cilician Greeks and later on toEurope (Rollinger 2006).

Summing up, substantial archaeological evidence forthe influence of Aegean material culture upon the plain ofCilicia in the Early Iron Age (Lehmann 2007 with thesources cited) correlates with a number of philological

40

§ 1 ’nk w[ryk(s) bn ...][EGO-mu] wa/i+ra/i-i-[ka-sá x-x-x-x(-x) (“INFANS”)ni-]mu-wa/i-za-sa

’špḥ mpš [mlk dnnym][mu-ka]-sa-sa |INFANS.NEPOS-si-sà |hi-ia-wa/i[-ni]-sá[(URBS)] |REX-ti-sa

hbrk b‘l|(DEUS)TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-sa SERVUS-la/i-sá]

§ 2 ’š [yrḥbt][á-mu-wa/i] wa/i+ra/i-i-ka-sá “[TER]RA”?(-)la-tara/i-ha

bt ’rṣ ‘mq [’dn][DOMUS-na-za TERRA-sa-za hi-]ia-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+ ||

[b‘br] b‘l wb‘br ’[l ’bt]|(DEUS)TONITRUS-hu-ta-ti |á-mi-ia-ti-ha |tá-ti-ia-ti |DEUS-na<-ti>

§ 3 [wp’]l ’nk ’p ss [‘l ss]|wa/i-ta (EQUUS.ANIMAL)zú-na (EQUUS)zú-wa/i |SUPER+ra/i-ta |i-zi-ia-ha

§ 4 [(w)m]ḥnt ‘l mḥntEXER[CITUS-la/i/u-za-pa-wa/i-ta] EXERCITUS[-la/i/u-ni] |SUPER+ra/i-ta |i-z[i]-ia-h[a]

§ 5 wmlk [’šr]|kwa/i-p[a]-wa/i-mu-u |su+ra/i-wa/i-ni-sa(URBS) |REX-ti-sa

[w]kl bt ’šr |su+ra/i-wa/i-za-ha(URBS) |DOMUS-na-za |ta-ni-ma-za

kn ly l’b [wl]’m|tá-[ti-sa MATER-ni-sa-ha] i-zi-ia-si

§ 6 wdnnym w’šrym|hi-ia-wa/i-sa-ha-wa/i(URBS) |su+ra/i-ia-sa-ha(URBS)

kn lbt ’ḥd|“UNUS”-za |DOMUS-na-za |i-zi-ia-si

§ 7 wbn ’nk ḥmy[t]kwa/i-pa-wa/i *274-li-ha (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-sà

bmṣ’ šmš šmnt III III II wbmb’ šmš šb‘t III III I wkn X III II|ORIENS-mi-ia-ti |x-i?-ni? 8 OCCIDENS-mi-ti-ha 7 CASTRUM-za

Table 1. Text of the initial parts of the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the ÇİNEKÖY bilingual.

Yakubovich

observations that have been advanced to yield support tothe suggestion of Greek presence in Que with varyingdegrees of confidence and plausibility (for exampleLipiński 2004; Oettinger 2008; Oreshko 2013; Singer2013). At the same time, there are scholars who areinclined to dismiss some or all of these observations as achain of coincidences (for example Hajnal 2003; Gander2012). It remains to be seen whether the sociolinguisticanalysis of the bilingual inscriptions from Que can makea meaningful contribution to this debate.

KARATEPE 1 and ÇİNEKÖYBefore one can approach the contrastive study of theLuwian and Phoenician inscriptions, it is necessary toascertain the reliability of their editions. In the case of theKARATEPE 1 bilingual, we are lucky to have the synopticedition of its versions (Hawkins 2000: 1.45–67), whichsummarises the results of the 50-year-long investigationof this monument by a variety of scholars. My contrastivestudy of different versions of this bilingual is essentiallybased on this publication, as well as the close treatment ofthe Phoenician versions in Çambel 1999.

By contrast, the ÇİNEKÖY bilingual was found toolate to make its way into Hawkins 2000, and the discussionof this fragmentary text is still commonly based on itseditio princeps (Tekoğlu, Lemaire 2000). One must

applaud the pioneering efforts of the editors of this inscrip-tion, which saw it published a mere three years after itsdiscovery; but the down side of this quick publication isthe lack of sufficient synthesis in the presentation of theLuwian and Phoenician versions. In essence, we aredealing with two separate editions, which make theLuwian and Phoenician texts appear more different fromeach other than they really are. In most cases, this is dueto difficulties with the interpretation of the Luwian version.A number of Luwian restorations made in the editioprinceps have been silently rectified in the German trans-lation of the bilingual provided by David Hawkins (2005).

This prompts me to provide a new synoptic edition ofthe initial parts of the Luwian and Phoenician versions ofthe ÇİNEKÖY bilingual (tables 1, 2). I am limiting myselfto the first seven clauses of the inscription, because afterthat the Phoenician text becomes too fragmentary for ameaningful contrastive analysis, while the rest of theLuwian version will be treated shortly by Hawkins (forth-coming). The clause division below follows the syntax ofthe Luwian version. An attempt has been made to matchthe corresponding Phoenician and Luwian phrases withineach clause. Following the conventions of the editioprinceps, the uncertain readings and restorations in thePhoenician version are italicised, while uncertain restora-tions in the Luwian version are underlined.

41

§ 1 Luwian [I am] Waraika [s]on [of X], grandson of [Muk]sa, [king of Hiyawa, man loved by] Tarhunt.Phoenician I am W[araika son of X], descendant of Mopsos, [king of the Adaneans,] the blessed one of Baal,

§ 2 Luwian I, Waraika, extended [the house of the land] of the plain of [Hi]yawa, by Tarhunt and my paternalgods.Phoenician (I) who [extended] the house of the land of the plain [of Adana, by the grace of] Baal and bythe grace of the g[ods of my father(s)].

§ 3 Luwian I made horse on top of horse,Phoenician And I [ma]de horse [on top of horse]

§ 4 Luwian [and] I made ar[my] on top of ar[my].Phoenician [and ar]my on top of army.

§ 5 Luwian Furthermore, the Assyrian king and all the Assyrian house became father and mother to me,Phoenician And the king [of Assyria and] all the house of Assyria became to father [and mo]ther to me,

§ 6 Luwian and Hiyawa and Assyria became one house.Phoenician and Adaneans and Assyrians became one house.

§ 7 Luwian Furthermore, I destroyed fortresses: on the east … 8 and on the west 7 fortresses.Phoenician And I built walled fortress[es]: on the sunrise eight (8), on the sunset seven (7), and there were(altogether) 15.

Table 2. Translation of the initial parts of the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the ÇİNEKÖY bilingual.

Anatolian Studies 2015

The overall goal of the commentary is to demonstratethat the Phoenician and Luwian versions of the ÇİNEKÖYinscription closely resemble one another, and therefore thisbilingual reflects the process of translation and not freeadaptation. The direction of translation will be addressedlater on in this paper.

Commentary on ÇİNEKÖY§ 1. The Luwian version names the author of the inscrip-tion as wa/i+ra/i-i-ka- (restored from § 2), which corre-sponds to w[ryk(s)] in its Phoenician version. The samename is spelled w˹ryks˺ and wryk in İNCİRLİ and CEBEL-İREİS DAĞI respectively, although in the second instanceit is likely to refer to a later king (Hallo, Younger 2003:3.138, n.25). One can identify King Waraika of our inscrip-tion with Urikki, king of Que, attested several times inAssyrian sources as Ú-ri-ik, Ú-ri-ik-ki and Ú-ri-ia-ik-ki(Kaufman 2007: 22), for whose prosopography one canconsult Lanfranchi 2005. The second syllable of theoriginal name must have contained a diphthong, becausethe Phoenician inscriptions of Cilicia do not feature matreslectionis except in word-final position. Following Lipiński2004 (119–23) and Simon 2014, I see no plausible way ofequating Waraika with the King Awarku mentioned in theKARATEPE 1 and HASSAN-BEYLİ inscriptions, whosename is transmitted as á-wa/i+ra/i-ku- in Luwian and ’wrkin Phoenician (cf. Yakubovich 2010a: 152, n.94). Accord-ingly, Awarku cannot be identified with King Urikki underthe present state of our knowledge. For Greek etymologiesoffered for the personal names Awarku and Waraika, seeabove. The comparison of both names with Greek ‘Ράκιος,father of Mopsos, in a Greek tradition, is preferred byHajnal (2011) but cannot be reconciled with the knownsound laws.

Lipiński (2004: 127) stresses the difficulties of fillingin the lacuna at the end of the first line of the Phoenicianversion. The large size of the letters belonging to this linedoes not appear to leave enough space for the phrase ‘sonof X’ after the name of Waraika, which can be recon-structed for the Luwian version. Yet, it seems unnecessaryto posit an intentional difference in content between theLuwian and Phoenician texts based on this ground alone.Perhaps the scribe found an irregular way of squeezing thename of Waraika’s father at the end of the line, for examplemodifying the spaces between letters. Alternatively, themissing part of the Phoenician line could feature a scribalerror of omission.

The Phoenician version contains the formula hbrk b‘l,which is variously interpreted as ‘blessed by Baal’ and‘steward of Baal’ or ‘steward of (his) lord’ (Tekoğlu,Lemaire 2000: 996 with references; cf. Goedegebuure2009: 2). The formula reoccurs in the KARATEPE 1inscription, where it corresponds to the Luwian expression

(DEUS)SOL-mi-sá CAPUT-ti-i-sá (Hawkins 2000: 1.48).According to Petra Goedegebuure (2009), the Luwian title(DEUS)SOL-mi-sá = tiwadamis can be literally translatedas ‘the steward of the Sun’ = ‘His Majesty’s steward’; cf.the Hittite royal title dUTU-ŠI, ‘My Sun’ = ‘My Majesty’.If one assumes close correspondence between the Phoeni-cian and Luwian titles, the KARATEPE 1 inscriptionpleads for the understanding of hbrk b‘l as ‘the steward of(his) lord’. By contrast, in our case the counterpart ofPhoenician hbrk b‘l in ÇİNEKÖY begins with the nameof the Luwian Storm-god, the functional equivalent of thePhoenician Baal, which implies a different understandingof the Phoenician phrase hbrk b‘l in this case. Hawkins(2005) proposes the restoration TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-saSERVUS-la/i-sá], ‘servant of Tarhunt’, on the assumptionthat it could represent the approximate equivalent of hbrkb‘l, ‘steward of Baal’. Note, however, that the Luwianphrase ‘servant of Tarhunt’ corresponds to Phoenician ‘bdb‘l, ‘servant of Baal’, in KARATEPE 1 § 1. As a likelyalternative, one can consider (DEUS)TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-ti (LITUUS)á-za-mi-sa], ‘loved by Tarhunt’; cf., forexample, KARKAMIŠ A23 § 1 DEUS-ni-ti (LITUUS)á-za-mi-sa, ‘loved by gods’, at the end of the chain of titles.This restoration would imply the understanding of hbrk b‘las ‘blessed by Baal’. The sequence of two epithets|(DEUS)TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-sa SERVUS-ta4-sa (DEUS)SOL-mi-sa CAPUT-ti-i-sa], ‘servant of Tarhunt, Sun-blessed man’, which is restored in the editio princeps, isprecluded by reasons of space. Consequently, one can giveup the matching Phoenician reconstruction hbrk b‘l ’š[’lm], ‘steward of Baal, man [of the gods]’ (thus Lipiński2004: 127).

§ 2. The analysis of the editio princeps dividing theLuwian version of this segment into two separate clausesis unfounded, as already implied in Hawkins 2005. Its onlyattested predicate is Luwian “[TER]RA”?(-)la-tara/i-ha,whose Phoenician equivalent can be supplied in the lacunabased on the parallel KARATEPE 1 § 5. On the assump-tion that the Luwian and Phoenician clauses are similar instructure, the lacuna in the Luwian clause must contain apart of its direct object, corresponding to Phoenician bt ’rṣ‘mq [’dn], ‘house of the land of the Adana plain’ (Tekoğlu,Lemaire 2000: 997). The suggestion formulated inHawkins 2005, according to which the Luwian equivalentof this phrase was simply ‘the Hiyawa plain’, does notleave sufficient material for filling the lacuna in theLuwian texts (cf. Tekoğlu, Lemaire 2000: 971, fig. 11 andTekoğlu, Lemaire 2000: 985, the autograph). In myrestoration I assume that the Luwian phrase was very closein structure to its Phoenician counterpart and contained achain of possessive adjectives: parnanza taskwarassanzahiyawanza wal(i)li(ya)nza, ‘house of the land of theHiyawean plain’. In principle, one can think of possible

42

Yakubovich

alternatives featuring less precise translation – for exampleamanza parnanza hiyawanza wal(i)lanza, ‘my house, theHiyawean plain’ – but such a solution does not imposeitself.

Likewise, there seems to be no sure way of knowingwhether the Phoenician version contains the short formula‘by Baal and the gods’, as in KARATEPE 1 §§ 10, 58, ora closer equivalent of the longer Luwian formula ‘by Baaland my paternal gods’. I am inclined to embrace the lattersolution, since the Luwian versions of KARATEPE 1 §§10, 58 also have ‘by Baal and the gods’, and there are noobvious reasons to believe that the correspondence in ourcase should be less precise.

§ 3. This clause displays a perfect match between itsLuwian and Phoenician versions already in the editioprinceps. For the transliteration <zú> instead of the earlier<sù>, see already Melchert 1987: 201–02 and the elabo-ration of his views in Yakubovich 2010a: 66–67, n.58.

§ 4. The Phoenician counterpart of this clause isassumed to feature the ellipsis of the repeated predicate,and therefore can be considered an appendix to theprevious clause. By contrast, the Luwian version clearlycontains the fully-fledged clause. The discrepancy betweenthe Luwian and Phoenician texts is assured here not onlyfor reasons of space but in view of a similar mismatch inKARATEPE 1 §9.

§ 5. For various ways of translating the Luwiansentence-initial particle kwippa=, see the partiallydivergent views of Goedegebuure 1998 and Melchert2002. In this inscription I consistently translate it as‘furthermore’ on the assumption that it divides the Luwiantexts into thematic blocks, although I must concede thatsuch a translation would not always fit the KARATEPE 1inscription. Gianni Lanfranchi (2007: 186) avoids attemptsto draw any distinction between sentence-initial wa= andkwippa=, observing that both tend to correspond to w- inthe Phoenician version.

The unisex parental metaphor ‘the king became fatherand mother to me’ appears to represent a hybrid ofMesopotamian and Anatolian traditions. The most ancientHittite text, the so-called ‘Deeds to Anitta’, informs us thatAnitta’s father Pithana ‘made into mothers and fathers’ thepopulation of the conquered town Nesa (Neu 1974: 11,l.9). This turn of phrase finds a striking counterpart in theLuwian version of KARATEPE 1 § 3: ‘Tarhunzas mademe mother and father to á-*429-wa/i-’. By contrast, theMesopotamian texts and their derivatives show the reverseorder of parents. Thus a Sumerian hymn to the Sun-godstates: ‘Utu, you are the father of the orphan, Utu, you arethe mother of the widow’, while the Hittite adaptation ofthe same text renders this passage as ‘Sun-god, you are thefather and mother of the oppressed and orphaned man’(Metcalf 2011: 171–72). The same sentiments and order

of parents percolate even into the Palaic invocation to theSun-god: ‘Now, Faskhulassas Tiyaz, to tabarna the kingyou are indeed the father and the mother’ (Yakubovich2005: 121). The goddess Ishtar says through a prophet tothe New Assyrian king Asarhaddon: ‘I am your father andmother, I raised you between my wings’ (Cooper 2000:441b). An extended variant of the same metaphor is foundin the Phoenician inscription of Kulamuwa, king ofSam’al: ‘for some I was a father, for some a mother, forsome a brother’ (Tropper 1993: 41–42).

The Luwian form i-zi-ia-si, not understood in the editioprinceps, receives satisfactory explanation in Rieken 2004as the innovative third singular mediopassive preterit ofizziya-, ‘to make’, used in the meaning ‘to become’ (cf.Yakubovich 2010a: 201–02). Consequently, there is nosubstantial difference between the structures of the Phoeni-cian and Luwian clauses, and ‘father and mother’ in theLuwian text should be reconstructed in the nominative.

§ 6. The Phoenician and Luwian clauses are fullypreserved and almost fully parallel, except that the Phoeni-cian version names peoples, whereas the Luwian onementions the corresponding lands. It is not necessary toassume that the content of this clause refers to a specificact of submission, since the mention of friendship withAssyria also occurs in the İNCİRLİ and HASSAN-BEYLİinscriptions (cf. Lemaire 1983; Kaufman 2007).Curiously, this topos is absent in the text of KARATEPE,which makes one wonder if the regent Azatiwada did notshare the Pro-Assyrian sentiments of the ‘house ofMopsus’ or simply was not in direct contact with theAssyrians. The place of the friendship clauses within thenarrative of the ÇİNEKÖY inscription suggests that it mayhave been used here as a mere rhetorical device, similar tothe love of gods or material prosperity in other Neo-Hittitetraditions. For the Semitic inscriptions from the kingdomof Sam’al, which celebrate or mention voluntary submis-sion to the Assyrian empire, see Lanfranchi 2009: 128–29.The Pro-Assyrian orientation of Que in the eighth centuryBC correlates with the use of Akkadian as the thirdlanguage of the İNCİRLİ inscription.

§ 7. The Luwian and Phoenician versions clearlydeviate from each other in that the Phoenician versionrefers to the construction of fortresses, whereas the Luwianversion only mentions their destruction. This is clearly notan intended variation, but rather the translator’s error,which will be addressed later on in this paper. The attemptof the editio princeps to squeeze the mention ofconstructing new fortresses into the lacuna in the Luwiantext is epigraphically unacceptable, as there is no suchlacuna (cf. Tekoğlu, Lemaire 2000: 975, fig. 14). Note thatthe Phoenician version gives the total number of theconstructed fortresses (7 + 8 = 15), whereas the Luwiantext lacks this redundant information.

43

Anatolian Studies 2015

I lack a plausible interpretation for the Luwiansequence x-i?-ni? (cf. Tekoğlu, Lemaire 2000: 973, fig. 13).Nevertheless, the attempt of the editio princeps to restorehere the phonetic equivalent of VERSUS-ia-na can besafely ruled out, because this post-position always occurswith the dative, never with the ablative, and the availabletraces are not compatible with any rendering of tawiyan,which is the established reading of VERSUS-ia-na.

(CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-sà is the new spelling variantof (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-ní-sà, ‘fortresses’, known fromKARATEPE 1. This attestation allows me to propose anetymology for the Carian town Halicarnassus (GreekἉλικαρνᾱσσός), deriving it from Luwic *alV-xarnasa-,‘high fortress’ (or ‘remote fortress’?). The etymologicallycompound character of the name of Halicarnassus isconfirmed through its likely Carian spellings alos karnosand alos-δ karnos-δ (Adiego Lajara 2007: 68, 161). Thetown name is attested several times without initial aspira-tion in Athenian tribute lists, although the phonetic signif-icance of this fact is debated (Zgusta 1984: 62). Thespiritus asper in Ἁλικαρνᾱσσός may be due to a hyper-correct restitution of the Ionian psilosis or a folketymology involving Greek ἅλς, ‘sea’ (Florian Sommer,personal communication).

The primary language of the inscriptionsAt this point one can proceed to determining the primarylanguage of the KARATEPE 1 and ÇİNEKÖY bilinguals.Many modern studies of both inscriptions assume theprimacy of their Luwian versions, which would then betranslated into Phoenician as a regional lingua franca.Annick Payne (2006: 130) concludes after some hesitation:‘the evidence thus appears to be in favor of the two bilin-guals being original Luwian inscriptions with Phoeniciantranslations’. No hesitation can be seen in the assertion ofLanfranchi (2007: 186): ‘for the aims of this analysis, thePhoenician text of both inscriptions can be a priori consid-ered totally dependent on the Luwian text, as a direct trans-lation from Luwian’. According to Alexandra Daues(2008), the KARATEPE 1 inscription represents a literaltranslation from Luwian into Phoenician, while theLuwian and Phoenician texts of the ÇİNEKÖY inscriptioncorrespond to each other less precisely (here Daues appar-ently follows the Luwian restorations adopted in the editioprinceps). Federico Giusfredi (2009: 143) remarks that‘the Phoenician version of the [KARATEPE] bilingual isnot an exact translation of the Luwian text’.

The motivation for this earlier consensus appears to beprimarily sociolinguistic. There are no reasons to believethat Phoenicians ever settled in Cilicia in large numbers,whereas the Luwian presence in the kingdom of Que canbe supported through the analysis of the local onomastics.As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, historical and

geographic considerations place Que squarely within theNeo-Hittite cultural sphere. If one has to choose betweenPhoenician migrations and Anatolian continuity, thesecond hypothesis has the allure of an easy defaultsolution. Such arguments, however, are far from beingcompelling in addressing the formal issue of the relation-ship between the versions of the Cilician bilinguals. Thisquestion is essentially empirical and must be solvedthrough linguistic analysis.

Schmitz (2008: 6) appears to have been the first scholarto support the claim that the Phoenician versions of theQue bilingual inscriptions were primary and the Luwianones secondary. In defence of his position, Schmitz refersthe reader to some general observations taken from Payne2006 and my doctoral dissertation, later published as Yaku-bovich 2010a. No linguistic evidence for such a hypothesiswas, however, available at the time. Now I believe that theclaim of Schmitz 2008 can be formally proven. In whatfollows I intend to advance a three-pronged set of lingui-stic and philological arguments pleading for the translatedcharacter of the Luwian versions of both the ÇİNEKÖYand KARATEPE 1 bilinguals.

The most transparent evidence comes, in my opinion,from Luwian passages calquing the Phoenician wordorder. The placement of most predicative forms in Phoeni-cian is ‘free’, i.e. governed by information structureconstraints, whereas others are restricted to sentence-initial position (Krahmalkov 2001: 290–95). By contrast,the unmarked word order in the Luwian original compo-sitions of the Iron Age is subject–object–verb (SOV), andthe preference for it is fairly strong. This is, for example,the only attested pattern in the long inscriptions ofKatuwa, king of Carchemish (KARKAMIŠ A 2+3 11a andA 11b+c: Hawkins 2000: 1.94–10 [94–100?], 101–12) ifone disregards the position of clitics and relativepronouns, whose placement is governed by special rules.The combined size of these inscriptions is 85 clauses, i.e.roughly similar to the ÇİNEKÖY and KARATEPE 1inscriptions taken together.

The influence of the Phoenician texts upon theirLuwian translations manifests itself in the frequent use ofLuwian verbal forms in positions other than SOV. Thusthe Phoenician version of ÇİNEKÖY § 2 features therestored predicate [yrḥbt], ‘I extended’, between therelative pronoun ’š and the object phrase. The Luwian textconverts the relative clause into an independent sentenceby adding the subject group in lieu of the relative pronounat the beginning. But the Luwian verb “[TER]RA”?(-)la-tara/i-ha, ‘I extended’, is still placed before the objectphrase, as was the case in the Phoenician original. In asimilar fashion, the predicate is placed before its directobject in both the Phoenician and Luwian versions ofÇİNEKÖY § 7. In the instance of Phoenician bn ’nk, ‘I

44

Yakubovich

built’, this is due to a syntactic constraint on the positionof the infinitive absolute (Krahmalkov 2001: 294–95). Bycontrast, the placement of Luwian *274-li-ha, ‘Idestroyed’, before its object (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-sà,‘fortresses’, would not be expected in an original compo-sition; cf. a-wa/i pa-PITHOS(URBS)-ha (*274)ha-ta-li-ha, ‘I destroyed the town Pa-PITHOS, too’ (KARKAMIŞA25a § 1). Although the meaning of the predicate wasmisinterpreted in the Luwian version, on which see below,its syntactic position was faithfully preserved.

Since one of the ÇİNEKÖY clauses discussed aboveinvolves restoration, while the other one has beenvariously interpreted, it is necessary to turn to the syntaxof the KARATEPE 1 inscription. The patterns verb–subject and verb–object are attested there 14 times in theLuwian version, namely in §§ 4, 5, 7, 25, 26, 37, 49, 51,52, 63, 66, 72, 73, 74. In 11 of these 14 cases, the positionof the verb in a clause mirrors the syntax of the Phoenicianversion. The exceptions are § 37, where the Phoenicianversion features a nominalisation instead of a verbalpredicate, § 52, where the predicate is ellipted, and § 74,where the place of the verb is different in the Phoenicianclause. In § 37 the Luwian verbal clause roughly preservesthe order of meaningful elements in the relevant passageseen in the Phoenician nominal phrase, i.e. Luwian|BONUS+RA/I-ia-ma-la-ha-wa/i SOLIUM.MI-ta |á-*429-wa/i-sá(URBS), ‘And at ease dwelt A-*429-wa’, vsPhoenician w-nḥt lb l-dnnym, ‘And peace of heart to theAdaneans’. The syntax of § 52 is deliberately madeparallel to that of the preceding Luwian clause § 51. Onthe other hand, the final §§ 74–75 probably display achiastic figure, the word order of § 74 representing amirror image of §75 (Melchert 2006: 293–94).

As the last two examples suggest, the syntactic simi-larity between the Phoenician and Luwian versions of thebilingual inscriptions need not be exaggerated, and theapplication of a reverse test reinforces the same conclu-sion. In the majority of cases the Luwian translatorsrendered the verb-initial and verb-medial Phoenicianclauses with their verb-final counterparts in bothKARATEPE 1 and ÇİNEKÖY. The instances of syntacticcalques resulting in verb fronting account for no morethan 15% of the Luwian textual corpus. Nevertheless,such a result is significant, because, as mentioned above,deviations from the unmarked SOV word order are quiterare in original Luwian compositions. Although thesyntax of the translated Luwian texts does not slavishlyfollow their Phoenician originals, a sharp increase in non-standard word order patterns must be described in termsof Phoenician interference. An appropriate parallel herewould be the syntax of the Hittite translation of theHurrian and Hattic texts (as discussed in Sideltsev 2002:188).

An independent instance of calquing Phoenician syntaxis addressed by Anna Bauer (2014: 58–59). The phrasesPORTA-la-na-ri+i zi-na, ‘from this gate’ (KARATEPE 1§ 63), “CASTRUM<”>-ní-si za-ti, ‘to this fortress’(KARATEPE 1 § 65), and “PORTA”-la-na za-ia, ‘thisgate’ (KARATEPE 1 § 66), show post-position of theproximal deictic pronoun za- to its head nouns, which runscontrary to the general tendency to place Luwian demon-strative pronouns before their syntactic heads. In Phoeni-cian, on the other hand, the post-position of thedemonstrative z is normal, and so the correspondingphrases b-š‘r z, ‘in this gate’ (KARATEPE 1 § 63), h-qrt z,‘this town’ (KARATEPE 1 § 65), and h-š‘r z, ‘this gate’(KARATEPE 1 § 66), show the expected word order.Bauer (2014) plausibly hypothesises that the closeimitation of the Phoenician syntactic pattern inKARATEPE 1 §§ 63–66 may be due to the translator’sattempt to preserve the illocutionary force of the curseformula.

The second piece of evidence comprises those caseswhere the Phoenician original appears to have been para-phrased in Luwian under the impact of language-specificconstraints. This phenomenon can be illustrated throughcontrasting the two versions of ÇİNEKÖY §§ 3–4. TheLuwian statement ‘I made horse on top of horse, and Imade army on top of army’ could be literally translatedinto Phoenician as a combination of two clauses. Bycontrast, the Phoenician construction with gapping ‘Imade horse on top of horse and army on top of army’ canhardly be rendered into Luwian without supplying thesecond predicate. The Luwian clauses are rigidlyseparated from each other by clitic chains, and thereforethe ellipsis of a clause predicate would result in a syntacticfragment, for example †kwalanza=ba=wa=tta kwalanisarranta, ‘And army upon army’. Fragments of this typeoccasionally do occur in the Iron Age Luwian corpus (forexample KARATEPE 1 §72a), but there is a strongtendency to avoid them. Therefore, the translation strategyadopted in ÇİNEKÖY 1 §§ 3–4 can be regarded as optimalonly on the assumption that Luwian was the targetlanguage.

One could, of course, attempt to argue that the originalLuwian construction was compressed in the Phoenicianversion for purely stylistic reasons. There is, however, noreason to believe that the repetition of identical predicateswas systematically avoided in the Phoenician inscriptionsfrom the Neo-Hittite milieu. One can compare here therepetition of Phoenician ns‘, ‘to tear out’, in KARATEPE1 §§ 71–72 and particularly the repetition of Phoenicianp‘l, ‘to do’, in the opening lines of Kulamuwa’s inscriptionfrom Sam’al, where the ancestors of King Kulamuwa areuncharitably described as habitually inactive (Tropper1993: 31–33).

45

Anatolian Studies 2015

Instances where additional predicates are supplied inthe Luwian version of the KARATEPE inscription include§§ 9, 10, 37, 50, 52, 75. In all these cases the Phoenicianversion features complex noun phrases coordinated withelements of a larger sentence: ‘and shield upon shield’, ‘anarmy upon army by the grace of Baal and the gods’, ‘andpeace of heart to the Danuneans and to all the plain ofAdana’, ‘and powerful strength above every king’ (×2),‘like the name of the Sun and the Moon’. If one operateswith the hypothesis of translation from Luwian into Phoeni-cian, it will imply that the translator systematically compli-cated the syntax of the text for no apparent reason. Bycontrast, chunking large Phoenician sentences into smallerLuwian units receives a satisfactory explanation in termsof adjusting the discourse to language-specific constraints.

The constructions discussed above reflect successfulexamples of paraphrases in Luwian. An instance where theLuwian translator failed to find a suitable equivalent of adifficult Phoenician construction is KARATEPE 1 §§ 59–61, which contain the beginning of the curse formula. ThePhoenician version lists three categories of potential perpe-trators: ‘if a king among kings, or a prince among princes,or a man, whose name is “man” ...’. Halet Çambel (1999:60b) came to a plausible conclusion that this list refers tothree distinct social orders, ending with the common man.She also cites a parallel old Babylonian formula from Mari,which would support the existence of such an idiom inSemitic literary tradition. In dealing with these three phrases,the Luwian translator faced the familiar challenge of turningeach of them into a well-formed clause but failed to find auniform solution. He rendered the passage in a ratheruncouth fashion as: ‘If anyone rules as king, or if he is aprince, and to him there is a princely name ...’. The firstclause here apparently contains the denominative verbhantawatta-, ‘to rule as king’ (the alternative preferred byHawkins, who interprets hantawattadi as an ablative ‘fromkings’, is syntactically more problematic). The secondclause is provided with a nominal predicate, which destroysthe syntactic parallelism seen in the Phoenician original. Butthe third Luwian clause differs from the matching Phoeni-cian phrase even in terms of meaning, since the perpetratorlisted there has the same reference as the subject of thesecond Luwian clause, i.e. a prince and not a common man.

This brings us to the final cluster of supportingexamples, which comprises the passages where the Luwiantexts appear to have distorted the meaning of their Phoeni-cian originals. Thus the likely reason for the discrepancybetween the mention of building and destroying fortressesin ÇİNEKÖY § 7 is the confusion between Phoenician bn,‘to build’, and ‘n, ‘to destroy’ (Hawkins 2005: 156, n.24).One must, however, specify that this confusion was causednot by the Phoenician scribe, who obviously knew thedifference between these two verbs, but rather by his

Luwian colleague. The misunderstanding of the Phoeniciantext may have happened either by negligence or becausethe translator had to deal with a damaged copy of thePhoenician text. Such a conclusion is all the more likelysince the remainder of the ÇİNEKÖY inscriptions (§§ 8–11) is devoted to building activities rather than warfare.

Another likely mistake in the Luwian version ofÇİNEKÖY is the replacement of the designation’špḥ mpš,‘descendant of Mopsus’, with its inaccurate specificationmuksas(sa) hamsis, ‘grandson of Muksa’ in § 1. Since theAnatolian rendering of his name as Muksa goes back tothe time when the Greek labiovelar stops were still inplace, this Mopsus could hardly be the grandfather of thelate eighth-century King Waraika. If one wishes tomaintain the accuracy of the Luwian version in this case,one would have to assume that Waraika’s grandfather hadthe same name as the founder of his dynasty. By contrast,the hypothesis that the Phoenician title is the accurate onedoes not require additional historical assumptions.

The omission of the appendix ‘and there were (alto-gether) 15’ in the Luwian version of ÇİNEKÖY § 7 canbe best taken as suppression of redundant information.This argument is not particularly strong, since such anepexegetic clause could, in principle, be secondarily addedto the Phoenician text. But turning to KARATEPE 1, onefinds cases where the Luwian translator negligentlyomitted or hedged the clauses that convey new informationor contribute to textual cohesion. If the Luwian versionwere original, one would then have to assume that theauthor of the inscription made negligent mistakes, whereasthe translator edited it for content, which is, of course, arather complicated and unlikely hypothesis.

Thus KARATEPE 1 (Luwian Ho) lacks altogether §17 ‘I established peace with every king’, the counterpartof which is extant in all three versions of the Phoenicianinscription. Although the relevant slab of the Luwian Hucopy is not completely preserved, the lacuna comprisingthe end of § 16 and the beginning of § 18 is too small toaccommodate an additional clause (cf. Çambel 1999: pl.62). So one has to assume that KARATEPE 1 § 17 neverexisted in the draft of the Luwian text. Furthermore, theLuwian version of KARATEPE 1 § 32 appears to replacethe relevant information of the Phoenician text with aclause recycled from the earlier material. The Phoeniciantext is telling us that the Adaneans were present on all thefrontiers of the kingdom, which represents a logical tran-sition from the previous § 31 referring to their resettlementto the subsequent §§ 33–35 describing the resultingimprovement of security within the kingdom. By contrast,the Luwian version of § 31 reverts to the topic of extendingthe frontiers of the kingdom, which is already covered in§ 5. This repetition does not trigger cohesion with eitherthe preceding or following information.

46

Yakubovich

Turning to the lexicon, the direction of translation canbe inferred from those cases when two different Phoeni-cian terms belonging to the same semantic field have oneand the same Luwian counterpart in the same text. Forexample, Phoenician qrt, ‘town’, and ḥmt (plural ḥmyt),‘walled fortress’ (vel sim.), have the identical translationharnisa-, ‘fortress’, in parallel Luwian contexts (cf.KARATEPE § 23 vs § 38). The assumption of creativevariation in the Phoenician translation of the Luwian wordfor ‘fortress’ would obviously be more complicated. Therendering of the toponym Que in the bilingual texts illus-trates essentially the same phenomenon. The Phoenicianversion of KARATEPE uses the ethnic term dnnym,‘Danuneans’, and the geographic term ‘mq ’dn, ‘plain ofAdana’. The Luwian verson normally translates both termswith the same proper noun á-*429-wa/i-, which waspresumably perceived as both the ethnic and thegeographic entity. The only exception (§ 37) concerns thepassage where the ethnic and geographic terms occur sideby side in the Phoenician version, and therefore theLuwian translator had to render the second one with thecalque á-ta-na-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+, ‘Adanean plain’.

On the other hand, it is to be expected that the samePhoenician technical terms could be provided withdifferent counterparts by the translators of KARATEPEand ÇİNEKÖY, who were probably distinct individuals. Acase in point is the Luwian rendering of the royal epithethbrk b‘l. We have seen in the commentary to theÇİNEKÖY inscription that it was understood as ‘servantof his lord’ (vel sim.) in KARATEPE 1 § 1 but as atheophoric epithet in ÇİNEKÖY § 1. In the absence ofsupplementary evidence I find it impossible to say whichof the two translations is closer to the meaning implied bythe author of the inscriptions. It is, however, almost certainthat at least in one of the two cases a misunderstanding ofthe Phoenician technical term hbrk b‘l must have beeninvolved. A hypothesis that the same Phoenician phrasecould be used as a cover term for the two unrelated Luwianepithets would be highly artificial.

Another case of a similar kind has been noticed byCraig Melchert (personal communication). The Phoenicianversions of both KARATEPE 1 § 3 and ÇİNEKÖY § 5introduce the unisex parental metaphor using the Semiticorder of elements ‘father and mother’. The Luwian versionof the great KARATEPE inscription replaces it with theopposite order ‘mother and father’, which finds a directcounterpart in the Hittite Anitta text. In the ÇİNEKÖYinscription, however, the order of parents is the same inboth versions (cf. the commentary). Presumably, the trans-lator of KARATEPE 1 used the idiomatic Anatolian equiv-alent of the Semitic metaphor, whereas his colleagueresponsible for the Luwian version of ÇİNEKÖY merelycalqued the Phoenician original.

Differences in shades of lexical meaning are harder totrace and interpret given our insufficient knowledge ofeither the Phoenician or the Luwian lexicon. But the corre-spondence between Phoenician b‘l ’gddm, ‘masters ofgangs’, and Luwian usallinzi, ‘thieves’ (vel sim.), inKARATEPE 1 § 20 is at least suggestive. The Phoeniciannoun ’gdd is cognate with Hebrew gedūd, which iscommonly used in the Bible with the meaning ‘maraudingband’ (Krahmalkov 2001: 32). Its Luwian counterpartusall(i)- is derived from usa-, ‘to bring, carry’ (cf. Hawkins2000: 1.61a), either directly or via an unattested actionnoun. Both terms apply to the evil-doers who previouslydid not obey ‘the house of Mopsus’ but were reduced toobedience by the regent Azatiwada. The Phoenician termappears to be entirely appropriate for the context as areference to warlords who did not accept royal authority.On the other hand, Luwian usall(i)- does not seem toconvey connotations of either violent or organised crimeand appears to represent a generic term for trespassersagainst property whose suppression would not necessarilyrequire direct royal intervention. One is tempted toconclude that it was used as a vague hyperonym in theabsence of an exact Luwian equivalent for the Phoenicianphrase b‘l ’gddm.

Another likely instance of a Luwian hyperonym corre-sponding to a more specific term in Phoenician is Luwianharrall(i)-, ‘weapon’ (vel sim.), rendering Phoenician mgn,‘shield’. The meaning of the Phoenician noun is reason-ably secure through its northwestern Semitic cognates,including Hebrew māgēn, ‘shield’, but its Luwian coun-terpart is semantically more problematic. Hawkins (2000:1.59–60) appears to assign the meaning ‘shield’ to Luwianhara/i-li- and provide its determinative *272 with the Latintransliteration SCUTUM merely because this nounfunctions as an equivalent of the Phoenician mgn inKARATEPE 1 §§ 9–10. Nevertheless, the shape of the sign*272 does not resemble that of a shield, but bears a vagueresemblance to those of signs *273 to *275, which allpredetermine various lexemes pertaining to warfare. Fromthe etymological viewpoint, I find it difficult to separatethis noun from the Hittite and Luwian verb harra-, ‘smash,crush’ (Melchert 1993: 57; Hawkins 2000: 2.460a), hencethe proposed interpretative transliteration harrall(i)-. Thisconnection is supported by the etymological figure(“*272”)ha+ra/i-ti-ha-wa/i-mu |hara/i-li-na (ASSURletter d § 8; cf. Hawkins 2000: 2.546), where the sign *272predetermines a different derivative of harra-. Presum-ably, the derivation of harrall(i)- parallels that of usall(i)-, ‘thief’, discussed in the previous paragraph. Theproposed etymology is compatible with harrall(i)- eitherhaving the generic meaning ‘weapon’ or referring to aspecific type of offensive weapon, but the KARATEPE 1context tips the scales in favour of the former solution. It

47

Anatolian Studies 2015

is easy to envisage how the Phoenician metaphoricdescription ‘(I made) shield on top of shield’ could be para-phrased in Luwian with a broader metaphor ‘I madeweapon on top of weapon’, but a paraphrase in theopposite direction would be less felicitous.

It is possible that individual arguments among thoseadvanced above will be rendered invalid or relativisedthrough subsequent philological research. I doubt,however, that it will affect the final conclusion, unless onesucceeds in assembling a matching set of argumentspleading in favour of the opposite scenario. Strong conver-gent evidence upholds Phoenician as the primary languageof both the ÇİNEKÖY and KARATEPE 1 bilinguals.

We have seen thus far that the rulers of Que commis-sioned inscriptions in Phoenician and provided them withLuwian translations. Sceptics might question themetaphoric significance of this procedure, arguing that thepreference for Phoenician originals was motivated bypurely technical considerations. In order to preempt thispotential objection, it is appropriate to turn to the generaldesign of the respective inscriptions, which has alreadybeen properly discussed in Payne 2006: 128–29.

The fortress built by Azatiwada was provided withthree copies of the Phoenician text of the KARATEPE 1bilingual (Phu/A, Pho/B and PhSt), but with only twocopies of the respective Luwian text (Hu and Ho). Theslightly divergent version of the Phoenician text PhSt,which lacks the Luwian counterpart, was inscribed on acolossal statue of the Storm-god, which arguably made itthe most prominent inscription in the fortress. In addition,the order of the orthostats covered with Anatolian hiero-glyphs appears to be irregular, which creates an impressionthat the architects of the fortress either were not concernedabout making the Luwian text legible or were unable toaccomplish this goal. In the instance of the ÇİNEKÖYinscription, the Phoenician text was placed in the frontalspace between two bulls carrying a statue of the Storm-god, while fragments of the Luwian text were squeezedbetween the feet of the animals, on the back of a carriageand along the base of the sculptural complex. One canconclude that the designers of both texts tried to give moreprominence to their Phoenician versions. The convergencebetween linguistic and iconographic asymmetries supportsthe claim that neither of the two is accidental.

The sociolinguistic situation in QueIf the original character and iconographic prominence ofthe Phoenician texts can be taken as a metaphor for thesociolinguistic situation in Que, we have arrived at thebasic linguistic correlate of the migrationist hypothesis.The principal official language of Que/Hiyawa was notLuwian, even though Luwian was historically spoken bythe bulk of its population. The principal remaining diffi-

culty is, of course, the discrepancy between the postulatedsocially-dominant language (Greek) and the attestedprimary written language (Phoenician). As mentionedabove, there is no independent evidence for the socialdominance of Phoenician newcomers in Early Iron AgeCilicia, but a number of arguments have been advancedfor Greek resettlement to this region in the late secondmillennium BC. How then can one assume that the ‘Houseof Mopsus’ chose Phoenician instead of Greek for thepurposes of writing?

The answer to this question logically falls into twoparts. On the one hand, one can look for typologicalparallels illustrating comparable sociolinguistic situations.Of relevance here are the cases when a new elite groupavails itself of a foreign written tradition. On the otherhand, one must investigate whether the reconstructedsymbiosis between Greek population groups and Phoeni-cian written culture might have left historical tracesbeyond Cilicia.

Pursuing the typological line of argumentation, one canbegin with a parallel from a rather different region. TheFirst Turkic Khaghanate came into being through theefforts of the Ashinas clan on the steppes to the north ofChina in the mid sixth century AD. It was the first steppeempire that left us written texts, notably the Bugut inscrip-tion found in Mongolia. Although the founders of theKhaghanate were Turks, and its closest literate neighbourswere the Chinese, the language that its rulers adopted forpublic display was neither Turkic nor Chinese, but Sogdian(de la Vaissière 2005: 202–03). The Sogdian nativespeakers inhabited the area of Samarkand and Bukhara,which came to be dependent on the Khaghans butremained on the periphery of their empire. The Sogdianprincipalities had no geopolitical significance, but Sogdiantraders were active at the time along the eastern stretch ofthe Silk Road, reaching up to the Chinese capitals.Presumably, the decision to adopt the Iranian Sogdianlanguage for official purposes in an empire of Altaicnomads was prompted by the easy availability of Sogdianscribes, the relative simplicity of the script and the desireto maintain a separate cultural identity from the neigh-bouring Chinese. All these factors, mutatis mutandis,might have been at work when the ‘House of Mopsus’chose to engage Phoenician scribes for chancery purposesin the principality of Que.

In searching for a parallel from the Neo-Hittite world,one may turn once again to the situation in the princi-pality of Sam’al, the closest neighbour of Que. Asmentioned in the introductory part of this article, thispolity was a foundation of Aramaean tribes, which estab-lished themselves in the midst of Luwian-speaking popu-lation groups. Nonetheless, the earliest monumentalinscription emanating from Sam’al is in not in any form

48

Yakubovich

of Aramaic but in Phoenician (Tropper 1993: 5). AndréLemaire (2001: 189) hypothesises that the written use ofPhoenician in the earlier part of King Kulamuwa’s reignwas connected in some way with close political tiesbetween Sam’al and Que. This hypothesis, however, ishard to maintain, given that Kulamuwa’s Phoenicianinscription explicitly refers to the king of Que as hisadversary (Tropper 1993: 37). As an alternative, one canpropose that Phoenician at the time simply representedthe default option for a king who ruled in a Neo-Hittitemilieu but did not wish to use Anatolian hieroglyphs.Kulamuwa’s motivation here must have been more or lessthe same as that of the rulers of Que, namely an attemptto distance themselves from the neighbouring Neo-Hittitekings, who continued to embrace Anatolian traditions.Naturally, the genetic similarity among the northwesternSemitic languages and the simplicity of the Phoenicianscript may also have played a role in this decision. Thewritten use of Phoenician was, however, abandoned assoon as the native Sam’alian dialect of Kulamuwa andhis descendants underwent reduction to writing or literi-sation (Verschriftlichung).

At the same time, we know that the rulers of Sam’al,just like those of Que, eventually came to a compromisewith the conquered Luwian-speaking population. Thus thePhoenician incription of Kulamuwa makes it clear that theking extended his protection to the mškbm, understood asa reference to the local sedentary population groups,possibly of Luwian origin (Tropper 1993: 39–43). Thisstatement correlates well not only with the Luwian originof the Sam’al dynastic names Kulamuwa and Panamuwa,but also with the mingling of Luwian and Aramaean tradi-tions reflected in the local art and architecture (Bryce2012: 172 with references). The burial inscription ofKTMW, recently found in the course of the University ofChicago excavations at Zincirli, displays a blend ofSemitic and Luwian pantheons (Yakubovich 2010b: 296).Although no instances of assured bilingual texts areconnected with this principality, a signet ring of the lastSam’alian king, Bar-Rakib, bears his name inscribed inAnatolian hieroglyphs (Hawkins 2000: 2.576).

The difference in the extent to which Luwian wasdeployed as an ancillary written language in Sam’alcompared to Que may have been related to the divergentdynamics of language coexistence in the two principalities.In the instance of Sam’al, the Semitic conquerors appearto have maintained their language throughout the existenceof the state, judging at least by the onomastic data. Onecannot even exclude that the general direction of languageshift in Sam’al was from Luwian to Aramaic. By contrast,the arguments presented thus far hardly point to anythingmore than the Greek cultural heritage of the Que elites.They would be perfectly compatible with the assumption

that the rulers of the ‘House of Mopsus’ were no longerGreek speakers, or only semi-speakers, by the eighthcentury BC, when the royal multilingual inscriptions wereproduced. Onomastic evidence from Cilicia would supporta shift in the direction of the Luwian language, as is partic-ularly clear in the instance of personal names in theseventh-century Phoenician inscription CEBELİREİSDAĞI (Younger 2003). Under such an assumption, therulers of Que would have had few incentives to abandonthe tradition of writing Phoenician in favour of Greekliteracy, even though it was already cultivated in theAegean and southern Italy in the same period. The sameassumption also implies that the metaphoric significanceof the use of Phoenician in Que could no longer be clearto the outsiders. This would explain why Phoenician cameto be deployed alongside Luwian in the unpublishedbilingual İVRİZ 2 from the inner Anatolian principality ofTabal (Lipiński 2004: 133–35).

A historical argument that can support the reconstruc-tion of Phoenician literacy in the Greek milieu is, in myopinion, the origin of the Greek alphabet. Recent discus-sions of this topic (Krebernik 2007; Lemaire 2008)converge in reaffirming the traditional view, according towhich it was adapted from a Phoenician, not Aramaicprototype. Although the first attested Greek inscriptionspostdate 800 BC, the analysis of their palaeography speaksfor the Phoenician ductus of the late ninth century BC asa starting point for the development of Greek letters(Krebernik 2007: 123 with references). Another productof the adaptation of the Phoenician writing system is thePhrygian alphabet, which displays non-trivial commoninnovations with its Greek counterpart in the domain ofvowel marking, in particular the creation of signs for e ando vowels out of the Phoenician consonantal letters he andayin respectively. The earliest Phrygian inscriptions appearto date back to the late ninth century BC and thus predatethe attested specimens of Greek writing, but there are waysto show that the Greeks did not borrow their alphabet fromthe Phrygians (Krebernik 2007: 116–17).

We know that the adaptation of a particular script to anew language was rarely a spontaneous process in ancientsocieties. What preceded it was usually an extension of thesame script in association with its original language to newcommunities whose native languages had lacked a writtentradition. For example, ‘the earliest inscriptions of theUrartian kings are written in the Assyrian script andlanguage ... though after a single generation the Urartianlanguage, for most purposes, replaced the use of Assyrian’(Wilhelm 2004: 119). The use of Akkadian as the mainwritten language should probably be reconstructed for theearly days of the kingdom of Hattusa before the reformsof King Telepinu introduced Hittite literacy on a largerscale (van den Hout 2010: 103–04). The written use of

49

Anatolian Studies 2015

Official Aramaic in Achaemenid and Hellenistic Iranpredated the adaptation of the Aramaic alphabet to thetransmission of Middle Iranian (Skjaervø 1995).

Therefore, as long as one accepts the Phoenicianalphabet as the source of the Greek writing system, itshistorical use for writing purposes in certain parts of theGreek-speaking world emerges as the default hypothesis.What makes it even more likely is the Semitic origin ofGreek names for individual letters (Krebernik 2007: 148–61). While the northwestern Semitic letter names havetransparent etymologies (such as aleph, ‘bull’, beth,‘house’, etc.), which are further motivated in terms of theiroriginal acrophonic values, neither is the case for theGreek letter names, such as alpha and beta. This situationcan be contrasted, for example, with abbreviating Greekletter names for the Roman alphabet or coining new letternames with Slavic etymologies for the Cyrillic alphabet.The transmission of writing together with elements ofuseless linguistic tradition speaks in favour of the literisa-tion of Greek being an initiative of professional bilingualscribes acting under institutional patronage rather than amere by-product of casual informal encounters betweenGreeks and literate Semites.

The reform modifying a Semitic script for purposes ofwriting Greek could have hardly taken place in Cilicia,where Phoenician continued to be used in the officialsetting even in the seventh century BC. Although Lemaire(2008: 51–52) suggests that alphabetic writing may havespread to Phrygia via Cilicia, the shared innovations of theGreek and Phrygian alphabets would rather plead for acommon reformed archetype, which probably came intobeing further west. In this connection it is interesting toobserve that the control of Que may have extendedwestwards on occasions as far as Pamphylia. This followsfrom the etymology of the local town Aspendos, whichwas apparently written *Εστϝεδυς (genitive Εστϝεδιιυς) inthe Pamphylian dialect of Greek (Brixhe 1976: 194–200).Stephen Durnford and Heiner Eichner remind me about itspossible etymological connection with the name of theQue regent Azatiwada and his eastern foundation Azati-wadaya (cf. already Brixhe 1976: 80, 193). If the area ofAspendos marked the western limits of Que, it could beone possible point where the Greek population ofPamphylia might have come into contact with the Phoeni-cian script, perhaps before the town of Aspendos was evenfounded. It goes without saying that this contact episodeis not assured, and even if it were, its impact on the furtherdevelopment of the Greek alphabet would still remain amatter of speculation pending further material finds. Butan independent piece of indirect evidence for the westwardextension of Que is the CEBELİREİS DAĞI inscriptionfound in the west of Rough Cilicia and featuring thedynastic name wryk (Younger 2003).

No matter how one may venture to reconstruct furtherdevelopments, the principality of Que emerges as a likelyvenue for the initial adoption of Phoenician for purposesof writing in a Greek-language community. Beside theGreek presence in Que, the only assumption that isrequired for the consistency of this hypothesis is the useof the Phoenician script in Que since at least the mid ninthcentury BC. Although no direct evidence supports such anearly date, there is nothing unlikely about it either, giventhat this is the point in time when King Kulamuwacommissioned his Phoenician inscription in Sam’al.Kulamuwa’s inscription refers to Que as an organisedstate, and this information can be confirmed throughcontemporary Assyrian sources (Bryce 2012: 155). Itseems reasonable to assume that the principality of Quehad its own chancery, just as was the case in the other Neo-Hittite states. This chancery can be envisioned as a placewhere engaged Phoenician scribes rubbed shoulders andshared knowledge with their Greek disciples in the midninth century BC and probably even earlier.

Concluding thoughtsWe have seen that the reconstruction of the ethniclandscape in Early Iron Age Cilicia can be approachedfrom various angles. As usual in interdisciplinary research,the outcome of this reconstruction will depend not onproving or disproving particular points but rather onweighing up the relative compatibilities of variousscenarios with all the heterogeneous data at our disposal.I have tried to demonstrate that the existing historicalhypothesis can be reconciled with the new linguisticresults. The combination of both yields a coherent pictureif one assumes that the written use of Phoenician inQue/Hiyawa developed as a contrastive statement ofidentity on the part the Greek colonists, as opposed to theindigenous Luwian population. I have also endeavouredto stress the relevance of the proposed reconstruction fortracing the emergence of the Greek alphabetic script.

AcknowledgementsMy work on the topic of multilingualism in Que/Hiyawaand its sociolinguistic interpretation became possiblethrough the award of a Humboldt Fellowship tenured at thePhilipps-Universität Marburg and was further facilitated bythe participation in the project Egea i Lewant na przełomieepoki brązu i żelaza within the framework of the NationalProgram of the Development of the Humanities of the PolishMinistry of Science and Higher Education. Earlier versionsof this paper were presented at the Translation and Bilin-gualism in Ancient Near Eastern Texts workshop (WolfsonCollege, Oxford, March 2013), the 32nd Deutscher Orien-talistentag (Münster, September 2013), Journée Languesrares (Institut catholique de Paris, November 2013) and The

50

Yakubovich

Aegean and the Levant at the Turn of Bronze and Iron Agesworkshop (University of Warsaw, January 2014). I amgrateful to the audiences of these gatherings for theirconstructive feedback. At a later stage the paper benefitedfrom the helpful advice of Stephen Durnford (Brighton),Heiner Eichner (Vienna), H. Craig Melchert (Los Angeles),Norbert Oettinger (Erlangen), Elisabeth Rieken (Marburg),Florian Sommer (Zürich) and David Sasseville (Marburg).Among these, Stephen Durnford and Craig Melchert alsomade substantial contributions toward improving its style.Alexander Fantalkin (Tel-Aviv) and Rostislav Oreshko(Hamburg) guided me on the archaeological problemsrelevant to the topic, while Alexei Kassian (Moscow),Gianni Lanfranchi (Padova) and Philip Schmitz (YpsilantiMI) helped me with the historical and philological bibliog-raphy. Yuri Koryakov (Moscow) kindly agreed to design ahistorical map that accompanies this paper. All the above-mentioned scholars deserve my heartfelt gratitude and noneof them is to be blamed for my possible shortcomings.

ReferencesAdams, M.J., Cohen, M.E. 2013: ‘The “Sea Peoples” in

primary sources’ in A.E. Killebrew, G. Lehmann (eds),The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text andArchaeology. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature:645–64

Adiego Lajara, I.-X. 2007: The Carian Language. Leiden,Brill

Bauer, A. 2014: Morphosyntax of Noun Phrase in Hiero-glyphic Luwian. Leiden, Brill

Brixhe, C. 1976: Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie:documents et grammaire. Paris, Maisonneuve

Bryce, T. 2012: The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms:A Political and Military History. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press

Çambel, H. 1999: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luvian Inscrip-tions 2. Karatepe-Arslantaş. Berlin, de Gruyter

Cooper, J. 2000: ‘Assyrian prophecies, the Assyrian tree,and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism,Greek philosophy, Christian theology, gnosticism, andmuch more’ Journal of the American Oriental Society120: 430–44

Daues, A. 2008: ‘Mehrsprachigkeit im vorchristlichenAnatolien: Sprachlicher Wandel durch Kontakt vonSprach- und Schriftsystemen’ in A. Casaretto, S.Kutscher (eds), Proceedings of the Second GraduateWorkshop of the Center of Linguistics, University ofCologne, 23rd–24th of June 2006. Aachen, ShakerVerlag: 1–28

de la Vaissière, É. 2005: Sogdian Traders: A History.Leiden, Brill

Dinçol, B., Dinçol, A., Hawkins, J.D., Peker, H. (2015)‘Two new inscribed Storm-god stelae from Arsuz

(İskenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2’ Anatolian Studies 65:59–77

Gander, M. 2011: Die geographischen Beziehungen derLukka-Länder. Heidelberg, Winter

— 2012: ‘Ahhiyawa – Hiyawa – Que: Gibt es Evidenz fürdie Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien am Überganvon der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit?’ Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 54: 281–309

Giusfredi, F. 2009: ‘The problem of the Luwian titletarwanis’ Altorientalische Forschungen 36.1: 140–45

Goedegebuure, P. 1998: ‘The Hieroglyphic Luwianparticle REL-i=pa’ in A. Süel (ed.), Acts of the ThirdInternational Congress of Hittitology. Ankara, UyumAjans: 233–45

— 2009: ‘hbrk b‘l or tiwadamis zidis, the steward of theking in Luwian and Phoenician society’. Paperpresented at the Midwestern Branch of the AmericanOriental Society meeting (Bourbonnais, February2009)

Hajnal, I. 2003: Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht.Die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck, Institutfür Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck

— 2011: ‘Namen und ihre Etymologien – als Beweis-stücke nur bedingt tauglich?’ in C. Ulf, R. Rollinger(eds), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit umHomers Ilias. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchge-sellschaft: 241–63

Hallo, W.W., Younger, K.L. 2003: The Context of Scripture(3 vols). Leiden, Brill

Harrison, T.P. 2007: ‘Neo-Hittites in the Orontes valley.Recent excavations at Tell Ta’yinat’ Journal of theCanadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2: 59–68

Hawkins, J.D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic LuwianInscriptions 1. Inscriptions of the Iron Age (parts 1, 2:texts; part 3: plates). Berlin, de Gruyter

— 2005: ‘Die Inschrift des Warikas von Hiyawa ausÇİNEKÖY’ in M. Lichtenstein (ed.), Texte aus derUmwelt des Alten Testaments 2. Staatsverträge, Herr-scherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischenGeschichte. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus: 155–56

— 2011: ‘The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple’Anatolian Studies 61: 35–54

— forthcoming: ‘The ending of the ÇİNEKÖY inscrip-tion’ in a forthcoming Festschrift

Hutter, M. 2003: ‘Aspects of Luwian religion’ in H.C.Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden, Brill: 211–80

Kahn, D. 2011: ‘The campaign of Ramesses III againstPhilistia’ Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections3.4: 1–11

Kaufman, S. 2007: ‘The Phoenician inscription of theIncirli trilingual: tentative reconstruction and transla-tion’ Maarav 14: 7–26

51

Anatolian Studies 2015

Killebrew, A.E., Lehmann, G. 2013: ‘Introduction: theworld of the Philistines and other “Sea Peoples”’ inA.E. Killebrew, G. Lehmann (eds), The Philistines andOther ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta,Society of Biblical Literature: 1–17

Krahmalkov, C.R. 2000: Phoenician-Punic Dictionary.Leuven, Peeters

— 2001: A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden, BrillKrebernik, M. 2007: ‘Buchstabennamen, Lautwerte und

Alphabetgeschichte’ in R. Rollinger, A. Luther, J.Wiesehöfer (eds), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation,Raum und Wahrnehmung in der Alten Welt. Mainz,Verlag Antike: 108–75

KUB = Figulla, H.H. et al. (eds) 1921–: Keilschrif-turkunden aus Boghazköi. Berlin, Akademie Verlag

Lanfranchi, G.B. 2005: ‘The Luwian-Phoenician bilingualof Cineköy and the annexation of Cilicia to the Assyrianempire’ in R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer.Festschrift fur Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstagam 25. Februar 2004. Münster, Ugarit-Verlag: 481–96

— 2007: ‘The Luwian-Phoenician bilinguals of Cineköyand Karatepe: an ideological dialogue’ in R. Rollinger,A. Luther, J. Wiesehöfer (eds), Getrennte Wege?Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der altenWelt. Mainz, Verlag Antike: 179–217

— 2009: ‘A happy son of the king of Assyria: Warikas andthe ÇİNEKÖY bilingual (Cilicia)’ in M. Luukko, S.Svärd, R. Mattila (eds), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, andScholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honourof Simo Parpola. Helsinki, Finnish Oriental Society:127–50

Latacz, J. 2004: Troy and Homer: Toward a Solution of anOld Mystery. Oxford, Oxford University Press

Lehmann, G. 2007: ‘Decorated pottery styles in thenorthern Levant during the Early Iron Age and theirrelationship with Cyprus and the Aegean’ Ugarit-Forschungen 39: 487–550

Lemaire, A. 1983: ‘L’inscription phénicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsiderée’ Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 9–19

— 2001: ‘Les langues due royaume de Sam’al aux IXe-VIIIe s. av. J.-C. et leurs relations avec le royaume deQué’ in É. Jean, A.M. Dinçol, S. Durugönül (eds), LaCilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av.J.-C. – 4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Istanbul, Institut françaisd’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil: 187–92

— 2008: ‘The spread of alphabetic scripts (c. 1700–500BCE)’ Diogenes 218 (55.2): 44–57

Lipiński, E. 2004: Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven, PeetersMelchert, H.C. 1987: ‘PIE velars in Luvian’ in C. Watkins

(ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985). Berlin, de Gruyter: 182–204

— 1993: Cuneiform Luwian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, self-published

— 2002: ‘Hieroglyphic Luwian REL-i-pa “indeed,certainly”’ in M.R.V. Southern (ed.), Indo-EuropeanPerspectives. Washington, Institute for the Study ofMan: 223–32

— 2006: ‘Indo-European verbal art in Luwian’ in G.-J.Pinault, D. Petit (eds), La langue poétique indo-euro-péenne. Leuven, Peeters: 291–98

Metcalf, C. 2011: ‘New parallels in Hittite and Sumerianpraise of the sun’ Welt des Orients 41: 168–76

Moran, W.L. (ed.) 1992: The Amarna Letters. Baltimore,Johns Hopkins University Press

Neu, E. 1974: Der Anitta-Text. Wiesbaden, HarrassowitzOettinger, N. 2008: ‘The seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a histor-

ical figure’ in M. Bachvarova, B.-J. Collins, I. Rutherford(eds), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks, and theirNeighbours in Ancient Anatolia. Oxford, Oxbow: 45–56

— 2010: ‘Seevölker und Etrusker’ in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan,J. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittitesand their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer.Wiesbaden, Harrassowiz: 233–46

Oreshko, R. 2013: ‘The Achаean hides caged in yonderbeams: the value of Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *429reconsidered and a new light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa’Kadmos 52.1: 19–33

Payne, A. 2006: ‘Multilingual inscriptions and theiraudiences: Cilicia and Lycia’ in S. Sanders (ed.),Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Chicago,Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 121–36

Rieken, E. 2004: ‘Das Präteritum des Medio-Passivs imHieroglyphen-Luvischen’ Historische Sprachfor-schung 117.2: 179–88

— 2010: ‘Das Zeichen <sà> im Hieroglyphen-luwischen’in A. Süel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth InternationalCongress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 20082. Ankara, Anıt Matbaa: 651–60

Rieken, E., Yakubovich, I. 2010: ‘The new values ofLuwian signs L 319 and L 172’ in I. Singer (ed.),Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and HittiteStudies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasionof his 70th Birthday. Tel-Aviv, Institute of Archae-ology: 199–219

Rollinger, R. 2006: ‘The terms “Assyria” and “Syria”again’ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65: 283–87

Schmitz, P.C. 2008: ‘Archaic Greek words in Phoenicianscript from Karatepe’ Newsletter of the AmericanSociety of Greek and Latin Epigraphy 12.1: 5–9

— 2009: ‘Phoenician KRNTRYŠ, Archaic Greek*ΚΟΡΥΝΗΤΗΡΙΟΣ and the Storm-god of Aleppo’KUSATU 10: 119–60

Sideltsev, A.V. 2002: ‘Inverted word order in MiddleHittite’ in V. Shevoroshkin, P. Sidwell (eds), AnatolianLanguages. Canberra, Association for the History ofLanguage: 137–88

52

Yakubovich

Simon, Z. 2011: ‘The identification of Qode: reconsideringthe evidence’ in J. Mynářová (ed), Egypt and the NearEast: The Cross-roads: Proceedings of an Interna-tional Conference on the Relations between Egypt andthe Near East in the Bronze Age. Prague, CharlesUniversity: 249–70

— 2014: ‘Awarikus und Warikas: Zwei Könige vonHiyawa’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 114.1: 91–103

Singer, I. 2006: ‘Ships bound for Lukka: a new interpreta-tion of the companion letters RS 94.2530 and RS94.2523’ Altorientalische Forschungen 33.2: 242–62

— 2013: ‘“Old country” ethnonyms in “new countries” ofthe “Sea Peoples” diaspora’ in R. Koehl (ed.), Amilla:The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to GuenterKopcke in Celebration of his 75th Birthday. Philadel-phia, INSTAP Academic Press: 321–33

Skjaervø, P.O. 1995: ‘Aramaic in Iran’ Aram 7: 283–318Tekoğlu, R., Lemaire, A. 2000: ‘La bilingue royale

louvito-phénicien de ÇİNEKÖY’ Comptes Rendus deL’Académie des Inscriptions 2000: 961–1006

Tropper, J. 1993: Die Inschriften von Zincirli. NeueEdition und vergleichende Grammatik von des phöni-zischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus.Münster, Ugarit-Verlag

van den Hout, T. 2010: ‘The rise and fall of cuneiformscript in Hittite Anatolia’ in C. Woods (ed.), VisibleLanguage: Inventions of Writing in the Near East andBeyond. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago: 99–114

Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1990: ‘Mopsus: légendes et réalité’Hethitica 10: 195–211

Ventris, M., Chadwick, J. 1973: Documents in MycenaeanGreek (2nd edition). Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-sity Press

West, M.L. 1997: The East Face of Helicon: West AsiaticElements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press

Wilhelm, G. 2004: ‘Urartian’ in R.D. Woodard (ed.), TheCambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s AncientLanguages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:119–37

Yakubovich, I. 2005: ‘Were Hittite kings divinelyanointed?’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions5: 109–39

— 2010a: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language.Leiden, Brill

— 2010b: ‘West Semitic god El in Anatolian Hieroglyphictransmission’ in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, J. Miller (eds), PaxHethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighboursin Honour of Itamar Singer. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz:385–98

Younger, K.L. Jr 2003: ‘Cebel İres Dağı’ in W.W. Hallo,K.L. Younger Jr (eds), The Context of Scripture 3:Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Leiden,Brill: 137–39

Zgusta, L. 1984: Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg,Winter

53