Ilya - are CEBELRES DAI and CEBEL RES DAI one and the same?

I noticed two references to CEBEL RES

DAI and revised them to CEBELRES DAI. Is this correct?
doi:10.1017/S0066154615000010

Anatolian Studies 65 (2015): 3553

British Institute at Ankara 2015

Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia

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

Abstract
The relationship between the Luwian and Phoenician versions of the bilingual texts emanating from Cilicia has never
been systematically studied from the philological viewpoint. In this paper I endeavour to demonstrate that a converging
set of formal arguments supports the primary character of the Phoenician versions of the NEKY and KARATEPE
1 bilinguals and the secondary character of their Luwian versions. I interpret this as a metaphor for the relationship
between two ethnic constituents of the Neo-Hittite principality of Que, whose coexistence was earlier argued for on
independent grounds. According to the proposed interpretation, the Phoenician language was emblematic of the rulers
of Que, who claimed Greek descent and therefore attempted to distance themselves from the traditional elites of the
neighbouring 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 point
when the Linear B script had been forgotten and represented the first step toward the creation of the Greek alphabet.
zet
Kilikyada bulunan iki dilli metinlerin Luvice ve Fenikece versiyonlar arasndaki iliki hibir zaman filolojik bak
asyla sistematik olarak incelenmemitir. Bu makalede, NEKY ve KARATEPE 1 iki dilli metinlerinin Fenikece
versiyonlarnn birincil zelliini ve onlarn Luvice versiyonlarnn ikincil zelliini destekleyen bir dizi resmi argmann
kesitii gsterilmeye allmtr. Bu, daha nce baka sebeplerle tarafmzca savunulduu gibi, Neo-Hitit dnemi
Que prensliinde birlikte yaam olan iki etnik yapnn arasndaki iliki iin bir metafor olarak yorumlanmaktadr.
nerilen yoruma gre Fenike dili, Yunan soyundan geldiklerini iddia eden ve bu nedenle kendilerini komu Neo-Hitit
devletlerinin geleneki elitlerinden ayr tutan Que yneticilerinin bir simgesi olmutur. Luvi dilinin kullanm Que yerli
halk iin istisnai bir durumdur. Kilikyada Yunan kolonistlerce Fenike dilinin yazl anlatm dili olarak kabul edilmesi,
Linear B yazsnn unutulduu dnemde ortaya km ve Yunan alfabesinin oluturulmas ynnde ilk adm temsil
etmitir.

he principality of Que, known under such a name

from 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 number
of polities which arose in the territory of southwestern
Anatolia and northern Syria after the collapse of the empire
of Hattusa in the early 12th century BC. Eventually most
of them were absorbed into the Assyrian Empire by the
end of the eighth century BC (with instances of sporadic
re-emergences in the seventh century). This term is essentially an exonym, used in recollection of the fact that the
lands stretching from Melid in the north to Hama in the
south were collectively called atti by their eastern neighbours, the Assyrians (Bryce 2012: 52). Their inhabitants

were presumably known as ittm, Hittites in the Hebrew

tradition, although the actual usage of the ethnonym ittm
in the Bible is somewhat blurred (Bryce 2012: 6775).
This designation is not ethnically based, but rather reflects
the lingering geographic association of the Neo-Hittite
polities with the empire of Hattusa.
Judging by local inscriptions, the actual ethnic identity
of the Neo-Hittite elites was rather heterogeneous. The
ruling dynasties of Carchemish and Melid, for example,
traced back their genealogies to the rulers of Hattusa and
composed their hieroglyphic inscriptions in the Luwian
language (Bryce 2012: 8384, 9899). These states can be
regarded as the true cultural heirs to the empire of Hattusa,
where the Luwian language came first to be associated

35

Anatolian Studies 2015

language. The written use of Phoenician could then be
explained as an attempt to accommodate the international
lingua franca of the time, the simpler and more accessible
form of writing. This can be called the indigenist hypothesis. By contrast, if the Luwian-speaking groups lost their
grip of Cilicia in the Neo-Hittite period, then one possible
interpretation of the written use of Phoenician would be
the assertion of a separate cultural identity by the new
elites, in contrast to the rulers of the neighbouring states.
The written use of Luwian alongside Phoenician could
then be taken as a concession to the native population
groups of Que. The assumption that outsiders took control
of the Cilician plain after the collapse of the empire of
Hattusa 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 inscriptions emanating from the principality of Que. Since the
Luwian version of the NCRL inscription remains
unpublished and is apparently badly preserved, my
analysis will focus on the KARATEPE 1 and NEKY
bilinguals. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that a convergent set of arguments pleads for the primary character of
the Phoenician version in both cases under consideration.
I interpret this result as being better compatible with the
migrationist hypothesis, i.e. supporting the existence of
substantial non-Luwian components among the elites of
Que. But before moving to a philological analysis it is
appropriate to undertake a brief review of the migrationist
hypothesis.
According to the current state of the debate, the ethnic
group commonly seen as supplying the new elites to the
principality of Que is not that of the Phoenicians but of the
Greeks. Although no local inscriptions in the Greek
language have been found for the relevant place and
period, a number of new discoveries and methodological
advances made since the year 2000 have strengthened the
case for Greek presence in Early Iron Age Cilicia. By
contrast, there seem to be no arguments for significant
Phoenician presence in Cilicia in the same period, apart
from trade connections (cf. Lipiski 2004: 13843).
The strongest philological argument for the Greek
migration hypothesis comes from the local attestations of
the name of Mopsus. The seer Mopsus (), who
allegedly lived at the time of the Trojan War, was
mentioned already apud Hesiod according to Strabo
14.1.27, but the later Greek tradition also portrays him as
a founding figure. Although the mythological activities of
Mopsus stretch all along the western and southern coasts
of Asia Minor, his specific connection with Cilicia is
reflected in the local Hellenistic toponyms
and (Vanschoonwinkel 1990). The discovery
of the KARATEPE inscriptions provided an earlier
testimony for this association. It had been known since

with hieroglyphic inscriptions (Yakubovich 2010a: 297

99). A very different sociolinguistic situation is attested in
Samal, where the official inscriptions were composed in
three Semitic languages: Phoenician, Yaudic (Samalian)
and standard Old Aramaic (Tropper 1993: 5). The names
of the local rulers are in part Anatolian and in part Semitic,
but the name of the country literally means north in
Aramaic, and therefore its formation must have been
connected with the northward migrations of Aramaean
tribes (Bryce 2012: 16975). An intermediate situation can
be observed in Hama, where rulers with Anatolian names
issued Luwian inscriptions in the ninth century BC, but a
dynasty of Aramaean origin held sway a century later
(Bryce 2012: 13438).
In comparison with the above cases, the sociolinguistic
situation in Que is considerably harder to interpret. Apart
from a handful of seals, whose authenticity and provenance cannot always be reliably established, it can be
studied on the basis of the monumental inscriptions (or
their groups), namely NCRL, KARATEPE, NEKY,
HASSAN-BEYL and CEBELRES DAI. The first four
of these monuments are commonly dated to the eighth
century BC, while CEBELRES DAI probably originated a century later, at a point when one is no longer sure
about the existence of the principality of Que. All five of
them have Phoenician versions, NCRL, KARATEPE
and NEKY have Luwian versions and the NCRL
inscription also features an Akkadian version. On the other
hand, no Semitic personal names are attested in these
inscriptions in connection with local individuals, while the
majority of names in the monumental deed of transfer
CEBELRES DAI appear to be Luwian in origin (Payne
2006: 130). The name of Azatiwada, a de-facto ruler of
Que and commissioner of the great KARATEPE inscription (KARATEPE 1), is also clearly Luwian, and so are
the names of scribes mentioned in the related Luwian
inscription KARATEPE 4. By contrast, no Luwian
etymologies impose themselves for the royal names
Awarku (KARATEPE, HASSAN-BEYL) and Waraika
(NCRL, NEKY, CEBELRES DAI). A large
group of scholars prefers to regard these two names as
variant spellings of the same personal name *Awarika (cf.
Gander 2012: 29294), but even such a solution does not
yield a convincing Luwian etymology of the hybrid name.
It is a matter of general agreement that the indigenous
population of Cilicia spoke a form of Luwian before the
collapse of the empire of Hattusa (Bryce 2012: 15354;
cf. Yakubovich 2010a: 27285). As mentioned above, the
Luwian language continued to be in use in those NeoHittite principalities that maintained their local elites and
harkened back to the old imperial traditions. If one
assumes that Que represented one such state, it is reasonable to expect that Luwian was its principal official

36

Yakubovich

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

labiovelars are preserved in Luwian up to the eighth

century BC, and therefore the character of correspondence
between the Phoenician and Luwian forms suggests that
they reflect diverging paths of phonological adaptation of
a Greek labiovelar (Oettinger 2008). One has to assume
that the Greek name *mokwso- was taken over by the
Luwian speakers before the disappearance of the Greek
labiolvelars (*mokwso- > muksa-), while the borrowing of
this name into Phoenician postdates this process (*mopso> mp). The former inference is all the more likely, given
that the personal name Muksus is attested in an admittedly
unclear context (KUB 14.1 rev. 75) in the Hittite 14thcentury composition known as The Indictment of
Madduwatta, which makes frequent references to the
activities of the land of Aiya- (Mycenaean Greece or its
part) in southwestern Anatolia and Cyprus. In this case,
too, one has to assume the adaptation of a Greek labiovelar
before its disappearance (*mokwso- > mokso-, spelled muuk-u), since the inherited Anatolian labiovelar would have
been preserved in some form in Hittite and yielded the
spelling **mu-uk-ku-u (vel sim).

1948 that the ruling house of Que was called bt mp, the
house of Mopsus, in the Phoenician version of the
KARATEPE 1 inscription, while later the name mp was
also identified in the NEKY and NCRL texts. The
Luwian phrase, muksassan parni, to the house of
Mopsus, yields the stem muksa- as an equivalent of
Phoenician mp (KARATEPE 1 21).
As long as one resorts to purely philological
arguments, the Cilician Mopsus could be regarded as an
instance of interpretatio graeca based upon an accidental
similarity of the Greek and local Cilician names (thus, for
example,Vanschoonwinkel 1990; Gander 2012). But an
application of historical linguistic methodology yields
different results. Since the counterparts of Hebrew ( sin)
and ( shin) have been neutralised in the Phoenician sound
system, Phoenician mp can be regarded as a direct
borrowing of Greek (cf. Krebernik 2007: 129). By
contrast, Luwian muksa- can only represent the adaptation
of an earlier form of the same name, which is attested as
mo-qo-so in Mycenaean transmission (KN De 1381.B and
PY Sa 774: Ventris, Chadwick 1973: 562). The inherited

37

Anatolian Studies 2015

primarily deal with regional affairs, Danuna must have
been located in the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps not far
from Ugarit. This, in turn, corroborates its comparison
with the dnnym, the designation of the population of Que
in the Phoenician versions of the KARATEPE 1 and
NEKY inscriptions (cf. Hawkins 2000: 2.40, n.21).
As shown by Emmanuel Laroche, this Phoenician term
goes back to the Luwian possessive adjective
addanawan(ni)-, Adanean (cf. Vanschoonwinkel 1990:
29596 with references). This adjective is derived from
the name of the Anatolian town which is attested as
Adaniya in Hittite sources and still known as Adana today.
If the triple comparison Denyen Danuna dnnym can
be maintained, this implies that the inhabitants of Cilicia
participated in the Sea People coalition according to the
opinion of Ramesses III (Bryce 2012: 154; cf. Adams,
Cohen 2013: 659, n.12). This need not be seen as a contradiction with the etymologies proposed for other members
of the Sea People coalition, which support their connection with the Aegean (for example Ekwesh = Achaeans?)
or even the western Mediterranean (for example Shekelesh
= Sicilians?). The migrations of the Sea Peoples are
normally not perceived in modern scholarship as a coordinated long-range offensive campaign, but rather as a
sequence of local ethnic movements caused by the collapse
of respective complex societies (Killebrew, Lehmann
2013: 56; cf. Oettinger 2010). It is thus perfectly possible
than the plain of Adana merely represented the last intermediate stop of the displaced population groups, before
some of them continued their way east and pitched their
camps in the Amuq plain, while others consolidated in
Cilicia under the rule of the house of Mopsus. At any
rate, the proposed identification of Denyen is linguistically
superior to its frequently cited alternative, which implies
comparison with Greek , Danaeans, since the
latter ethnonym is probably rendered as tnjw in the earlier
Egyptian transmission (Adams, Cohen 2013: 658, n.11; cf.
Latacz 2004: 13031).
A new possible argument for the Aegean origin of the
Que elites emerged with the publication of the NEKY
inscription. As we shall see below, the familiar ethnonym
dnnym in the Phoenician version of the NEKY inscription turned out to correspond to the toponym Hiyawa (or
Hiyawi) in its Luwian version. The similarity of this
toponym with Aiyawa-, which was the designation of
Mycenaean Greece or a part of it in the Hittite sources of
the Empire period, did not elude the first editors of the
inscription (Tekolu , Lemaire 2000: 98184). They also
took notice of the fact that the Cilicians were formerly
called , literally Sub-Achaeans, according to
Herodotus 7.91. The mention of the Hiyawi-people in
connection with Lukka/Lycia in an Akkadian letter sent to
Ugarit by the last king of Hattusa, Suppiluliyama II, was

Thus although the earliest attestation of the name

Mopsus may come from Anatolian sources, linguistic
considerations plead for its Greek origin. Furthermore,
they find a good correlation in the archaeological record.
The Late Helladic IIIc pottery, commonly dated to the
12th to 11th century BC, made its way in large quantities
to the Cilician plain, whereas only small numbers of the
earlier Late Helladic IIIab potsherds have been found in
this region. Gunnar Lehmann (2007: 512) summarises
this evidence with the claim that the impact of Late
Helladic ceramic styles on the material culture of Cilicia
is comparable only to the Land of the Philistines and the
Amuq plain. While the intrusive origin of the Philistines
in southern Levant is reflected in the Biblical record,
scholars lacked for a long time comparable internal
textual confirmation for the Amuq plain, and this
complicated the direct link between philological and
archaeological data in the instance of Cilicia. The
situation has changed with linguistic advances leading to
the identification of the land of Walistina in the Luwian
texts (Rieken 2010; Rieken, Yakubovich 2010: 21516)
and the discovery of a variant Palistina for the same
toponym (Hawkins 2011: 41a; but cf. already Harrison
2007). 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 inscription TELL TAYINAT 1 containing a mention of a
Walistinean king (frs 35, l.1; Hawkins 2000: 2.366).
Thus the philological record supports the presence of
intrusive population groups in all the areas with the
highest concentrations of Late Helladic IIIc pottery in the
eastern Mediterranean.
The migration of new population groups to the
Levantine coast in the early 12th century BC is described
in Egyptian sources as the Sea People invasion.
According to the Medinet Habu historical texts, the
pharaoh Ramesses III fought a motley coalition of diverse
ethnic groups, who had arrived from unspecified islands,
crushed a number of states on their way and eventually set
their camp in the land of Amurru. Many details of this
account are apparently fanciful, but the Amurru connection
is probably not, since the Late Bronze Age land of Amurru
roughly overlaps with the Early Iron Age kingdom of
Palistina/Walistina (cf. Kahn 2011). One of the Sea
People groups mentioned in the Medinet Habu texts is
dnn, which is traditionally rendered as Denyen in
secondary literature, but frequently identified with the
Akkadian 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 the
death of the king of Danuna and a fire in the royal palace
of Ugarit (Moran 1992: 238). Since the reports of the
vassal Levantine princes collected in the Amarna archive

38

Yakubovich

Ilya - note
addition of
reference
to the
ARSUZ
article +
addition to
biblio

initially perceived as an additional piece of supporting

evidence for the etymological connection between the
place names Hiyawa and Ahhiyawa (Singer 2006; cf
Singer 2013). The Luwian endonym Hiyawa almost
certainly underlies the exonym Que known to us from
Assyrian sources (Simon 2011: 263).
Recently, however, the proposed etymology of Hiyawa
came under attack by Max Gander (2011: 4856). Gander
justly points out that the aphaeresis */axxijawa/ > /xijawa/
would have been irregular in the Luwian language of the
13th century BC, when the toponym or ethnonym Hiyawi
is first attested. Even more importantly, he draws historical
conclusions from the observation of Ivo Hajnal (2003: 41)
that the fragmentary toponym Hiya[...] is attested in a
Cilician context in the annals of Arnuwanda I, king of
Hattusa (early 14th century BC). A restoration of this
toponym as Hiyawa militates against its Greek origin,
since there is no independent evidence for Greek settlements in southeastern Anatolia at such an early date.
The arguments of Hajnal and Gander (further elaborated in Simon 2011) undermine to some extent the
original etymological identity of Hiyawa and Ahhiyawa.
Much, however, will depend on the reception of the recent
proposal of Oreshko (2013), who argues that the name of
Ahhiyawa is attested without aphaeresis in KARATEPE
1. The sequence -*429-wa/i- was traditionally read as
*Adanawa- because of its Phoenician correspondences
dnnym, Danuneans, and mq dn, plain of Adana. At
the same time, the use of different names Adanawa
(KARATEPE 1) and Hiyawa (NEKY) for the same
principality of Que, in the same language and within the
same tradition, would be unique in the Neo-Hittite world
and is acknowledged as a puzzle (Bryce 2012: 154).
Oreshko argues that the sign *429, which does not occur
in 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 suggestion
he adduces the graphic similarity between *429 and the
second millennium sign *306, which has the syllabic
value <h>.
Oreshkos arguments cannot be fully evaluated before
the publication of the recently found ARSUZ inscriptions
where the logogram *429 and the syllabic spelling Hiyawa
occur side by side (see now Dinol et al. 2015). Philological discussion will determine whether these can be taken
as variant spellings of the same toponym or must refer to
two different entities, which would then falsify Oreshkos
claim. On the other hand, an argument in favour of
Oreshkos theory, which its author does not use, is the nonexistence of a phonetic spelling -ta-na-wa/i-. The Luwian
phrase -ta-na-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+LA+LA-za in
KARATEPE 1 37 is to be interpreted as attana-wan-za
wal(i)l-an-za, Adanean plain, a derivative of -ta-na-,

Adana, while the toponym -*429-wa/i- is never written

without <wa/i> in the same inscription. It is also worth
mentioning that the toponym Adanawa is not attested with
such a suffix in any other sources, while Luwian -ta-nacorresponds to Phoenician dn.
The attempts to find additional Greek elements in the
Que inscriptions are to be judged each on its own value
and probably would not have been advanced if their
authors were not convinced on independent grounds that
Greeks were present in Cilicia in the Early Iron Age. The
least problematic is perhaps the suggestion that the name
of the king Awarku (Phoen wrk, Luwian -wa/i+ra/i-kusa) mentioned in the KARATEPE 1 and HASSAN-BEYL
inscriptions represents an adaptation of the Greek personal
name , literally fit for ruling (Krahmalkov 2000:
3839). The main drawback of this hypothesis is the lack
of independent evidence for such a name in a Cilician
context, but it was frequent enough in various parts of the
Greek-speaking world, including Cyprus (Lipiski 2004:
12021). Also noteworthy is the attempt to find a form of
the Greek name , syllabic Cypriot wo-ro-i-ko,
literally crooked, lame, behind the royal name Waraika
(Phoenician wryk(s), Luwian wa/i+ra/i-i-ka-s) in
NCRL, NEKY and CEBELRES DAI, which is
also attested as Urikki in Neo-Assyrian transmission
(Lipiski 2004: 122). One may object that this would be a
rather peculiar name to give to a royal offspring, but
Edward Lipiski mentions that it was common among the
Cypriote kings of Amathus in the Classical period.
Philip Schmitz (2009) offers the interpretation of Phoenician krntry, an epithet of Baal in KARATEPE 1, as
Greek *, mace-bearing, with a reference to
the attested Phoenician divinity bl md, Baal of the
Mace. This etymology is somewhat weakened by the lack
of actual attestations of the Greek form *,
but the latter would represent a regular adjectival derivative of the attested , mace-bearer. Less
grounded, in my opinion, are the attempts of Schmitz
(2008) to attribute Greek origin to the personal names
nwwl[x?]nm, , and kl[x]py in the inscription
Pho./S.I. belonging to the KARATEPE complex (ambel
1999: 69). As the author himself acknowledges, his interpretation of these names as , and the
common noun , maker of beds or bedsteads,
competes with Anatolian etymologies in two of the three
cases, and in each of these three instances his reasoning
involves restitution of fragmentary names or linguistic
speculations.
On the other hand, one can point to a number of facts
that cannot be regarded as direct arguments in favour of
the migrationist hypothesis, but receive an elegant explanation if it is accepted. It is not to be forgotten in this
connection that the territory of Que corresponded to a part

39

Anatolian Studies 2015

nk
w[ryk(s) bn ...]
[EGO-mu] wa/i+ra/i-i-[ka-s x-x-x-x(-x) (INFANS)ni-]mu-wa/i-za-sa
p mp [mlk dnnym]
[mu-ka]-sa-sa |INFANS.NEPOS-si-s |hi-ia-wa/i[-ni]-s[(URBS)] |REX-ti-sa
hbrk bl
|(DEUS)TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-sa SERVUS-la/i-s]

[yrbt]
[-mu-wa/i] wa/i+ra/i-i-ka-s [TER]RA?(-)la-tara/i-ha
bt r mq [dn]
[DOMUS-na-za TERRA-sa-za hi-]ia-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+ ||
[bbr] bl wbbr [l bt]
|(DEUS)TONITRUS-hu-ta-ti |-mi-ia-ti-ha |t-ti-ia-ti |DEUS-na<-ti>

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

[(w)m]nt l mnt
EXER[CITUS-la/i/u-za-pa-wa/i-ta] EXERCITUS[-la/i/u-ni] |SUPER+ra/i-ta |i-z[i]-ia-h[a]

wmlk [r]
|kwa/i-p[a]-wa/i-mu-u |su+ra/i-wa/i-ni-sa(URBS) |REX-ti-sa
[w]kl bt r
|su+ra/i-wa/i-za-ha(URBS) |DOMUS-na-za |ta-ni-ma-za
kn ly lb [wl]m
|t-[ti-sa MATER-ni-sa-ha] i-zi-ia-si

wdnnym wrym
|hi-ia-wa/i-sa-ha-wa/i(URBS) |su+ra/i-ia-sa-ha(URBS)
kn lbt d
|UNUS-za |DOMUS-na-za |i-zi-ia-si

wbn nk my[t]
kwa/i-pa-wa/i *274-li-ha (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-s
bm m mnt III III II wbmb m bt 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 NEKY bilingual.
of the Bronze Age kingdom of Kizzuwatna, which was
characterised by a close cultural symbiosis between the
Luwians and Hurrians (Hutter 2003: 25152 with references). Thus the Greek residents of Cilicia would represent
the most suitable intermediaries for transmitting the fabula
of the Hurrian Kumarbi epic, which is now commonly
recognised to underlie the plot of Hesiods Theogony (West
1997: 27980). The colonised Cilicia would also provide
an ideal milieu for the transmission of certain loan-words
into Greek. This holds, for example, for the winged horse
, Pegasus, who is first mentioned in the
Theogony, where he carries the lightning and thunderbolt
of Zeus, and therefore can be connected with the Luwian

divine epithet pihassass(i)-, of lightning. The Storm-god

pihassass(i)- was the patron deity of the Hittite king
Muwattalli II, who took residence in Tarhuntassa, situated
somewhere in Cilicia (cf. Hutter 2003: 26970 with references). In addition, the late Luwian aphaeresis in the word
for Assyria, seen in Suriya- (NEKY 6), may have
paved the way for the transmission of the shorter form
, Syria, to the Cilician Greeks and later on to
Europe (Rollinger 2006).
Summing up, substantial archaeological evidence for
the influence of Aegean material culture upon the plain of
Cilicia in the Early Iron Age (Lehmann 2007 with the
sources cited) correlates with a number of philological

40

Yakubovich

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,

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

Luwian I made horse on top of horse,

Phoenician And I [ma]de horse [on top of horse]

Luwian [and] I made ar[my] on top of ar[my].

Phoenician [and ar]my on top of army.

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,

Luwian and Hiyawa and Assyria became one house.

Phoenician and Adaneans and Assyrians became one house.

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 NEKY bilingual.

applaud the pioneering efforts of the editors of this inscription, which saw it published a mere three years after its
discovery; but the down side of this quick publication is
the lack of sufficient synthesis in the presentation of the
Luwian and Phoenician versions. In essence, we are
dealing with two separate editions, which make the
Luwian and Phoenician texts appear more different from
each other than they really are. In most cases, this is due
to difficulties with the interpretation of the Luwian version.
A number of Luwian restorations made in the editio
princeps have been silently rectified in the German translation of the bilingual provided by David Hawkins (2005).
This prompts me to provide a new synoptic edition of
the initial parts of the Luwian and Phoenician versions of
the NEKY bilingual (tables 1, 2). I am limiting myself
to the first seven clauses of the inscription, because after
that the Phoenician text becomes too fragmentary for a
meaningful contrastive analysis, while the rest of the
Luwian version will be treated shortly by Hawkins (forthcoming). The clause division below follows the syntax of
the Luwian version. An attempt has been made to match
the corresponding Phoenician and Luwian phrases within
each clause. Following the conventions of the editio
princeps, the uncertain readings and restorations in the
Phoenician version are italicised, while uncertain restorations in the Luwian version are underlined.

observations that have been advanced to yield support to

the suggestion of Greek presence in Que with varying
degrees of confidence and plausibility (for example
Lipiski 2004; Oettinger 2008; Oreshko 2013; Singer
2013). At the same time, there are scholars who are
inclined to dismiss some or all of these observations as a
chain of coincidences (for example Hajnal 2003; Gander
2012). It remains to be seen whether the sociolinguistic
analysis of the bilingual inscriptions from Que can make
a meaningful contribution to this debate.
KARATEPE 1 and NEKY
Before one can approach the contrastive study of the
Luwian and Phoenician inscriptions, it is necessary to
ascertain the reliability of their editions. In the case of the
KARATEPE 1 bilingual, we are lucky to have the synoptic
edition of its versions (Hawkins 2000: 1.4567), which
summarises the results of the 50-year-long investigation
of this monument by a variety of scholars. My contrastive
study of different versions of this bilingual is essentially
based on this publication, as well as the close treatment of
the Phoenician versions in ambel 1999.
By contrast, the NEKY bilingual was found too
late to make its way into Hawkins 2000, and the discussion
of this fragmentary text is still commonly based on its
editio princeps (Tekolu, Lemaire 2000). One must

41

Anatolian Studies 2015

The overall goal of the commentary is to demonstrate
that the Phoenician and Luwian versions of the NEKY
inscription closely resemble one another, and therefore this
bilingual reflects the process of translation and not free
adaptation. The direction of translation will be addressed
later on in this paper.

(DEUS)SOL-mi-s CAPUT-ti-i-s (Hawkins 2000: 1.48).

According to Petra Goedegebuure (2009), the Luwian title
(DEUS)SOL-mi-s = tiwadamis can be literally translated
as the steward of the Sun = His Majestys steward; cf.
the Hittite royal title dUTU-I, My Sun = My Majesty.
If one assumes close correspondence between the Phoenician and Luwian titles, the KARATEPE 1 inscription
pleads for the understanding of hbrk bl as the steward of
(his) lord. By contrast, in our case the counterpart of
Phoenician hbrk bl in NEKY begins with the name
of the Luwian Storm-god, the functional equivalent of the
Phoenician Baal, which implies a different understanding
of the Phoenician phrase hbrk bl in this case. Hawkins
(2005) proposes the restoration TONIT[RUS]-hu-t[a-sa
SERVUS-la/i-s], servant of Tarhunt, on the assumption
that it could represent the approximate equivalent of hbrk
bl, steward of Baal. Note, however, that the Luwian
phrase servant of Tarhunt corresponds to Phoenician bd
bl, servant of Baal, in KARATEPE 1 1. As a likely
alternative, one can consider (DEUS)TONIT[RUS]-hut[a-ti (LITUUS)-za-mi-sa], loved by Tarhunt; cf., for
example, KARKAMI A23 1 DEUS-ni-ti (LITUUS)za-mi-sa, loved by gods, at the end of the chain of titles.
This restoration would imply the understanding of hbrk bl
as 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, Sunblessed man, which is restored in the editio princeps, is
precluded by reasons of space. Consequently, one can give
up the matching Phoenician reconstruction hbrk bl
[lm], steward of Baal, man [of the gods] (thus Lipiski
2004: 127).
2. The analysis of the editio princeps dividing the
Luwian version of this segment into two separate clauses
is unfounded, as already implied in Hawkins 2005. Its only
attested predicate is Luwian [TER]RA?(-)la-tara/i-ha,
whose Phoenician equivalent can be supplied in the lacuna
based on the parallel KARATEPE 1 5. On the assumption that the Luwian and Phoenician clauses are similar in
structure, the lacuna in the Luwian clause must contain a
part of its direct object, corresponding to Phoenician bt r
mq [dn], house of the land of the Adana plain (Tekolu,
Lemaire 2000: 997). The suggestion formulated in
Hawkins 2005, according to which the Luwian equivalent
of this phrase was simply the Hiyawa plain, does not
leave sufficient material for filling the lacuna in the
Luwian texts (cf. Tekolu, Lemaire 2000: 971, fig. 11 and
Tekolu, Lemaire 2000: 985, the autograph). In my
restoration I assume that the Luwian phrase was very close
in structure to its Phoenician counterpart and contained a
chain of possessive adjectives: parnanza taskwarassanza
hiyawanza wal(i)li(ya)nza, house of the land of the
Hiyawean plain. In principle, one can think of possible

Commentary on NEKY
1. The Luwian version names the author of the inscription as wa/i+ra/i-i-ka- (restored from 2), which corresponds to w[ryk(s)] in its Phoenician version. The same
name is spelled wryks and wryk in NCRL and CEBELRES DAI respectively, although in the second instance
it is likely to refer to a later king (Hallo, Younger 2003:
3.138, n.25). One can identify King Waraika of our inscription with Urikki, king of Que, attested several times in
Assyrian sources as -ri-ik, -ri-ik-ki and -ri-ia-ik-ki
(Kaufman 2007: 22), for whose prosopography one can
consult Lanfranchi 2005. The second syllable of the
original name must have contained a diphthong, because
the Phoenician inscriptions of Cilicia do not feature matres
lectionis except in word-final position. Following Lipiski
2004 (11923) and Simon 2014, I see no plausible way of
equating Waraika with the King Awarku mentioned in the
KARATEPE 1 and HASSAN-BEYL inscriptions, whose
name is transmitted as -wa/i+ra/i-ku- in Luwian and wrk
in Phoenician (cf. Yakubovich 2010a: 152, n.94). Accordingly, Awarku cannot be identified with King Urikki under
the present state of our knowledge. For Greek etymologies
offered for the personal names Awarku and Waraika, see
above. The comparison of both names with Greek ,
father of Mopsos, in a Greek tradition, is preferred by
Hajnal (2011) but cannot be reconciled with the known
sound laws.
Lipiski (2004: 127) stresses the difficulties of filling
in the lacuna at the end of the first line of the Phoenician
version. The large size of the letters belonging to this line
does not appear to leave enough space for the phrase son
of X after the name of Waraika, which can be reconstructed for the Luwian version. Yet, it seems unnecessary
to posit an intentional difference in content between the
Luwian and Phoenician texts based on this ground alone.
Perhaps the scribe found an irregular way of squeezing the
name of Waraikas father at the end of the line, for example
modifying the spaces between letters. Alternatively, the
missing part of the Phoenician line could feature a scribal
error of omission.
The Phoenician version contains the formula hbrk bl,
which is variously interpreted as blessed by Baal and
steward of Baal or steward of (his) lord (Tekolu,
Lemaire 2000: 996 with references; cf. Goedegebuure
2009: 2). The formula reoccurs in the KARATEPE 1
inscription, where it corresponds to the Luwian expression

42

Yakubovich
of parents percolate even into the Palaic invocation to the
Sun-god: Now, Faskhulassas Tiyaz, to tabarna the king
you are indeed the father and the mother (Yakubovich
2005: 121). The goddess Ishtar says through a prophet to
the New Assyrian king Asarhaddon: I am your father and
mother, I raised you between my wings (Cooper 2000:
441b). An extended variant of the same metaphor is found
in the Phoenician inscription of Kulamuwa, king of
Samal: for some I was a father, for some a mother, for
some a brother (Tropper 1993: 4142).
The Luwian form i-zi-ia-si, not understood in the editio
princeps, receives satisfactory explanation in Rieken 2004
as the innovative third singular mediopassive preterit of
izziya-, to make, used in the meaning to become (cf.
Yakubovich 2010a: 20102). Consequently, there is no
substantial difference between the structures of the Phoenician and Luwian clauses, and father and mother in the
Luwian text should be reconstructed in the nominative.
6. The Phoenician and Luwian clauses are fully
preserved and almost fully parallel, except that the Phoenician version names peoples, whereas the Luwian one
mentions the corresponding lands. It is not necessary to
assume that the content of this clause refers to a specific
act of submission, since the mention of friendship with
Assyria also occurs in the NCRL and HASSAN-BEYL
inscriptions (cf. Lemaire 1983; Kaufman 2007).
Curiously, this topos is absent in the text of KARATEPE,
which makes one wonder if the regent Azatiwada did not
share the Pro-Assyrian sentiments of the house of
Mopsus or simply was not in direct contact with the
Assyrians. The place of the friendship clauses within the
narrative of the NEKY inscription suggests that it may
have been used here as a mere rhetorical device, similar to
the love of gods or material prosperity in other Neo-Hittite
traditions. For the Semitic inscriptions from the kingdom
of Samal, which celebrate or mention voluntary submission to the Assyrian empire, see Lanfranchi 2009: 12829.
The Pro-Assyrian orientation of Que in the eighth century
BC correlates with the use of Akkadian as the third
language of the NCRL inscription.
7. The Luwian and Phoenician versions clearly
deviate from each other in that the Phoenician version
refers to the construction of fortresses, whereas the Luwian
version only mentions their destruction. This is clearly not
an intended variation, but rather the translators error,
which will be addressed later on in this paper. The attempt
of the editio princeps to squeeze the mention of
constructing new fortresses into the lacuna in the Luwian
text is epigraphically unacceptable, as there is no such
lacuna (cf. Tekolu, Lemaire 2000: 975, fig. 14). Note that
the Phoenician version gives the total number of the
constructed fortresses (7 + 8 = 15), whereas the Luwian
text lacks this redundant information.

alternatives featuring less precise translation for example

amanza parnanza hiyawanza wal(i)lanza, my house, the
Hiyawean plain but such a solution does not impose
itself.
Likewise, there seems to be no sure way of knowing
whether the Phoenician version contains the short formula
by Baal and the gods, as in KARATEPE 1 10, 58, or
a closer equivalent of the longer Luwian formula by Baal
and my paternal gods. I am inclined to embrace the latter
solution, since the Luwian versions of KARATEPE 1
10, 58 also have by Baal and the gods, and there are no
obvious reasons to believe that the correspondence in our
case should be less precise.
3. This clause displays a perfect match between its
Luwian and Phoenician versions already in the editio
princeps. For the transliteration <z> instead of the earlier
<s>, see already Melchert 1987: 20102 and the elaboration of his views in Yakubovich 2010a: 6667, n.58.
4. The Phoenician counterpart of this clause is
assumed to feature the ellipsis of the repeated predicate,
and therefore can be considered an appendix to the
previous clause. By contrast, the Luwian version clearly
contains the fully-fledged clause. The discrepancy between
the Luwian and Phoenician texts is assured here not only
for reasons of space but in view of a similar mismatch in
KARATEPE 1 9.
5. For various ways of translating the Luwian
sentence-initial particle kwippa=, see the partially
divergent views of Goedegebuure 1998 and Melchert
2002. In this inscription I consistently translate it as
furthermore on the assumption that it divides the Luwian
texts into thematic blocks, although I must concede that
such a translation would not always fit the KARATEPE 1
inscription. Gianni Lanfranchi (2007: 186) avoids attempts
to draw any distinction between sentence-initial wa= and
kwippa=, observing that both tend to correspond to w- in
the Phoenician version.
The unisex parental metaphor the king became father
and mother to me appears to represent a hybrid of
Mesopotamian and Anatolian traditions. The most ancient
Hittite text, the so-called Deeds to Anitta, informs us that
Anittas father Pithana made into mothers and fathers the
population of the conquered town Nesa (Neu 1974: 11,
l.9). This turn of phrase finds a striking counterpart in the
Luwian version of KARATEPE 1 3: Tarhunzas made
me mother and father to -*429-wa/i-. By contrast, the
Mesopotamian texts and their derivatives show the reverse
order of parents. Thus a Sumerian hymn to the Sun-god
states: Utu, you are the father of the orphan, Utu, you are
the mother of the widow, while the Hittite adaptation of
the same text renders this passage as Sun-god, you are the
father and mother of the oppressed and orphaned man
(Metcalf 2011: 17172). The same sentiments and order

43

Anatolian Studies 2015

geographic considerations place Que squarely within the
Neo-Hittite cultural sphere. If one has to choose between
Phoenician migrations and Anatolian continuity, the
second hypothesis has the allure of an easy default
solution. Such arguments, however, are far from being
compelling in addressing the formal issue of the relationship between the versions of the Cilician bilinguals. This
question is essentially empirical and must be solved
through linguistic analysis.
Schmitz (2008: 6) appears to have been the first scholar
to support the claim that the Phoenician versions of the
Que bilingual inscriptions were primary and the Luwian
ones secondary. In defence of his position, Schmitz refers
the reader to some general observations taken from Payne
2006 and my doctoral dissertation, later published as Yakubovich 2010a. No linguistic evidence for such a hypothesis
was, however, available at the time. Now I believe that the
claim of Schmitz 2008 can be formally proven. In what
follows I intend to advance a three-pronged set of linguistic and philological arguments pleading for the translated
character of the Luwian versions of both the NEKY
and KARATEPE 1 bilinguals.
The most transparent evidence comes, in my opinion,
from Luwian passages calquing the Phoenician word
order. The placement of most predicative forms in Phoenician is free, i.e. governed by information structure
constraints, whereas others are restricted to sentenceinitial position (Krahmalkov 2001: 29095). By contrast,
the unmarked word order in the Luwian original compositions of the Iron Age is subjectobjectverb (SOV), and
the preference for it is fairly strong. This is, for example,
the only attested pattern in the long inscriptions of
Katuwa, king of Carchemish (KARKAMI A 2+3 11a and
A 11b+c: Hawkins 2000: 1.9410 [94100?], 10112) if
one disregards the position of clitics and relative
pronouns, whose placement is governed by special rules.
The combined size of these inscriptions is 85 clauses, i.e.
roughly similar to the NEKY and KARATEPE 1
inscriptions taken together.
The influence of the Phoenician texts upon their
Luwian translations manifests itself in the frequent use of
Luwian verbal forms in positions other than SOV. Thus
the Phoenician version of NEKY 2 features the
restored predicate [yrbt], I extended, between the
relative pronoun and the object phrase. The Luwian text
converts the relative clause into an independent sentence
by adding the subject group in lieu of the relative pronoun
at the beginning. But the Luwian verb [TER]RA?(-)latara/i-ha, I extended, is still placed before the object
phrase, as was the case in the Phoenician original. In a
similar fashion, the predicate is placed before its direct
object in both the Phoenician and Luwian versions of
NEKY 7. In the instance of Phoenician bn nk, I

I lack a plausible interpretation for the Luwian

sequence x-i?-ni? (cf. Tekolu, Lemaire 2000: 973, fig. 13).
Nevertheless, the attempt of the editio princeps to restore
here the phonetic equivalent of VERSUS-ia-na can be
safely ruled out, because this post-position always occurs
with the dative, never with the ablative, and the available
traces are not compatible with any rendering of tawiyan,
which is the established reading of VERSUS-ia-na.
(CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-s is the new spelling variant
of (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-n-s, fortresses, known from
KARATEPE 1. This attestation allows me to propose an
etymology for the Carian town Halicarnassus (Greek
), deriving it from Luwic *alV-xarnasa-,
high fortress (or remote fortress?). The etymologically
compound character of the name of Halicarnassus is
confirmed through its likely Carian spellings alos karnos
and alos- karnos- (Adiego Lajara 2007: 68, 161). The
town name is attested several times without initial aspiration in Athenian tribute lists, although the phonetic significance of this fact is debated (Zgusta 1984: 62). The
spiritus asper in may be due to a hypercorrect restitution of the Ionian psilosis or a folk
etymology involving Greek , sea (Florian Sommer,
personal communication).
The primary language of the inscriptions
At this point one can proceed to determining the primary
language of the KARATEPE 1 and NEKY bilinguals.
Many modern studies of both inscriptions assume the
primacy of their Luwian versions, which would then be
translated 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 bilinguals being original Luwian inscriptions with Phoenician
translations. No hesitation can be seen in the assertion of
Lanfranchi (2007: 186): for the aims of this analysis, the
Phoenician text of both inscriptions can be a priori considered totally dependent on the Luwian text, as a direct translation from Luwian. According to Alexandra Daues
(2008), the KARATEPE 1 inscription represents a literal
translation from Luwian into Phoenician, while the
Luwian and Phoenician texts of the NEKY inscription
correspond to each other less precisely (here Daues apparently follows the Luwian restorations adopted in the editio
princeps). Federico Giusfredi (2009: 143) remarks that
the Phoenician version of the [KARATEPE] bilingual is
not an exact translation of the Luwian text.
The motivation for this earlier consensus appears to be
primarily sociolinguistic. There are no reasons to believe
that Phoenicians ever settled in Cilicia in large numbers,
whereas the Luwian presence in the kingdom of Que can
be supported through the analysis of the local onomastics.
As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, historical and

44

Yakubovich
An independent instance of calquing Phoenician syntax
is addressed by Anna Bauer (2014: 5859). The phrases
PORTA-la-na-ri+i zi-na, from this gate (KARATEPE 1
63), CASTRUM<>-n-si za-ti, to this fortress
(KARATEPE 1 65), and PORTA-la-na za-ia, this
gate (KARATEPE 1 66), show post-position of the
proximal deictic pronoun za- to its head nouns, which runs
contrary to the general tendency to place Luwian demonstrative pronouns before their syntactic heads. In Phoenician, on the other hand, the post-position of the
demonstrative z is normal, and so the corresponding
phrases b-r z, in this gate (KARATEPE 1 63), h-qrt z,
this town (KARATEPE 1 65), and h-r z, this gate
(KARATEPE 1 66), show the expected word order.
Bauer (2014) plausibly hypothesises that the close
imitation of the Phoenician syntactic pattern in
KARATEPE 1 6366 may be due to the translators
attempt to preserve the illocutionary force of the curse
formula.
The second piece of evidence comprises those cases
where the Phoenician original appears to have been paraphrased in Luwian under the impact of language-specific
constraints. This phenomenon can be illustrated through
contrasting the two versions of NEKY 34. The
Luwian statement I made horse on top of horse, and I
made army on top of army could be literally translated
into Phoenician as a combination of two clauses. By
contrast, the Phoenician construction with gapping I
made horse on top of horse and army on top of army can
hardly be rendered into Luwian without supplying the
second predicate. The Luwian clauses are rigidly
separated from each other by clitic chains, and therefore
the ellipsis of a clause predicate would result in a syntactic
fragment, for example kwalanza=ba=wa=tta kwalani
sarranta, And army upon army. Fragments of this type
occasionally do occur in the Iron Age Luwian corpus (for
example KARATEPE 1 72a), but there is a strong
tendency to avoid them. Therefore, the translation strategy
adopted in NEKY 1 34 can be regarded as optimal
only on the assumption that Luwian was the target
language.
One could, of course, attempt to argue that the original
Luwian construction was compressed in the Phoenician
version for purely stylistic reasons. There is, however, no
reason to believe that the repetition of identical predicates
was systematically avoided in the Phoenician inscriptions
from the Neo-Hittite milieu. One can compare here the
repetition of Phoenician ns, to tear out, in KARATEPE
1 7172 and particularly the repetition of Phoenician
pl, to do, in the opening lines of Kulamuwas inscription
from Samal, where the ancestors of King Kulamuwa are
uncharitably described as habitually inactive (Tropper
1993: 3133).

built, this is due to a syntactic constraint on the position

of the infinitive absolute (Krahmalkov 2001: 29495). By
contrast, the placement of Luwian *274-li-ha, I
destroyed, before its object (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-s,
fortresses, would not be expected in an original composition; cf. a-wa/i pa-PITHOS(URBS)-ha (*274)ha-ta-liha, I destroyed the town Pa-PITHOS, too (KARKAMI
A25a 1). Although the meaning of the predicate was
misinterpreted in the Luwian version, on which see below,
its syntactic position was faithfully preserved.
Since one of the NEKY clauses discussed above
involves restoration, while the other one has been
variously interpreted, it is necessary to turn to the syntax
of the KARATEPE 1 inscription. The patterns verb
subject and verbobject are attested there 14 times in the
Luwian version, namely in 4, 5, 7, 25, 26, 37, 49, 51,
52, 63, 66, 72, 73, 74. In 11 of these 14 cases, the position
of the verb in a clause mirrors the syntax of the Phoenician
version. The exceptions are 37, where the Phoenician
version features a nominalisation instead of a verbal
predicate, 52, where the predicate is ellipted, and 74,
where the place of the verb is different in the Phoenician
clause. In 37 the Luwian verbal clause roughly preserves
the order of meaningful elements in the relevant passage
seen in the Phoenician nominal phrase, i.e. Luwian
|BONUS+RA/I-ia-ma-la-ha-wa/i SOLIUM.MI-ta |-*429wa/i-s(URBS), And at ease dwelt A-*429-wa, vs
Phoenician w-nt lb l-dnnym, And peace of heart to the
Adaneans. The syntax of 52 is deliberately made
parallel to that of the preceding Luwian clause 51. On
the other hand, the final 7475 probably display a
chiastic figure, the word order of 74 representing a
mirror image of 75 (Melchert 2006: 29394).
As the last two examples suggest, the syntactic similarity between the Phoenician and Luwian versions of the
bilingual inscriptions need not be exaggerated, and the
application of a reverse test reinforces the same conclusion. In the majority of cases the Luwian translators
rendered the verb-initial and verb-medial Phoenician
clauses with their verb-final counterparts in both
KARATEPE 1 and NEKY. The instances of syntactic
calques resulting in verb fronting account for no more
than 15% of the Luwian textual corpus. Nevertheless,
such a result is significant, because, as mentioned above,
deviations from the unmarked SOV word order are quite
rare in original Luwian compositions. Although the
syntax of the translated Luwian texts does not slavishly
follow their Phoenician originals, a sharp increase in nonstandard word order patterns must be described in terms
of Phoenician interference. An appropriate parallel here
would be the syntax of the Hittite translation of the
Hurrian and Hattic texts (as discussed in Sideltsev 2002:
188).

45

Anatolian Studies 2015

Luwian colleague. The misunderstanding of the Phoenician
text may have happened either by negligence or because
the translator had to deal with a damaged copy of the
Phoenician text. Such a conclusion is all the more likely
since the remainder of the NEKY inscriptions ( 8
11) is devoted to building activities rather than warfare.
Another likely mistake in the Luwian version of
NEKY is the replacement of the designationp mp,
descendant of Mopsus, with its inaccurate specification
muksas(sa) hamsis, grandson of Muksa in 1. Since the
Anatolian rendering of his name as Muksa goes back to
the time when the Greek labiovelar stops were still in
place, this Mopsus could hardly be the grandfather of the
late eighth-century King Waraika. If one wishes to
maintain the accuracy of the Luwian version in this case,
one would have to assume that Waraikas grandfather had
the same name as the founder of his dynasty. By contrast,
the hypothesis that the Phoenician title is the accurate one
does not require additional historical assumptions.
The omission of the appendix and there were (altogether) 15 in the Luwian version of NEKY 7 can
be best taken as suppression of redundant information.
This argument is not particularly strong, since such an
epexegetic clause could, in principle, be secondarily added
to the Phoenician text. But turning to KARATEPE 1, one
finds cases where the Luwian translator negligently
omitted or hedged the clauses that convey new information
or contribute to textual cohesion. If the Luwian version
were original, one would then have to assume that the
author of the inscription made negligent mistakes, whereas
the translator edited it for content, which is, of course, a
rather complicated and unlikely hypothesis.
Thus KARATEPE 1 (Luwian Ho) lacks altogether
17 I established peace with every king, the counterpart
of which is extant in all three versions of the Phoenician
inscription. Although the relevant slab of the Luwian Hu
copy is not completely preserved, the lacuna comprising
the end of 16 and the beginning of 18 is too small to
accommodate an additional clause (cf. ambel 1999: pl.
62). So one has to assume that KARATEPE 1 17 never
existed in the draft of the Luwian text. Furthermore, the
Luwian version of KARATEPE 1 32 appears to replace
the relevant information of the Phoenician text with a
clause recycled from the earlier material. The Phoenician
text is telling us that the Adaneans were present on all the
frontiers of the kingdom, which represents a logical transition from the previous 31 referring to their resettlement
to the subsequent 3335 describing the resulting
improvement of security within the kingdom. By contrast,
the Luwian version of 31 reverts to the topic of extending
the frontiers of the kingdom, which is already covered in
5. This repetition does not trigger cohesion with either
the preceding or following information.

Instances where additional predicates are supplied in

the Luwian version of the KARATEPE inscription include
9, 10, 37, 50, 52, 75. In all these cases the Phoenician
version features complex noun phrases coordinated with
elements of a larger sentence: and shield upon shield, an
army upon army by the grace of Baal and the gods, and
peace of heart to the Danuneans and to all the plain of
Adana, and powerful strength above every king (2),
like the name of the Sun and the Moon. If one operates
with the hypothesis of translation from Luwian into Phoenician, it will imply that the translator systematically complicated the syntax of the text for no apparent reason. By
contrast, chunking large Phoenician sentences into smaller
Luwian units receives a satisfactory explanation in terms
of adjusting the discourse to language-specific constraints.
The constructions discussed above reflect successful
examples of paraphrases in Luwian. An instance where the
Luwian translator failed to find a suitable equivalent of a
difficult Phoenician construction is KARATEPE 1 59
61, which contain the beginning of the curse formula. The
Phoenician version lists three categories of potential perpetrators: if a king among kings, or a prince among princes,
or a man, whose name is man .... Halet ambel (1999:
60b) came to a plausible conclusion that this list refers to
three 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 in
Semitic literary tradition. In dealing with these three phrases,
the Luwian translator faced the familiar challenge of turning
each of them into a well-formed clause but failed to find a
uniform solution. He rendered the passage in a rather
uncouth fashion as: If anyone rules as king, or if he is a
prince, and to him there is a princely name .... The first
clause here apparently contains the denominative verb
hantawatta-, to rule as king (the alternative preferred by
Hawkins, who interprets hantawattadi as an ablative from
kings, is syntactically more problematic). The second
clause is provided with a nominal predicate, which destroys
the syntactic parallelism seen in the Phoenician original. But
the third Luwian clause differs from the matching Phoenician phrase even in terms of meaning, since the perpetrator
listed there has the same reference as the subject of the
second Luwian clause, i.e. a prince and not a common man.
This brings us to the final cluster of supporting
examples, which comprises the passages where the Luwian
texts appear to have distorted the meaning of their Phoenician originals. Thus the likely reason for the discrepancy
between the mention of building and destroying fortresses
in NEKY 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 caused
not by the Phoenician scribe, who obviously knew the
difference between these two verbs, but rather by his

46

Yakubovich
Differences in shades of lexical meaning are harder to
trace and interpret given our insufficient knowledge of
either the Phoenician or the Luwian lexicon. But the correspondence between Phoenician bl gddm, masters of
gangs, and Luwian usallinzi, thieves (vel sim.), in
KARATEPE 1 20 is at least suggestive. The Phoenician
noun gdd is cognate with Hebrew gedd, which is
commonly used in the Bible with the meaning marauding
band (Krahmalkov 2001: 32). Its Luwian counterpart
usall(i)- is derived from usa-, to bring, carry (cf. Hawkins
2000: 1.61a), either directly or via an unattested action
noun. Both terms apply to the evil-doers who previously
did not obey the house of Mopsus but were reduced to
obedience by the regent Azatiwada. The Phoenician term
appears to be entirely appropriate for the context as a
reference to warlords who did not accept royal authority.
On the other hand, Luwian usall(i)- does not seem to
convey connotations of either violent or organised crime
and appears to represent a generic term for trespassers
against property whose suppression would not necessarily
require direct royal intervention. One is tempted to
conclude that it was used as a vague hyperonym in the
absence of an exact Luwian equivalent for the Phoenician
phrase bl gddm.
Another likely instance of a Luwian hyperonym corresponding to a more specific term in Phoenician is Luwian
harrall(i)-, weapon (vel sim.), rendering Phoenician mgn,
shield. The meaning of the Phoenician noun is reasonably secure through its northwestern Semitic cognates,
including Hebrew mgn, shield, but its Luwian counterpart is semantically more problematic. Hawkins (2000:
1.5960) appears to assign the meaning shield to Luwian
hara/i-li- and provide its determinative *272 with the Latin
transliteration SCUTUM merely because this noun
functions as an equivalent of the Phoenician mgn in
KARATEPE 1 910. Nevertheless, the shape of the sign
*272 does not resemble that of a shield, but bears a vague
resemblance to those of signs *273 to *275, which all
predetermine various lexemes pertaining to warfare. From
the etymological viewpoint, I find it difficult to separate
this noun from the Hittite and Luwian verb harra-, smash,
crush (Melchert 1993: 57; Hawkins 2000: 2.460a), hence
the proposed interpretative transliteration harrall(i)-. This
connection is supported by the etymological figure
(*272)ha+ra/i-ti-ha-wa/i-mu |hara/i-li-na (ASSUR
letter d 8; cf. Hawkins 2000: 2.546), where the sign *272
predetermines a different derivative of harra-. Presumably, the derivation of harrall(i)- parallels that of usall(i), thief, discussed in the previous paragraph. The
proposed etymology is compatible with harrall(i)- either
having the generic meaning weapon or referring to a
specific type of offensive weapon, but the KARATEPE 1
context tips the scales in favour of the former solution. It

Turning to the lexicon, the direction of translation can

be inferred from those cases when two different Phoenician terms belonging to the same semantic field have one
and the same Luwian counterpart in the same text. For
example, Phoenician qrt, town, and mt (plural myt),
walled fortress (vel sim.), have the identical translation
harnisa-, fortress, in parallel Luwian contexts (cf.
KARATEPE 23 vs 38). The assumption of creative
variation in the Phoenician translation of the Luwian word
for fortress would obviously be more complicated. The
rendering of the toponym Que in the bilingual texts illustrates essentially the same phenomenon. The Phoenician
version of KARATEPE uses the ethnic term dnnym,
Danuneans, and the geographic term mq dn, plain of
Adana. The Luwian verson normally translates both terms
with the same proper noun -*429-wa/i-, which was
presumably perceived as both the ethnic and the
geographic entity. The only exception ( 37) concerns the
passage where the ethnic and geographic terms occur side
by side in the Phoenician version, and therefore the
Luwian translator had to render the second one with the
calque -ta-na-wa/i-za(URBS) TERRA+, Adanean plain.
On the other hand, it is to be expected that the same
Phoenician technical terms could be provided with
different counterparts by the translators of KARATEPE
and NEKY, who were probably distinct individuals. A
case in point is the Luwian rendering of the royal epithet
hbrk bl. We have seen in the commentary to the
NEKY inscription that it was understood as servant
of his lord (vel sim.) in KARATEPE 1 1 but as a
theophoric epithet in NEKY 1. In the absence of
supplementary evidence I find it impossible to say which
of the two translations is closer to the meaning implied by
the author of the inscriptions. It is, however, almost certain
that at least in one of the two cases a misunderstanding of
the Phoenician technical term hbrk bl must have been
involved. A hypothesis that the same Phoenician phrase
could be used as a cover term for the two unrelated Luwian
epithets would be highly artificial.
Another case of a similar kind has been noticed by
Craig Melchert (personal communication). The Phoenician
versions of both KARATEPE 1 3 and NEKY 5
introduce the unisex parental metaphor using the Semitic
order of elements father and mother. The Luwian version
of the great KARATEPE inscription replaces it with the
opposite order mother and father, which finds a direct
counterpart in the Hittite Anitta text. In the NEKY
inscription, however, the order of parents is the same in
both versions (cf. the commentary). Presumably, the translator of KARATEPE 1 used the idiomatic Anatolian equivalent of the Semitic metaphor, whereas his colleague
responsible for the Luwian version of NEKY merely
calqued the Phoenician original.

47

Anatolian Studies 2015

culty is, of course, the discrepancy between the postulated
socially-dominant language (Greek) and the attested
primary written language (Phoenician). As mentioned
above, there is no independent evidence for the social
dominance of Phoenician newcomers in Early Iron Age
Cilicia, but a number of arguments have been advanced
for Greek resettlement to this region in the late second
millennium BC. How then can one assume that the House
of Mopsus chose Phoenician instead of Greek for the
purposes of writing?
The answer to this question logically falls into two
parts. On the one hand, one can look for typological
parallels illustrating comparable sociolinguistic situations.
Of relevance here are the cases when a new elite group
avails itself of a foreign written tradition. On the other
hand, one must investigate whether the reconstructed
symbiosis between Greek population groups and Phoenician written culture might have left historical traces
beyond Cilicia.
Pursuing the typological line of argumentation, one can
begin with a parallel from a rather different region. The
First Turkic Khaghanate came into being through the
efforts of the Ashinas clan on the steppes to the north of
China in the mid sixth century AD. It was the first steppe
empire that left us written texts, notably the Bugut inscription found in Mongolia. Although the founders of the
Khaghanate were Turks, and its closest literate neighbours
were the Chinese, the language that its rulers adopted for
public display was neither Turkic nor Chinese, but Sogdian
(de la Vaissire 2005: 20203). The Sogdian native
speakers inhabited the area of Samarkand and Bukhara,
which came to be dependent on the Khaghans but
remained on the periphery of their empire. The Sogdian
principalities had no geopolitical significance, but Sogdian
traders were active at the time along the eastern stretch of
the Silk Road, reaching up to the Chinese capitals.
Presumably, the decision to adopt the Iranian Sogdian
language for official purposes in an empire of Altaic
nomads was prompted by the easy availability of Sogdian
scribes, the relative simplicity of the script and the desire
to maintain a separate cultural identity from the neighbouring Chinese. All these factors, mutatis mutandis,
might have been at work when the House of Mopsus
chose to engage Phoenician scribes for chancery purposes
in the principality of Que.
In searching for a parallel from the Neo-Hittite world,
one may turn once again to the situation in the principality of Samal, the closest neighbour of Que. As
mentioned in the introductory part of this article, this
polity was a foundation of Aramaean tribes, which established themselves in the midst of Luwian-speaking population groups. Nonetheless, the earliest monumental
inscription emanating from Samal is in not in any form

is easy to envisage how the Phoenician metaphoric

description (I made) shield on top of shield could be paraphrased in Luwian with a broader metaphor I made
weapon on top of weapon, but a paraphrase in the
opposite direction would be less felicitous.
It is possible that individual arguments among those
advanced above will be rendered invalid or relativised
through subsequent philological research. I doubt,
however, that it will affect the final conclusion, unless one
succeeds in assembling a matching set of arguments
pleading in favour of the opposite scenario. Strong convergent evidence upholds Phoenician as the primary language
of both the NEKY and KARATEPE 1 bilinguals.
We have seen thus far that the rulers of Que commissioned inscriptions in Phoenician and provided them with
Luwian translations. Sceptics might question the
metaphoric significance of this procedure, arguing that the
preference for Phoenician originals was motivated by
purely technical considerations. In order to preempt this
potential objection, it is appropriate to turn to the general
design of the respective inscriptions, which has already
been properly discussed in Payne 2006: 12829.
The fortress built by Azatiwada was provided with
three copies of the Phoenician text of the KARATEPE 1
bilingual (Phu/A, Pho/B and PhSt), but with only two
copies of the respective Luwian text (Hu and Ho). The
slightly divergent version of the Phoenician text PhSt,
which lacks the Luwian counterpart, was inscribed on a
colossal statue of the Storm-god, which arguably made it
the most prominent inscription in the fortress. In addition,
the order of the orthostats covered with Anatolian hieroglyphs appears to be irregular, which creates an impression
that the architects of the fortress either were not concerned
about making the Luwian text legible or were unable to
accomplish this goal. In the instance of the NEKY
inscription, the Phoenician text was placed in the frontal
space between two bulls carrying a statue of the Stormgod, while fragments of the Luwian text were squeezed
between the feet of the animals, on the back of a carriage
and along the base of the sculptural complex. One can
conclude that the designers of both texts tried to give more
prominence to their Phoenician versions. The convergence
between linguistic and iconographic asymmetries supports
the claim that neither of the two is accidental.
The sociolinguistic situation in Que
If the original character and iconographic prominence of
the Phoenician texts can be taken as a metaphor for the
sociolinguistic situation in Que, we have arrived at the
basic linguistic correlate of the migrationist hypothesis.
The principal official language of Que/Hiyawa was not
Luwian, even though Luwian was historically spoken by
the bulk of its population. The principal remaining diffi-

48

Yakubovich
that the rulers of the House of Mopsus were no longer
Greek speakers, or only semi-speakers, by the eighth
century BC, when the royal multilingual inscriptions were
produced. Onomastic evidence from Cilicia would support
a shift in the direction of the Luwian language, as is particularly clear in the instance of personal names in the
seventh-century Phoenician inscription CEBELRES
DAI (Younger 2003). Under such an assumption, the
rulers of Que would have had few incentives to abandon
the tradition of writing Phoenician in favour of Greek
literacy, even though it was already cultivated in the
Aegean and southern Italy in the same period. The same
assumption also implies that the metaphoric significance
of the use of Phoenician in Que could no longer be clear
to the outsiders. This would explain why Phoenician came
to be deployed alongside Luwian in the unpublished
bilingual VRZ 2 from the inner Anatolian principality of
Tabal (Lipiski 2004: 13335).
A historical argument that can support the reconstruction of Phoenician literacy in the Greek milieu is, in my
opinion, the origin of the Greek alphabet. Recent discussions of this topic (Krebernik 2007; Lemaire 2008)
converge in reaffirming the traditional view, according to
which it was adapted from a Phoenician, not Aramaic
prototype. Although the first attested Greek inscriptions
postdate 800 BC, the analysis of their palaeography speaks
for the Phoenician ductus of the late ninth century BC as
a starting point for the development of Greek letters
(Krebernik 2007: 123 with references). Another product
of the adaptation of the Phoenician writing system is the
Phrygian alphabet, which displays non-trivial common
innovations with its Greek counterpart in the domain of
vowel marking, in particular the creation of signs for e and
o vowels out of the Phoenician consonantal letters he and
ayin respectively. The earliest Phrygian inscriptions appear
to date back to the late ninth century BC and thus predate
the attested specimens of Greek writing, but there are ways
to show that the Greeks did not borrow their alphabet from
the Phrygians (Krebernik 2007: 11617).
We know that the adaptation of a particular script to a
new language was rarely a spontaneous process in ancient
societies. What preceded it was usually an extension of the
same script in association with its original language to new
communities whose native languages had lacked a written
tradition. For example, the earliest inscriptions of the
Urartian kings are written in the Assyrian script and
language ... though after a single generation the Urartian
language, for most purposes, replaced the use of Assyrian
(Wilhelm 2004: 119). The use of Akkadian as the main
written language should probably be reconstructed for the
early days of the kingdom of Hattusa before the reforms
of King Telepinu introduced Hittite literacy on a larger
scale (van den Hout 2010: 10304). The written use of

of Aramaic but in Phoenician (Tropper 1993: 5). Andr

Lemaire (2001: 189) hypothesises that the written use of
Phoenician in the earlier part of King Kulamuwas reign
was connected in some way with close political ties
between Samal and Que. This hypothesis, however, is
hard to maintain, given that Kulamuwas Phoenician
inscription explicitly refers to the king of Que as his
adversary (Tropper 1993: 37). As an alternative, one can
propose that Phoenician at the time simply represented
the default option for a king who ruled in a Neo-Hittite
milieu but did not wish to use Anatolian hieroglyphs.
Kulamuwas motivation here must have been more or less
the same as that of the rulers of Que, namely an attempt
to distance themselves from the neighbouring Neo-Hittite
kings, who continued to embrace Anatolian traditions.
Naturally, the genetic similarity among the northwestern
Semitic languages and the simplicity of the Phoenician
script may also have played a role in this decision. The
written use of Phoenician was, however, abandoned as
soon as the native Samalian dialect of Kulamuwa and
his descendants underwent reduction to writing or literisation (Verschriftlichung).
At the same time, we know that the rulers of Samal,
just like those of Que, eventually came to a compromise
with the conquered Luwian-speaking population. Thus the
Phoenician incription of Kulamuwa makes it clear that the
king extended his protection to the mkbm, understood as
a reference to the local sedentary population groups,
possibly of Luwian origin (Tropper 1993: 3943). This
statement correlates well not only with the Luwian origin
of the Samal dynastic names Kulamuwa and Panamuwa,
but also with the mingling of Luwian and Aramaean traditions reflected in the local art and architecture (Bryce
2012: 172 with references). The burial inscription of
KTMW, recently found in the course of the University of
Chicago excavations at Zincirli, displays a blend of
Semitic and Luwian pantheons (Yakubovich 2010b: 296).
Although no instances of assured bilingual texts are
connected with this principality, a signet ring of the last
Samalian king, Bar-Rakib, bears his name inscribed in
Anatolian hieroglyphs (Hawkins 2000: 2.576).
The difference in the extent to which Luwian was
deployed as an ancillary written language in Samal
compared to Que may have been related to the divergent
dynamics of language coexistence in the two principalities.
In the instance of Samal, the Semitic conquerors appear
to have maintained their language throughout the existence
of the state, judging at least by the onomastic data. One
cannot even exclude that the general direction of language
shift in Samal was from Luwian to Aramaic. By contrast,
the arguments presented thus far hardly point to anything
more than the Greek cultural heritage of the Que elites.
They would be perfectly compatible with the assumption

49

Anatolian Studies 2015

No matter how one may venture to reconstruct further
developments, the principality of Que emerges as a likely
venue for the initial adoption of Phoenician for purposes
of writing in a Greek-language community. Beside the
Greek presence in Que, the only assumption that is
required for the consistency of this hypothesis is the use
of the Phoenician script in Que since at least the mid ninth
century BC. Although no direct evidence supports such an
early date, there is nothing unlikely about it either, given
that this is the point in time when King Kulamuwa
commissioned his Phoenician inscription in Samal.
Kulamuwas inscription refers to Que as an organised
state, and this information can be confirmed through
contemporary Assyrian sources (Bryce 2012: 155). It
seems reasonable to assume that the principality of Que
had its own chancery, just as was the case in the other NeoHittite states. This chancery can be envisioned as a place
where engaged Phoenician scribes rubbed shoulders and
shared knowledge with their Greek disciples in the mid
ninth century BC and probably even earlier.

Official Aramaic in Achaemenid and Hellenistic Iran

predated the adaptation of the Aramaic alphabet to the
transmission of Middle Iranian (Skjaerv 1995).
Therefore, as long as one accepts the Phoenician
alphabet as the source of the Greek writing system, its
historical use for writing purposes in certain parts of the
Greek-speaking world emerges as the default hypothesis.
What makes it even more likely is the Semitic origin of
Greek names for individual letters (Krebernik 2007: 148
61). While the northwestern Semitic letter names have
transparent etymologies (such as aleph, bull, beth,
house, etc.), which are further motivated in terms of their
original acrophonic values, neither is the case for the
Greek letter names, such as alpha and beta. This situation
can be contrasted, for example, with abbreviating Greek
letter names for the Roman alphabet or coining new letter
names with Slavic etymologies for the Cyrillic alphabet.
The transmission of writing together with elements of
useless linguistic tradition speaks in favour of the literisation of Greek being an initiative of professional bilingual
scribes acting under institutional patronage rather than a
mere by-product of casual informal encounters between
Greeks and literate Semites.
The reform modifying a Semitic script for purposes of
writing Greek could have hardly taken place in Cilicia,
where Phoenician continued to be used in the official
setting even in the seventh century BC. Although Lemaire
(2008: 5152) suggests that alphabetic writing may have
spread to Phrygia via Cilicia, the shared innovations of the
Greek and Phrygian alphabets would rather plead for a
common reformed archetype, which probably came into
being further west. In this connection it is interesting to
observe that the control of Que may have extended
westwards on occasions as far as Pamphylia. This follows
from the etymology of the local town Aspendos, which
was apparently written * (genitive ) in
the Pamphylian dialect of Greek (Brixhe 1976: 194200).
Stephen Durnford and Heiner Eichner remind me about its
possible etymological connection with the name of the
Que regent Azatiwada and his eastern foundation Azatiwadaya (cf. already Brixhe 1976: 80, 193). If the area of
Aspendos marked the western limits of Que, it could be
one possible point where the Greek population of
Pamphylia might have come into contact with the Phoenician script, perhaps before the town of Aspendos was even
founded. It goes without saying that this contact episode
is not assured, and even if it were, its impact on the further
development of the Greek alphabet would still remain a
matter of speculation pending further material finds. But
an independent piece of indirect evidence for the westward
extension of Que is the CEBELRES DAI inscription
found in the west of Rough Cilicia and featuring the
dynastic name wryk (Younger 2003).

Concluding thoughts
We have seen that the reconstruction of the ethnic
landscape in Early Iron Age Cilicia can be approached
from various angles. As usual in interdisciplinary research,
the outcome of this reconstruction will depend not on
proving or disproving particular points but rather on
weighing up the relative compatibilities of various
scenarios with all the heterogeneous data at our disposal.
I have tried to demonstrate that the existing historical
hypothesis can be reconciled with the new linguistic
results. The combination of both yields a coherent picture
if one assumes that the written use of Phoenician in
Que/Hiyawa developed as a contrastive statement of
identity on the part the Greek colonists, as opposed to the
indigenous Luwian population. I have also endeavoured
to stress the relevance of the proposed reconstruction for
tracing the emergence of the Greek alphabetic script.
Acknowledgements
My work on the topic of multilingualism in Que/Hiyawa
and its sociolinguistic interpretation became possible
through the award of a Humboldt Fellowship tenured at the
Philipps-Universitt Marburg and was further facilitated by
the participation in the project Egea i Lewant na przeomie
epoki brzu i elaza within the framework of the National
Program of the Development of the Humanities of the Polish
Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Earlier versions
of this paper were presented at the Translation and Bilingualism in Ancient Near Eastern Texts workshop (Wolfson
College, Oxford, March 2013), the 32nd Deutscher Orientalistentag (Mnster, September 2013), Journe Langues
rares (Institut catholique de Paris, November 2013) and The

50

Yakubovich
Aegean and the Levant at the Turn of Bronze and Iron Ages
workshop (University of Warsaw, January 2014). I am
grateful to the audiences of these gatherings for their
constructive feedback. At a later stage the paper benefited
from the helpful advice of Stephen Durnford (Brighton),
Heiner Eichner (Vienna), H. Craig Melchert (Los Angeles),
Norbert Oettinger (Erlangen), Elisabeth Rieken (Marburg),
Florian Sommer (Zrich) and David Sasseville (Marburg).
Among these, Stephen Durnford and Craig Melchert also
made substantial contributions toward improving its style.
Alexander Fantalkin (Tel-Aviv) and Rostislav Oreshko
(Hamburg) guided me on the archaeological problems
relevant to the topic, while Alexei Kassian (Moscow),
Gianni Lanfranchi (Padova) and Philip Schmitz (Ypsilanti
MI) helped me with the historical and philological bibliography. Yuri Koryakov (Moscow) kindly agreed to design a
historical map that accompanies this paper. All the abovementioned scholars deserve my heartfelt gratitude and none
of them is to be blamed for my possible shortcomings.

(skenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2 Anatolian Studies 65:

5977
Gander, M. 2011: Die geographischen Beziehungen der
Lukka-Lnder. Heidelberg, Winter
2012: Ahhiyawa Hiyawa Que: Gibt es Evidenz fr
die Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien am bergan
von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit? Studi micenei ed egeoanatolici 54: 281309
Giusfredi, F. 2009: The problem of the Luwian title
tarwanis Altorientalische Forschungen 36.1: 14045
Goedegebuure, P. 1998: The Hieroglyphic Luwian
particle REL-i=pa in A. Sel (ed.), Acts of the Third
International Congress of Hittitology. Ankara, Uyum
Ajans: 23345
2009: hbrk bl or tiwadamis zidis, the steward of the
king in Luwian and Phoenician society. Paper
presented at the Midwestern Branch of the American
Oriental Society meeting (Bourbonnais, February
2009)
Hajnal, I. 2003: Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht.
Die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck, Institut
fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck
2011: Namen und ihre Etymologien als Beweisstcke nur bedingt tauglich? in C. Ulf, R. Rollinger
(eds), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um
Homers Ilias. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: 24163
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 Tayinat Journal of the
Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 2: 5968
Hawkins, J.D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian
Inscriptions 1. Inscriptions of the Iron Age (parts 1, 2:
texts; part 3: plates). Berlin, de Gruyter
2005: Die Inschrift des Warikas von Hiyawa aus
NEKY in M. Lichtenstein (ed.), Texte aus der
Umwelt des Alten Testaments 2. Staatsvertrge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen
Geschichte. Gtersloh, Gtersloher Verlagshaus: 155
56
2011: The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple
Anatolian Studies 61: 3554
forthcoming: The ending of the NEKY inscription in a forthcoming Festschrift
Hutter, M. 2003: Aspects of Luwian religion in H.C.
Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden, Brill: 21180
Kahn, D. 2011: The campaign of Ramesses III against
Philistia Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
3.4: 111
Kaufman, S. 2007: The Phoenician inscription of the
Incirli trilingual: tentative reconstruction and translation Maarav 14: 726

References
Adams, 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 and
Archaeology. Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature:
64564
Adiego Lajara, I.-X. 2007: The Carian Language. Leiden,
Brill
Bauer, A. 2014: Morphosyntax of Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic 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, Oxford
University Press
ambel, H. 1999: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luvian Inscriptions 2. Karatepe-Arslanta. Berlin, de Gruyter
Cooper, J. 2000: Assyrian prophecies, the Assyrian tree,
and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism,
Greek philosophy, Christian theology, gnosticism, and
much more Journal of the American Oriental Society
120: 43044
Daues, A. 2008: Mehrsprachigkeit im vorchristlichen
Anatolien: Sprachlicher Wandel durch Kontakt von
Sprach- und Schriftsystemen in A. Casaretto, S.
Kutscher (eds), Proceedings of the Second Graduate
Workshop of the Center of Linguistics, University of
Cologne, 23rd24th of June 2006. Aachen, Shaker
Verlag: 128
de la Vaissire, . 2005: Sogdian Traders: A History.
Leiden, Brill
Dinol, B., Dinol, A., Hawkins, J.D., Peker, H. (2015)
Two new inscribed Storm-god stelae from Arsuz

51

Anatolian Studies 2015

Killebrew, A.E., Lehmann, G. 2013: Introduction: the
world of the Philistines and other Sea Peoples in
A.E. Killebrew, G. Lehmann (eds), The Philistines and
Other Sea Peoples in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta,
Society of Biblical Literature: 117
Krahmalkov, C.R. 2000: Phoenician-Punic Dictionary.
Leuven, Peeters
2001: A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden, Brill
Krebernik, M. 2007: Buchstabennamen, Lautwerte und
Alphabetgeschichte in R. Rollinger, A. Luther, J.
Wiesehfer (eds), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation,
Raum und Wahrnehmung in der Alten Welt. Mainz,
Verlag Antike: 10875
KUB = Figulla, H.H. et al. (eds) 1921: Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazki. Berlin, Akademie Verlag
Lanfranchi, G.B. 2005: The Luwian-Phoenician bilingual
of Cineky and the annexation of Cilicia to the Assyrian
empire in R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer.
Festschrift fur Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag
am 25. Februar 2004. Mnster, Ugarit-Verlag: 48196
2007: The Luwian-Phoenician bilinguals of Cineky
and Karatepe: an ideological dialogue in R. Rollinger,
A. Luther, J. Wiesehfer (eds), Getrennte Wege?
Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der alten
Welt. Mainz, Verlag Antike: 179217
2009: A happy son of the king of Assyria: Warikas and
the NEKY bilingual (Cilicia) in M. Luukko, S.
Svrd, R. Mattila (eds), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and
Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour
of Simo Parpola. Helsinki, Finnish Oriental Society:
12750
Latacz, J. 2004: Troy and Homer: Toward a Solution of an
Old Mystery. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Lehmann, G. 2007: Decorated pottery styles in the
northern Levant during the Early Iron Age and their
relationship with Cyprus and the Aegean UgaritForschungen 39: 487550
Lemaire, A. 1983: Linscription phnicienne de HassanBeyli reconsidere Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 919
2001: Les langues due royaume de Samal aux IXeVIIIe s. av. J.-C. et leurs relations avec le royaume de
Qu in . Jean, A.M. Dinol, S. Durugnl (eds), La
Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millnaire av.
J.-C. 4e sicle ap. J.-C.). Istanbul, Institut franais
dtudes anatoliennes Georges Dumzil: 18792
2008: The spread of alphabetic scripts (c. 1700500
BCE) Diogenes 218 (55.2): 4457
Lipiski, E. 2004: Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven, Peeters
Melchert, H.C. 1987: PIE velars in Luvian in C. Watkins
(ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929
1985). Berlin, de Gruyter: 182204
1993: Cuneiform Luwian Lexicon. Chapel Hill, selfpublished

2002: Hieroglyphic Luwian REL-i-pa indeed,

certainly in M.R.V. Southern (ed.), Indo-European
Perspectives. Washington, Institute for the Study of
Man: 22332
2006: Indo-European verbal art in Luwian in G.-J.
Pinault, D. Petit (eds), La langue potique indo-europenne. Leuven, Peeters: 29198
Metcalf, C. 2011: New parallels in Hittite and Sumerian
praise of the sun Welt des Orients 41: 16876
Moran, W.L. (ed.) 1992: The Amarna Letters. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins University Press
Neu, E. 1974: Der Anitta-Text. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz
Oettinger, N. 2008: The seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a historical figure in M. Bachvarova, B.-J. Collins, I. Rutherford
(eds), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks, and their
Neighbours in Ancient Anatolia. Oxford, Oxbow: 4556
2010: Seevlker und Etrusker in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan,
J. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites
and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer.
Wiesbaden, Harrassowiz: 23346
Oreshko, R. 2013: The Achean hides caged in yonder
beams: the value of Hieroglyphic Luwian sign *429
reconsidered and a new light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa
Kadmos 52.1: 1933
Payne, A. 2006: Multilingual inscriptions and their
audiences: Cilicia and Lycia in S. Sanders (ed.),
Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. Chicago,
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: 12136
Rieken, E. 2004: Das Prteritum des Medio-Passivs im
Hieroglyphen-Luvischen Historische Sprachforschung 117.2: 17988
2010: Das Zeichen <s> im Hieroglyphen-luwischen
in A. Sel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth International
Congress of Hittitology, orum, August 2531, 2008
2. Ankara, Ant Matbaa: 65160
Rieken, E., Yakubovich, I. 2010: The new values of
Luwian signs L 319 and L 172 in I. Singer (ed.),
Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite
Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion
of his 70th Birthday. Tel-Aviv, Institute of Archaeology: 199219
Rollinger, R. 2006: The terms Assyria and Syria
again Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65: 28387
Schmitz, P.C. 2008: Archaic Greek words in Phoenician
script from Karatepe Newsletter of the American
Society of Greek and Latin Epigraphy 12.1: 59
2009: Phoenician KRNTRY, Archaic Greek
* and the Storm-god of Aleppo
KUSATU 10: 11960
Sideltsev, A.V. 2002: Inverted word order in Middle
Hittite in V. Shevoroshkin, P. Sidwell (eds), Anatolian
Languages. Canberra, Association for the History of
Language: 13788

52

Yakubovich
Simon, Z. 2011: The identification of Qode: reconsidering
the evidence in J. Mynov (ed), Egypt and the Near
East: The Cross-roads: Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations between Egypt and
the Near East in the Bronze Age. Prague, Charles
University: 24970
2014: Awarikus und Warikas: Zwei Knige von
Hiyawa Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 114.1: 91103
Singer, I. 2006: Ships bound for Lukka: a new interpretation of the companion letters RS 94.2530 and RS
94.2523 Altorientalische Forschungen 33.2: 24262
2013: Old country ethnonyms in new countries of
the Sea Peoples diaspora in R. Koehl (ed.), Amilla:
The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter
Kopcke in Celebration of his 75th Birthday. Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press: 32133
Skjaerv, P.O. 1995: Aramaic in Iran Aram 7: 283318
Tekolu, R., Lemaire, A. 2000: La bilingue royale
louvito-phnicien de NEKY Comptes Rendus de
LAcadmie des Inscriptions 2000: 9611006
Tropper, J. 1993: Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue
Edition und vergleichende Grammatik von des phnizischen, samalischen und aramischen Textkorpus.
Mnster, Ugarit-Verlag
van den Hout, T. 2010: The rise and fall of cuneiform
script in Hittite Anatolia in C. Woods (ed.), Visible
Language: Inventions of Writing in the Near East and
Beyond. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago: 99114

Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1990: Mopsus: lgendes et ralit

Hethitica 10: 195211
Ventris, M., Chadwick, J. 1973: Documents in Mycenaean
Greek (2nd edition). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
West, M.L. 1997: The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic
Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford, Oxford
University Press
Wilhelm, G. 2004: Urartian in R.D. Woodard (ed.), The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient
Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
11937
Yakubovich, I. 2005: Were Hittite kings divinely
anointed? Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
5: 10939
2010a: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language.
Leiden, Brill
2010b: West Semitic god El in Anatolian Hieroglyphic
transmission in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, J. Miller (eds), Pax
Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours
in Honour of Itamar Singer. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz:
38598
Younger, K.L. Jr 2003: Cebel res Da in W.W. Hallo,
K.L. Younger Jr (eds), The Context of Scripture 3:
Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Leiden,
Brill: 13739
Zgusta, L. 1984: Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg,
Winter

53