336 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Glossar des Lykischen. By Günter Neumann, prepared for publication by Johann Tischler. Dresdner Beiträge
zur Hethitologie, vol. 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007. Pp. lxxxi + 453. € 98 (cloth).
Reviewed by Ilya Yakubovich, Moscow State University.
The Lycian A and B languages were used for writing
in classical Lycia (southwestern Turkey) in the mid-
first millennium b.c and are recorded in an identical
alphabet of Greek origin. They both belong to the
Luvic group of the Anatolian family, which is vari-
ously defined as the sister or the oldest daughter of the
Indo-European phylum. At present, about 150 monu-
mental inscriptions in Lycian A (sometimes ­simply
referred to as Lycian) have been published. Most of
them belong to the funerary genre, while a handful
of Lycian and Greek bilingual epitaphs facilitated the
initial decipherment of this language. By now, the
more stereotypical of the Lycian A texts are fully un-
derstood, and significant progress has been achieved in
the understanding of their more creative or worse-pre-
served counterparts. By contrast, only two inscriptions
written in Lycian B (otherwise known as Milyan) have
been identified thus far, and there are no bilinguals or
parallel texts that can shed light on this language. The
fact that the decipherers of Lycian B have to rely on
the comparative method explains why we know more
about its grammatical structure than about its lexicon
and have only a vague idea about the general mean-
ing of Lycian B texts. In addition, there are a number
of coin legends inscribed in the Lycian alphabet, but
their language usually cannot be precisely determined.
All the Lycian forms discussed in this review belong
to Lycian A.
Much of the research on the Lycian languages in
the last fifty years has been connected with the name
of Günter Neumann (1920–2005). Among his con-
tributions to the study of Lycian published during his
lifetime, one can mention the grammatical description
of Lycian A prepared for the Handbuch der Oriental-
istik series (1969), the annotated edition of all the
Lycian texts discovered since the beginning of the
twentieth century (1979), and a series of papers, Bei­
träge zum Lykischen I–VII, which were published in
the Austrian journal Die Sprache between 1961 and
1985. Regrettably, Professor Neumann did not live
to see the publication of the present volume, which
crowned his lifelong communion with the civilization
of the Lycians. Modestly named “Glossar,” it repre-
sents, in fact, the complete thesaurus of the Lycian A
and B languages. All the lexical entries are accompa-
nied by the complete list of attestations of the relevant
lexemes and by detailed references to the secondary
sources where their meanings and etymologies are
debated. The bibliography does not bypass even the
nineteenth-century treatises, which were published at
the time when the genetic affiliation of Lycian re-
mained unknown and its grammar was understood
very imperfectly.
For best results, the book under review should
be used together with the Dictionary of the Lycian
Language by H. Craig Melchert (Ann Arbor, 2004).
Both volumes were compiled independently from
each other, although G. Neumann availed himself of
the preliminary versions of Melchert’s lexicon that
were self-published by the author in 1989 and 1993.
Accordingly, the two dictionaries frequently exhibit
differences in the synchronic and etymological analysis
of individual forms, and even in their readings. Given
all the uncertainties connected with the interpretation
of Lycian texts, this pluralism of opinions can only be
applauded. Of the two volumes, Neumann’s diction-
ary is more complete, as Melchert frequently does not
mention partially preserved lexemes, does not discuss
etymologies of personal names, and usually limits his
bibliography to the more recent publications. Another
virtue of the book under review, which we owe in
part to the editorial work of Johann Tischler, is the
availability of contexts for difficult Lycian forms. On
the other hand, the obvious advantage of Melchert’s
dictionary is the separate presentation of Lycian A and
B lexemes, which are lumped in the same alphabetical
list apud Neumann.
On the whole, the readings given in Neumann’s
dictionary appear to be very trustworthy and some-
times are to be given preference over those suggested
by Melchert. Thus, Neumann reads alãma in TL 83.8,
while Melchert emends the same word to adãma,
since he assumes that it means ‘name’ and relates it
to Luv. á-ta4/5-ma-za, also ‘name.’ While the meaning
of the Lycian word endorsed by Melchert is probably
correct, the emendation is not necessary. The analysis
of Luvian lexemes containing the hieroglyphic signs
*<ta4/5> indicates that in most of them they corre-

spond to a syllable beginning with the lateral sound,
and so the transliteration /alaman-za/ can be pro-
posed for the Luvian word. In other cases, Neumann’s
collations based on the casts of the Lycian inscriptions
preserved in Vienna can be conducive to new lexical
recognitions. Thus, Neumann suggests the new read-
ing meχe[.]une for a sequence in TL 29.10 that was
previously read as meχe[.]ti and comments that the
missing letter can be either l or d. Given the mention
of Alexander’s conquest of Lycia in the previous line
of TL 29, there is hardly any doubt that meχe[d]une
refers to Macedon, or perhaps represents the derived
adjective ‘Macedonian.’
As for the grammatical analysis of Lycian forms,
Melchert’s dictionary probably represents a more
reliable guide. Sometimes, Neumann is simply over-
cautious in his interpretations. For example, he treats
ubuhãte˜ in TL 44c.4 as one lexical unit, whereas all
the scholars he quotes have suggested dividing it
into ubu and hãte˜. In other instances, Neumann’s ap-
proach appears to be etymologically less informed,
as is the case of χñtawata/i-, which Neumann logs
under one lemma ‘king, kingship’ but Melchert di-
vides into two separate lemmas χñtawat(i)- ‘king’ and
χñtawata- ‘kingship.’ Melchert’s analysis finds sup-
port in the existence of Luv. hantawati- ‘king’ and
hantawatahi(t)-‘kingship,’ the latter of which is not
mentioned in the volume under review. Finally, Neu-
mann’s treatment of the frequent sequence me˜ti seems
to be syntactically flawed. The idea that it contains the
adverb me˜ ‘so, as’ has nothing to recommend itself,
since many inscriptions where it occurs contain just
Einführung in die hurritsche Sprache. By Ilse Wegner. 2nd rev. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007. Pp. 304.
€ 49.90 (paperback).
Reviewed by Ilya Yakubovich, Moscow State University.
Hurrian was spoken in the mountainous area that
corresponds to southeastern Anatolia, northern
Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, and northwestern Iran
in traditional terms, but can be more congenially
defined with reference to the ethnic boundaries of
present-day Kurdistan. This extinct language is pre-
dominantly attested in the cuneiform transmission,
and all the available texts were written in the Bronze
Age. The earliest Hurrian inscription known to us
belongs to Tiš-atal, ruler of Urkeš, and was probably
Book Reviews F 337
one clause (e.g., TL 19, TL 67). One would fare bet-
ter following the analysis of A. Garrett (Historische
Sprachforschung 105: 200–212), who proposes to see
here the clitic chain m=e˜=ti and identifies its first ele-
ment as the particle m(e)= that separates the fronted
constituent from the rest of the clause.
The etymology of Lyc. esbe/i- ‘horse’ deserves
separate discussion. Neumann follows the communis
opinio connecting it with Luv. azu(wa)- ‘horse’ and
sees the further reflex of the Luvian noun in Hitt.
LÚ
assussann(i)- ‘horse-trainer.’ If, however, one ac-
cepts that the Luvian word for ‘horse’ contained
an affricate, there is no easy way of relating it to the
Hittite compound. In addition, the cognate profes-
sional designation aššuḫanni has been identified in a
text from Alalakh (E. von Dassow, State and Society
in the Late Bronze Age: Alalakh under the Mittani
Empire [Bethesda, MD, 2008], 257). Therefore, one
must revert to the earlier hypothesis and derive the
element *assu- from the Mittanian Aryan (cf. Vedic
áśva- ‘horse’). Of course, the Mittanian and the Luvo-
Lycian lexemes remain related on the Indo-Hittite
level.
The controversial character of some of Neumann’s
claims may prompt the reader to seek a second opin-
ion in some cases, but should not deflect him from
using the volume under review as the primary refer-
ence source on Lycian lexicography. The combina-
tion of Neumann’s and Melchert’s dictionaries reflects
the state of the art in the field of Lycian studies,
which reached a new level of transparency with their
publication.
composed in the twentieth century b.c. But the bulk
of the attested Hurrian material was recorded in the
mid-second millennium b.c., when a large part of the
Hurrian-speaking area was united into the kingdom
of Mitanni, ruled by a dynasty of Indo-Aryan origin.
Since the capital of Mitanni has not been archaeologi-
cally identified thus far, most of the relevant tablets
available to us come from outside the Hurrian core
area. The text that played the key role in the decipher-
ment of Hurrian was the formulaic “Mitanni Letter”