The Carian Language

The Carian Language

HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES SECTION ONE

THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

Ancient Near East Editor-in-Chief

W. H. van Soldt Editors

G. Beckman • C. Leitz • B. A. Levine P. Michalowski • P. Miglus Middle East

R. S. O’Fahey • C. H. M. Versteegh VOLUME EIGHTY-SIX

The Carian Language by

Ignacio J. Adiego with an appendix by

Koray Konuk

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Adiego Lajara, Ignacio-Javier. The Carian language / by Ignacio J. Adiego ; with an appendix by Koray Konuk. p. cm. — (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East ; v. 86). Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13 : 978-90-04-15281-6 (hardback) ISBN-10 : 90-04-15281-4 (hardback) 1. Carian language. 2. Carian language—Writing. 3. Inscriptions, Carian—Egypt. 4. Inscriptions, Carian—Turkey—Caria. I. Title. II. P946.A35 2006 491’.998—dc22

2006051655

ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN-10 90 04 15281 4 ISBN-13 978 90 04 15281 6 © Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Hotei Publishers, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Günter Neumann In memoriam

CONTENTS

Foreword ........................................................................................ Acknowledgments for the Use of Illustrations ............................ Chapter One

xi xiii

Introduction ..........................................................

1

Chapter Two The Indirect Sources .......................................... A. The Glosses .......................................................................... 1. Glosses und Pseudo-glosses .................................................... 2. Interpretation ........................................................................ B. The Proper Names .............................................................. 1. The Unity and Continuity of Anatolian Onomastics .............. 2. Present Compilations of Carian and Anatolian Names ............ 3. Carian Names from Indirect Sources vs. Those from Direct Sources ................................................................................

7 7 7 10 12 12 14 15

Chapter Three The Inscriptions ................................................ A. Introduction .......................................................................... 1. The Revised System of Transcription of Carian Letters .......... 2. Vocalism .............................................................................. 3. Consonantism ...................................................................... B. ‘Para-Carian’ or ‘Caroide’ Inscriptions .............................. 1. ‘Para-Carian’ Inscriptions from Caria .................................... 2. ‘Para-Carian’ Inscriptions from Other Places .......................... 3. The Ostrakon of Hou and the Naukratis Fragment ................ 4. Carian Grafitti from Sardis .................................................. 5. Carian Inscription from Old Smyrna .................................... C. The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt .................................. 1. Sais (E.Sa) ........................................................................ 2. Memphis (E.Me) ................................................................ 3. Abydos (E.Ab) .................................................................... 4. Thebes, Tomb of Montuemhat (E.Th) .................................. 5. Luxor Temple (E.Lu) .......................................................... 6. Murwàw (E.Mu) ................................................................ 7. Silsilis (E.Si) ...................................................................... 8. Abu Simbel (E.AS) ..............................................................

17 17 18 18 19 22 22 23 26 27 29 30 32 34 79 95 106 109 110 115

viii

contents

9. Buhen (E.Bu) .................................................................. 10. Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS) ............................................ 11. Unknown Origin, Likely from Egypt (E.xx) ........................ D. The Carian Inscriptions from Caria .................................. 1. Tralleis (C.Tr) .................................................................. 2. Alabanda and Surroundings (C.Al) ...................................... 3. Euromos (C.Eu) ................................................................ 4. Kindye (C.Kn) .................................................................. 5. Hyllarima (C.Hy) ............................................................ 6. Mylasa (C.My) ................................................................ 7. Sanctuary of Sinuri near Mylasa (C.Si) .............................. 8. Kildara (C.Ki) .................................................................. 9. Stratonikeia (C.St) ............................................................ 10. Halikarnassos (C.Ha) ........................................................ 11. Didyma (Ionia, near Milet) (C.Di) .................................... 12. Iasos (C.Ia) ...................................................................... 13. Keramos (C.Ke) ................................................................ 14. Kaunos (C.Ka) .................................................................. 15. Krya (C.Kr) ...................................................................... 16. Inscriptions of Unknown Origin, Presumably from Caria (C.xx) .................................................................................. E. The Carian Inscriptions from Greece ................................

119 123 124 128 130 132 132 134 135 137 138 141 142 144 145 145 150 151 158

Chapter Four The History of the Decipherment .................. A. The ‘Semisyllabic Era’ (1887–1962) .................................. B. The ‘Greek Alphabetic’ Era ................................................ C. The ‘Egyptian Approach’ .................................................... 1. The First Attempts ............................................................ 2. The Seminal Work of Ray ................................................ 3. The Definitive Decipherment (‘Ray-Schürr-Adiego System’) ......

166 166 176 187 187 191 197

Chapter Five The Carian Alphabet .......................................... A. Alphabetic Varieties ............................................................ 1. Alphabetic Varieties of Caria Proper .................................... 2. Inscriptions from Continental Greece .................................... 3. Egyptian Alphabets ............................................................ 4. The Classification of the Alphabets of Caria Proper .............. 5. The Relationship between the Alphabet from Egypt and the Local Alphabets from Caria Proper .............................. 6. The Common Origin of the Carian Alphabetic Varieties ........ B. The Origin of the Carian Alphabet ..................................

205 205 206 219 219 223

159 164

226 228 230

contents

ix

Chapter Six Phonological Features ............................................ A. The Phonological System .................................................... 1. Vowels and Semivowels ........................................................ 2. Consonants .......................................................................... 3. Letters of Uncertain Value .................................................... 4. Letters of Unknown Value .................................................... 5. Phonotactics ........................................................................ B. Overview of the Historical Phonology of Carian ............ 1. Vocalism ............................................................................ 2. Consonants .......................................................................... 3. Some Secondary Changes ......................................................

234 234 234 242 251 253 254 256 257 259 262

Chapter Seven Analyzing Carian Inscriptions .......................... A. Basic Onomastic Formulae .................................................. 1. Inscriptions Consisting of Only an Individual Name .............. 2. Inscriptions Consisting of Only a Twofold Onomastic Formula .............................................................................. B. The Structure of the Stelae from Memphis ...................... 1. Threefold Formulae .............................................................. 2. Stelae for Women ................................................................ 3. Inscriptions with Ted and En ............................................ 4. Other More Complex Funerary Inscriptions ............................ 5. The Rest of the Inscriptions from the Memphis Corpus .......... 6. A First Summary ................................................................ C. Analyzing Brief Inscriptions ................................................ 1. Inscriptions on Objects .......................................................... 2. Funerary Inscriptions of Caria and Athens ............................ 3. The Longest Graffito from Abu Simbel (E.AS 7) .................. D. The Longer Inscriptions ...................................................... 1. The Kaunos Bilingual Inscription .......................................... 2. The Kaunos Inscription C.Ka 2 ............................................ 3. Sinuri’s Longer Inscription (C.Si 2) ...................................... 4. The Hyllarima Inscription (C.Hy 1) .................................... 5. Other Inscriptions from Caria .............................................. E. Summary and Some Controversial Questions ..................

264 264 264 265 267 267 271 273 275 276 279 280 281 287 293 294 295 301 302 305 308 310

Chapter Eight Morphological Features ...................................... A. Nominal Inflection .............................................................. 1. Nominative Singular ............................................................ 2. Accusative Singular ..............................................................

312 312 312 313

contents

x

3. Genitive Singular .................................................................. 4. The -s Ending and the Problem of Carian Datives ................ 5. Other Possible Datives .......................................................... 6. Nominative Plural ................................................................ 7. Accusative Plural .................................................................. 8. Other Possible Case Endings ................................................ B. Pronominal Inflection .......................................................... C. Verbal Inflection ..................................................................

314 314 317 318 318 319 319 321

Chapter Nine The General Vocabulary and the Proper Names .......................................................................................... A. General vocabulary .............................................................. B. Proper Names ...................................................................... 1. Theophores .......................................................................... 2. Some Nominal Stems ............................................................ 3. Verbal Stems ...................................................................... 4. Adverbs .............................................................................. 5. Lallnamen .......................................................................... 6. Suffixes ................................................................................

326 326 328 331 333 339 339 340 341

Chapter Ten Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian Language ....................................................................................

345

Chapter Eleven

Carian Glossary ................................................

348

Appendices A. Carian Inscriptions in Transcription .................................. B. Carian Glosses ...................................................................... C. Carian Names in Greek Sources ........................................ D. Concordances ........................................................................ E. Coin Legends in Carian (by K. Konuk) ............................

443 455 456 464 471

Abbreviations and Bibliography ....................................................

493

Table I: The Carian Alphabet .................................................... Table II: Carian signs in coin legends ........................................ Index .............................................................................................. Plates .............................................................................................. Maps .......................................................................................... Coins ..........................................................................................

508 509 511 519 521 523

FOREWORD

Fifteen years after my doctoral dissertation on Carian (Studia Carica. Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, y su relación con la familia lingüística anatolia indoeuropea, University of Barcelona, 1990), directed by Pere J. Quetglas and supervised by Jürgen Untermann, and twelve years after my book Studia Carica (Barcelona 1993), a revised edition of my dissertation, I now offer a new work on the Carian script and language. This is not an English translation of the above titles. In fact, very little remains of the structure and content of these former works, mainly due to three, closely interrelated reasons. Firstly, both my dissertation and the subsequent book were conceived to defend a new proposal for deciphering Carian, beginning with the fundamental work of the British Egyptologist John D. Ray, which, in the 1980s, marked a dramatic breakthrough in the history of research on Carian. My aim at the time was to further develop the decipherment, after noting that Ray’s system, although certainly well founded, was by no means totally satisfactory. Now, following the discovery of the bilingual inscription of Kaunos in 1996, the system proposed in my book Studia Carica has been proved correct and is accepted—with slight modifications—as the standard tool for transcribing the Carian signs. Therefore, a new book on Carian no longer needs to offer a ‘combative’ justification for a particular decipherment system, but should rather take the definitive decipherment as a starting point for the analysis of Carian texts. Secondly, the corpus of Carian inscriptions has been augmented by the appearance of several new texts, among which the Carian-Greek bilingual of Kaunos mentioned above is undoubtedly the most relevant. In addition, some other inscriptions that were already known have subsequently been revised, yielding new possible interpretations. Thirdly, the new decipherment encouraged many scholars to apply themselves to the study of Carian, so that although many uncertainties remain and our knowledge of Carian language continues to be very limited, important progress has been made in recent years, and this must now be incorporated into an updated analysis of the subject. I wish to repeat here my most profound gratitude to those that helped me when I began to work on Carian, particularly the aforementioned Pere J. Quetglas and J. Untermann, without whose help

xii

foreword

and encouragement I could not have undertaken a doctoral dissertation on a topic that was then beset by so many risks. I am also grateful to Theo van den Hout, who invited me to prepare this book for Brill; to Brill for accepting this project; to Koray Konuk, for giving me the opportunity to substantially improve this book with an appendix on Carian coin legends; and to Wolfgang Blümel, H. Craig Melchert and Diether Schürr, not only for their kind assistance with some of the problems that arose during the preparation of this work, but also for the consistently productive and exciting interchange of ideas about Carian. Georg Rehrenböck (Kleinasiatische Kommission, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenchaften) also deserves a special mention for his extreme kindness and unfailing generosity in answering all of my queries about copies of Carian inscriptions conserved in Vienna. I am equally indebted to Peter Cottee for his accurate revision of my imperfect English. Needless to say, all the possible errors and omissions are of my own doing. On a more personal level, I must express my gratitude to my wife, Anna, and to my daughters, Alba-Artemísia and Laura-Neït, for bearing with such patience the long period during which the book was put together. This book is dedicated to the memory of Günter Neumann: for a decipherment to be successful it must not only be correct, but also credible and convincing, and he showed me how to achieve this with his open-minded consideration of ideas that questioned the prevailing communis opinio on Carian, his astuteness in refraining from excessive speculation, his numerous suggestions of improvements, his discreet but very effective work in favour of the new decipherment, and his advice to wait patiently for a proposal marked with the signum veritatis (to quote his own expression) to finally achieve general acceptance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR THE USE OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Drawings of inscriptions come from O. Masson, Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqara and Buhen (Masson 1978), and are reproduced by kind permission of the Egypt Exploration Society. Drawings taken from O. Masson-J. Yoyotte Objets pharaoniques à inscription carienne (Masson-Yoyotte 1956) and O. Masson “Remarques sur les graffites cariens d’Abou Simbel”, Hommages à la mémoire de S. Sauneron II (Masson 1979) are reproduced with the permission of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Drawings of graffiti published in The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple II, The facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (ESS 1998) are reproduced by courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Drawings extracted from L. Deroy “Les inscriptions cariennes de Carie”, L’Antiquité Classique 24 (Deroy 1955) are reproduced with permission of the editors of the journal.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

It is not clear when Caria and the Carians enter into ancient History. This is dependent on equating classical Caria with the land of Karkiya/ Karkisa mentioned in Hittite sources. This supposition, eminently suitable from a purely linguistic point of view (karkº in Karkisa, Karkiya is practically identical to the Old Persian word for ‘Carian’, kºka-), is complicated by the uncertainties regarding the exact location of Karkisa/ Karkiya on the map, a problem intimately bound to the complex question of Hittite geography, a topic still subject to controversy despite the great progress made in recent years. In any case, no information about the language of the land of Karkiya/Karkisa can be obtained from Hittite sources, so that even if the equation could be confirmed, its value for the study of the Carian language would be very limited. The only relevant (but overly generic) datum is that Karkiya/Karkisa is a land located in the western region of Anatolia, an area occupied by Luwian population groups, and thus consistent with the clear similarities between Carian and Luwian, Lycian and other Indo-European Anatolian dialects that can now, since the decipherment of Carian, be clearly traced (see Chapter 10). Classical Caria, the country situated in western Anatolia between Lydia and Lycia, must therefore be the starting point of the research on Carian language. It is during this period that we find both direct documentation of Carian and a wealth of information about this land and its inhabitants in indirect, mostly Greek, sources. Particularly meaningful are the consistent ties that we can establish between various types of records on Carian and the Carians regarding one of the most remarkable characteristics of Carian language documentation: the fact that the greatest number of Carian inscriptions have been found in Egypt, and not in Caria itself. From Greek sources, we know that Carian and Ionian mercenaries were employed by the pharaoh Psammetichus I (664–610) for consolidating his throne (Herod. I, 151). According to Herodotus, these mercenaries were based in the Delta area, near Bubastis (Herod. II, 154). It is no coincidence then that the oldest datable Carian document from

2

chapter one

Egypt, a bilingual inscription on a statuette of the goddess Neith (E.Sa 2) from the times of Psammetichus I, can be traced to Sais, another Egyptian city situated on the Delta. A further connection can be drawn between Carian documents and historical facts under the reign of the grandson of Psammetichus I, Psammetichus II (595–589): a well-known Greek graffito from Abu Simbel attests the participation of foreign mercenaries in his Nubian campaign (593/592, see below p. 31 for this dating), and this information is consistent with the existence of Carian graffiti in Abu Simbel and in other locations further to the south (Buhen, Gebel el-Sheik elSuleiman). Under Amasis (568–526), Ionian and Carian settlements were moved from the Delta to the city of Memphis (Herod. II, 154), where a ‘Carian quarter’ (KarikÒn) and a ‘Greek quarter’ (ÑEllhnikÒn) existed for many years (Aristagoras of Milet apud Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. ÑEllhnikÒn). Once again this event can be linked to epigraphical evidence: the most important sub-corpus of Carian inscriptions is the collection of funerary stelae found in Saqqâra, one of the necropoleis of Memphis. As for the rest of Carian inscriptions found in Egypt—mostly graffiti— from Thebes, Abydos, Silsilis, etc.), no connections can be established with historical facts, and we can only assume that they are the marks of Carian visitors, similar to Greek graffiti found in these and another parts of Egypt. Caria itself does not offer such striking results. The Carian inscriptions found in Caria are far less numerous than those from Egypt, come from different cities, and appear more heterogeneous, both in content and in form, thus constituting a very fragmentary and incomplete view and lacking a clear connection with historical facts.1 In fact, the sole inscription that gives any indication of a link to the history of Caria is the bilingual inscription from the temple of the god Sinuri (C.Si 2), which can confidently be interpreted as a decree enacted by the Carian dynasts of the Hekatomnid era, Idrieus and Ada, whose joint reign is dated in the period 351/350–344/343. But not even this inscription has any real implications for Carian history: it is simply part of a wider corpus of regulations of a local syngeneia—mostly in Greek— produced by the satrapal couple. In the case of another of the most

1 This is not the place for a history of Caria. I refer the reader to Hornblower (1982).

introduction

3

important Carian inscriptions from Caria itself, namely the bilingual proxeny decree of Kaunos (C.Ka 5), dated at the end of the IV century BC, the two Athenian citizens honoured as proxenoi are not clearly identifiable with any figures found in classical sources. The new inscription from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1b), and perhaps also the inscription recently found in Mylasa (C.My 1), offer lists of priests that can be linked to local cults. The two texts from Stratonikeia also contain lists of names, but in these cases their religious character cannot be confirmed. Nothing can be ascertained about the exact content of the inscription from Kildara (C.Ki 1) or the longest Carian inscription from Kaunos (C.Ka 2), but their official character is beyond doubt. This heterogeneous corpus is completed by a number of funerary, and therefore private, inscriptions and by others about whose content and functionality we know nothing. The absence of a precise dating for most of these texts further compounds the difficulties in placing them in a definite context. If a conclusion must be drawn exclusively from the present corpus of Carian inscriptions from Caria, we must conclude that written use of Carian was very limited and confined to certain local communities, mainly linked to religious cults and to private funerary contexts: in this latter case there are so few examples that it would be tenuous to make a comparison with the much richer documents of neighbouring Lycia. The only notable exception to this extreme scarcity of documentation is Kaunos, where a small, but very significant corpus of inscriptions has been established, thanks particularly to the archaeological excavations carried on in the last forty years. But this is an exception only if considered in relative terms compared to the rest of the documentation. In absolute terms, Kaunos provides us with a very a modest collection of Carian inscriptions. It is astonishing that we have at our disposal only a single, reliable example of the use of Carian as a co-official language (alongside Greek) in the Hekatomnid period: the aforementioned decree from Sinuri, C.Si 2. This is particularly surprising since it is generally believed that during the activity of the Hekatomnid dynasty, a ‘Karianization’ (to use Hornblower’s word) took place, so that “Mausolus and his family, themselves native Karians, encouraged the institutions (such as the koinã), the cults, and the language of Karia” (Hornblower 1982:352; the emphasis is mine). The Carian documentation found to this day in no way supports this view. It is true that this current interpretation of the written use of Carian must be viewed with some caution, since it is possible that the lack of documentation is in fact a result of our insufficient

chapter one

4

archaeological knowledge of the land, and the perishable materials on which many inscriptions were written. Moreover, both the hypotheses on the origin of Carian letters envisaged here (p. 231) and the strongly differentiated local alphabetic variants point clearly to a much wider and prolonged use of Carian script. However, at least in the case of the alleged importance of the Carian language as a tool for ‘Karianization’ in the Hekatomnid period, there is compelling counter-evidence: the total disappearance of Carian letters, and their replacement by single Greek legends, from the well-documented coinage of the Hekatomnids from Hekatomnos onward,2 which would seem to disprove the theory of the co-official status of Carian. Carian belongs to the Indo–European family of Anatolian languages, which also comprises Hittite, Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Palaic, Lycian, Lydian and lesser known Sidetic and Pisidian. More precisely, it forms part of the so-called ‘Luwic’3 group. This classification of Carian has already been proposed by several scholars—notably V. V. ”evoro“kin—on the basis of indirect documentation affirmed in Classical sources, mostly Carian proper names that showed strong connections with Anatolian. But this is now clearly confirmed by direct sources, now that the Carian alphabet has been deciphered, and decisive linguistic evidence has been obtained from Carian texts. This book is intended to show the new look of Carian following the decipherment of the Carian writing system. My aim is to offer as complete and updated a view as possible of our present knowledge of Carian, paying special attention to existing documentation, the Carian alphabet, its origin and variants, and to the still developing linguistic interpretation of the materials and its repercussions for the classification of Carian as an Anatolian language. In Chapter 2, a brief summary of the indirect sources on Carian is outlined. Chapter 3 is devoted to the presentation of the entire corpus of Carian inscriptions available to

2

On Hekatomnids’ coinage, see the decisive work of Koray Konuk (Konuk 1998a). From now on, I shall use the term ‘Luwic’ for this group of dialects, following the suggestion made by Melchert, as a convenient and non-confusing form to refer to a series of Anatolian dialects that share important differentiating issogloses but whose exact internal relationship—originating from a common branch, or rather the result of an areal convergence—is still debated (see Melchert 2003:176). The former use of ‘Luwian’, both for two dialects (Hieroglyphic and Cuneiform) and for the entire group (embracing also Lycian, Carian, Sidetic and Pisidian), could lead to confusion and must be therefore abandoned. 3

introduction

5

me at the time this book was written.4 Only the coin legends are not discussed there, since they are the subject of a specific appendix, kindly prepared by Koray Konuk. Chapter 3 does not constitute an epigraphical edition. The inscriptions are simply intended to be a useful tool with which to tackle the following chapters and the analysis of Carian writing and language in general, hence the inclusion of drawings and the observations about reading problems. Chapter 4 offers a general history of the decipherment of Carian. It is based mostly on the corresponding chapter of my Studia Carica (Adiego 1993a), but has been expanded to include a succinct exposition of the decisive progress of decipherment, accomplished during the final decade of the 20th Century. Chapter 5 deals with the Carian alphabet, offering an analysis of the different local alphabetic variants and some reflections on the possible origins of this extremely peculiar writing system. Chapters 6 to 11 focus on linguistic aspects. Chapter 6 offers an overview of Carian phonology from a synchronic and, insofar as is possible, diachronic perspective. Chapter 7 introduces the possibility of analysing a great number of Carian inscriptions, from the briefest and most transparent, to the more extensive, wherein the difficulties of interpretation are practically insurmountable. Chapter 8 discusses the (scarce) morphological traits that have so far been identified in Carian. Chapter 9 is of a lexical nature: an inventory of all the Carian common words to have been identified is put together and analyzed, and the same is done for the proper names, in this latter case in the context of Anatolian onomastics. As a means of concluding the study, chapter 10 presents the evidence that suggests Carian can be classified in the group of Anatolian ‘Luwic’ dialects. Finally, Chapter 11 provides a glossary of all the forms shown in Carian inscriptions, inspired by similar works such as the Lydisches Wörterbuch by Roberto Gusmani, or the more recent Dictionary of the Lycian Language by H. Craig Melchert. The book is accompanied by five appendices: an editio minor of the inscriptions in transcription, the collection of glosses and a list of proper names found in Greek sources, a table of concordances with other editions of Carian

4 The only unavailable source is a Carian inscription found in Greece and published some years ago (see G. Neumann, “Epigraphische Mitteilungen—Kleinasien” in: Kadmos 39, 2000:190). Despite my efforts, it was impossible to obtain when preparing this book.

6

chapter one

inscriptions, and a special section by Koray Konuk on Carian coins with Carian legends, as mentioned above. The bibliography that completes the book is intended to be an exhaustive collection of all publications on Carian language and inscriptions from Sir Archibald Sayce to the present, together with other works not specifically devoted to Carian, but that are cited thoroughout this study. Despite my best efforts, it is inevitable that a study of a language that is only partially understood, and surrounded by uncertainties, will contain a number of provisional results, fragile hypotheses and even mere speculations, not necessarily shared by other scholars. This will not come as a surprise to seasoned specialists in the study of Trümmersprachen, but I consider it necessary to advise scholars of related disciplines against taking all of the interpretations included in my work to be demonstrated or indeed definitive. Much more will have to be done, and much more new material will have to be made available before we are able to paint a confident picture of this language. In any case, I have tried at all times to separate the assertions presently considered plausible by the communis opinio (for example, the overall validity of the decipherment system Ray–Schürr–Adiego) from those interpretations that rest on more fragile indices, and which are shared by only a handful of scholars, or indeed those hypotheses that are my own creation. I have tried where possible to avoid resorting to overly hypothetical explanations, and to steer clear of long, confusing paragraphs of a critical nature, which also explains the limited use I have made of works by other scholars, when their results seemed to me excessively tenuous or somewhat premature. Only in the glossary, for the sake of comprehensiveness, have I included some interpretations suggested for different Carian words that I don’t share or that I find too speculative. Proposed in this study is a new system of classification for Carian inscriptions, which is intended to be more rational than previous offerings, and also some modifications of the transcription system of Carian signs (the reasons for this are explained in pp. 18–20). I hope that these innovations will not create any difficulties for the reader. For more clarity, Appendix C (Concordances) can be used to find the equivalences between the new classification system and the older ones, and Table I at the end of the book shows the transcription system of Carian that is used here.

CHAPTER TWO

THE INDIRECT SOURCES

A. The Glosses “Sur le chapitre des gloses, on peut passer assez rapidement. Le matériel est d’une valeur très médiocre” (Masson 1973:190). Olivier Masson’s categorical statement is absolutely true. There are very few Carian glosses, and the possibilities of connecting them both to the direct documentation of the Carian language and to the common Anatolian lexicon are very limited or simply non-existent. Despite this, we will examine this modest corpus. 1. Glosses and Pseudo-glosses The first problem that must be addressed is the distinction between true Carian glosses and merely fictitious forms. From the time of the first compilation of scientific interest—Sayce (1887[92]:116–120)—to the most recent—by Dorsi himself (Dorsi 1979)—the inventory of Carian glosses was artificially expanded by invalid entries until Dorsi significantly reduced it. Sayce offered a total of 21 glosses, which Dorsi then shortened to six definite ones, and three doubtful, adding three relevant names of gods. Between Sayce and Dorsi, in Brandenstein (1935a) this artificial expansion of the number of glosses reached its peak: Brandenstein lists more than sixty words under the title “Wörter, Glossen, usw.” I have analysed elsewhere the methodological errors that led to this situation (Adiego 1992b). Here we need simply remember that a source of tremendous confusion was the lack of differentiation in Brandenstein (1935a) between actual glosses and a modern, semantic explanation of Carian proper names (for the most part very weakly argued). As a result, some theories were constructed based only on a purely hypothetical meaning attributed to Carian names. As has been said, Dorsi’s corpus consists only of six definite glosses, and three doubtful ones. I choose to disregard the three god names, since no meaning is offered in ancient sources, and they therefore

8

chapter two

contribute nothing to our knowledge of the Carian lexicon.1 The six definite glosses are êla ‘horse’, bãnda ‘victory’, soËa(n)2 ‘tomb’, g°la ‘king’, g¤ssa ‘stone’, and ko›on ‘sheep’. Of these, the first five are linked by the fact that they are all found in the work of Stephan of Byzantium, who quotes them when speaking about the Carian place names ÉAlãbanda, ÑUlloÊala, Souãggela and MonÒgissa (see appendix B for the relevant passages). As for the sixth gloss, although the Carian character of the word concerned is expressly mentioned in the sources, there are some problems concerning the exact form of the word. The sources are two scholia to the Iliad XIV, 255, one in Eusthatius’ scholia, the other in the manuscript T of the Scholia Vetera in Iliadem,3 both of which are related to the name of the island of Kos (K«w). In T, the word is given as ko›on, while Eustathius’s passage is ambiguous: he states that K«n (acc.) is spelled KÒon by some, but then immediately adds that the Carians use this name for sheep (fas‹ d¢ toÁw Kãraw oÏtv kale›n tå prÒbata).4 It has traditionally been interpreted5 that the Carian word was in fact identical to the name of Kos (hence k«w ‘sheep’), but Dorsi believed that Eustathius left out the actual Carian word simply through oversight, which would be ko›on as it appears in the other scholion. However, Erbse, in a work published after Dorsi’s article (Erbse 1986: 389–390), is suspicious of the form ko›on of T, offering it inter cruces. His preference is the kÒon form of Eustathius, interpreting the passage of Eustathius’ work mentioned above as a true gloss6 and noting moreover that this latter form appears in another passage by Eustathius

1 The three god names are ÖImbramow = Hermes (St. Byz. s. v. ÖImbrow; but note the variant reading ÖImbrasow, which Dorsi does not mention, reported by the Scholia vetera in Theogoniam v. 338, and Eustathius, Commentarii ad Iliadem XIV, 281), Mãsariw = Dionysus (St. Byz. s. v. Mãstaura), and ÉOsog«a = Zenoposeidon (Strabo XIV, 659, Pausanias VIII; 10, 4). 2 As Dorsi rightly points out, “la n finale di soËan può essere un semplice morfema di accusativo greco (peraltro non necessario: cfr. sopra êla), ma può anche essere stata suggerita (a torto o a ragione) dalla scomposizione del toponimo in souan-gela” (Dorsi 1979:29). 3 Edited by Hartmut Erbse: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia uetera), Berlin, 1979–1984. T is the Cod. Brit. Mus. Burney 86, to be dated in 1014 or 1059 A.D. 4 Eusthatius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 983, 33 (= ad Iliad. XIV, 255). I follow the Leipzig edition of 1827 (re-edited in Hildesheim-New York 1970). 5 Cf. Sayce (1887’92]:118): K«w (k«n) ‘a sheep’, although he adds the spelling kÒow in Eusthatius. See also Brandenstein (1935:142). 6 At least this is what I have deduced from the very terse and implicit treatment of the problem in Erbse (1986).

the indirect sources

9

(318,41 = ad Iliad. II, 677).7 Although Erbse does not discount the possibility that Eusthatius could have replaced ko›on with kÒon in order to “improve” the etymological explanation in both passages, he sees kÒon as the genuine form, opting for the simpler solution that ko›on is a graphical error. The three glosses that Dorsi lists as dubious are: tãba ‘rock’, toussÊloi ‘dwarfs, pigmies’, and tumn¤a ‘stick’, all of which are also attested by Stephan of Byzantium. The inclusion of tumn¤a, even if it is branded as dubious, seems rather inadequate; it is true that Stephan mentions this word when referring to the Carian city of TumnhsÒw, but he attributes it to the language of the inhabitants of Xanthos, a Lycian city, implying that the word must be Lycian rather than Carian.8 In the case of tãba ‘rock’, the word is cited by Stephan of Byzantium in connection with a Lydian city called Tãbai. He adds that the word tãba, which he does not attribute specifically to any language, is translated in Greek as ‘rock’. Following this, he mentions another Tãbai, in this case situated in Caria, but it seems to be merely a passing reference. From his observations then, the gloss had to be interpreted as Lydian, but Dorsi rightly observes (1979:29) that modern scholarship coincides in its estimation that no Lydian city of this name existed and that the two cities are in fact only one, situated in Caria (cf. Zgusta KON § 1277–1, Blümel KarON:179). It is therefore feasible, although impossible to demonstrate, that Stephan’s mistaken belief that the place name belonged to a Lydian country could have led to an error when attempting to establish the origin of the gloss. The problem becomes even more intractable given the existence of Tabhnoi (pl.), the name given to the inhabitants of some part of Lydia, which suggests that a Lydian Tabai or similar might actually have existed (see Zgusta KON:593). As for toussÊloi, the text is ambiguous and obscure. The word appears under the entry Kãttouza, a Thracian city inhabited by pigmies. Reference to Carians is therefore secondary and open to various interpretations.

7 8

However, in this case, the word kÒon is not attributed expressly to the Carians. Jãnyioi går tØn =ãbdon tumn¤an l°gousin.

10

chapter two

2. Interpretation If the collection of Carian glosses is very small and their value mediocre, the attempts to interpret them are equally disappointing. The only attractive etymological interpretation is that suggested by Carruba, regarding ko›on ‘sheep’ (Carruba 1965). Carruba proposed connecting it with Cuneiform Luwian ¢àôa/ì-, Hieroglyphic Luwian ha-wa/i/- < PIE *h2e/owo- “sheep”. The new form for the gloss defended by Erbse (1986), kÒon, would support this etymological explanation, because it would come from an intermediate form *kÒWon, a plausible Carian result of Proto-Anatolian (henceforth PA) *Hàwo- (the stem was not in -i- originally in Anatolian, cf. Lyc. xawa-, and see Melchert CLL s. v. ¢àôa/ì-). The treatment of PA laryngeal as velar stop in Carian (as in Lycian) is now clearly confirmed (see below p. 260). As for the possibility of finding some of these glosses in the Carian inscriptions, the results are equally discouraging, although in theory words meaning ‘tomb’ or ‘king’ are likely to appear. In fact, thanks to the bilingual inscription of Athens (G. 1), we know that ≤jas is probably one of the Carian words used for referring to a tomb or a funerary monument. The word appears as ≤as in Euromos (C.Eu 1). The possibility of connecting these forms with the gloss soËa(n) was conceived by Meier-Brügger (Meier-Brügger 1979:81),9 but we must be aware that in order to connect all of these forms, a lot of non-trivial sound changes are needed (*/swa/- > */swa/- > */sja/ > ≤ja- (> ≤a-), for instance), and in any case, -s in ≤( j)as?, vs. -n or -Ø in soËa(n) would remain unexplained. In the case of the word for ‘king’, it is commonly supposed that it could be very similar in Carian to the corresponding word in Lycian, xñtawat(i)- /k–dawati/. Adiego (1994a:240) proposed that the form ºk?dow“ (part of a word esak?dow“, E.AS 7) could be the Carian word for ‘king’, and this hypothesis was substantiated in Adiego (1995:18–21) by the Lycian-Greek-Aramaic inscription of Xanthos (Lycia, N 320), wherein the Carian divinity “King of Kaunos” appears in Aramaic as KNDWÍ (KNDWS) KBYD”Y. This seems to imply that KNDWÍKNDWS could be the Carian word for ‘king’ (see below Chapter 11 s. v. esak?dow“ for more details).

9 It is somewhat remarkable that Meier-Brügger’s proposal, which implies an ≤ (a sort of sibilant) value for z, was formulated some time before this value of z was convincingly established by J. D. Ray in the context of a wider system of decipherment.

the indirect sources

11

If we accept these identifications, the problem of g°la is very similar to that of soËa(n): g°la and a Carian word kdow (“ ) have some points in common (the velar initial, a possible correspondence -l- : -d- (<*/nd/),10 but a series of fragile hypotheses about sound changes would be needed to bring both forms closer. An alternative approach to these glosses has been to question their validity by taking into account that some of the place names glossed by Stephan of Byzantium allow an analysis based on Anatolian onomastics, which is clearly at odds with the etymological explanation of the Greek source. For example, in the case of ÉAlãbanda, Brandenstein (1936) observed that the word displayed the typical Anatolian suffix -anda, frequently used for place names, thus ruling out the segmentation ÉAlã-banda on which Stephan’s etymological explanation was based, and consequently the validity of his information. However, discrediting the information provided by Stephan is hardly reconcilable with the idea, expressed by Dorsi (1979:34), that these Carian glosses must all be considered as qualitatively important, since they may have borrowed from Carian writers of the Alexandrian era. This would imply that we are dealing with first-hand evidence, going back to authors on Carian topics who could be still fluent in Carian, and who are therefore extremely reliable sources. In my opinion, there is no implicit contradiction in accepting both the information provided by Stephan of Byzantium and the different interpretation of the place name from the perspective of Anatolian onomastics: a folk-etymological analysis of ÉAlã-banda as a compound of two authentic Carian names does not say anything about the actual origin of this Carian place name. In other words, even if we accept that Stephan’s etymological explanation of the place name ÉAlã-banda was probably flawed, this does not necessarily invalidate the information that êla means ‘horse’ and bãnda ‘victory’. A good example of this is to take just to one of the place names involved: Souãggela was later replaced by Yeãggela, undoubtedly by a process of folk-etymological hellenisation (yeÒw + êggelow). If someone had glossed this place name as “coming from yeÒw ‘god’, and êggelow ‘messenger’” and as meaning ‘messenger of God’ or similar, the information about these

10 In the Carian language of Thebes, the letter & d is not used, and if one accepts that Carian of Thebes mlane corresponds to Carian of elsewhere mdane, a sound change d > l could be imaginable.

12

chapter two

latter words would be correct, despite the fact that the place name was not created ex nihilo with this slightly absurd meaning, but rather was the result of an intricate process of deformation.11 A similar explanation could be acceptable for all the Carian glosses based on place names.12

B. The Proper Names 1. The Unity and Continuity of Anatolian Onomastics Before the decipherment of Carian writing, our only source of reliable information on the Carian language was (besides the scarce glosses analysed in the foregoing section) the onomastic corpus, essentially person and place names transmitted by indirect sources, particularly Greek ones. The most notable aspects of the Carian onomastics observed during the history of the research are shown here: (1) Carian onomastics is to a large extent inseparable from the onomastics of other minorasiatic regions that have also reached us through indirect sources. (2) These onomastics of Asia Minor in Greek transmission, which can be ascribed to a period that stretches from the middle of the first millennium B.C. to the first centuries A.D., turn out to be a clear continuation of the Hittite-Luwian onomastics of the second millennium B.C. (3) A great part of these onomastics, traceable from the beginning of the second millennium B.C. to the start of Christian Era, can clearly be linguistically interpreted as belonging to the Indo-European Anatolian group. We are dealing therefore with onomastics that are, linguistically speaking, Anatolian. (4) In any case, Carian proper names display certain characteristics that make them distinguishable from other Anatolian onomastics:

11 An intermediate phase Yuagg°l/a/ (ethnic Yuagg[°leuw] is also documented, see Hornblower (1992:99, n. 160). 12 For some etymological proposals (all rather provisional) formulated about Carian glosses, see Adiego (1993a:22). For ÉAlãbanda as ‘rich in horses’ (my suggestion, purely hypothetical), see Adiego (1993a:21).

the indirect sources

13

several name types, for instance those in -vllow, -vlliw, are typically Carian, and this singularity can be attributed to specific phonological and/or morphological traits of the Carian language. The unity of the Anatolian onomastics transmitted by Greek sources was established by Paul Kretschmer in chapter X (“Die kleinasiatische Sprachen”) of his Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Kretschmer 1896). Kretschmer believed that in these onomastics a Pre-Indo-European substratum common to all Asia Minor (with the exception of Phrygia) was recognizable, given that many concrete elements (lexemes as well as suffixes) appeared in different regions of the Anatolian Peninsula. The hypothesis of a single minorasiatic group sui generis (Kretschmer 1896:292) constituted in those days an innovation, because the earlier theories of other scholars (reviewed summarily in Kretschmer 1896:289– 292) had tried to establish different linguistic groups and attribute a different external kinship to each one (with Indo-European, Semitic or Caucasian languages). It is true that Kretschmer was wrong in classifying this sui generis group as non-Indo-European, but in his defense, we must bear in mind that the existence of an Indo-European Anatolian family was in those days difficult to imagine. But in fact, this negation of the Indo-European character of minorasiatic languages had a positive effect: it obliged scholars to adopt the combinatory method for analyzing Lycian (and later Lydian) inscriptions, and to discard more fragile etymological approaches. Moreover, Kretschmer’s seminal work already outlined some of the ideas—either new or systematized by him—that in the course of the 20th Century have become vital to the research on Anatolian: the identification of -ss- and -nd- as suffixes and their possible connection with Greek place names in -ss- and -nd-; the frequent appearance of the so-called Lallnamen (names whose structure seems to be characteristic of children’s language: CV, CVCV, VCV, etc., like Dada, Nana, Ada . . .); and the isolation of lexical items that enter in compounding or derivation, as pig-, imbr-, tarku- or -muhw, nowadays easily interpretable as IndoEuropean Anatolian stems. The approach begun by Kretschmer reached its peak in the monumental work of Johannes Sundwall devoted to Lycian indigenous names (Sundwall 1913). Sundwall tried to establish a systematic study of Lycian onomastics, isolating and grouping the different formative elements in the proper names. Although it contains mistaken readings and names that are clearly Greek incorrectly analyzed as indigenous, Sundwall’s

14

chapter two

book was a fundamental work in the history of the research on Anatolian onomastics. It was only to be superseded by the work of Ladislav Zgusta, who in two books of enormous significance produced an exhaustive collection of the Minor Asian person and place names of Classical sources (Zgusta 1964, 1984). When a connection could be established between these onomastics and those of Hittite and Luwian of the second millennium, it heralded a dramatic change of focus in the study of Minor Asian onomastics from Classical sources. Obviously, this step forward became possible only when these languages in Cuneiform writing were sufficiently understood. Friedrich (1931) had already drawn attention to the lexeme muwain Hittite and Luwian proper names, a lexeme identical to the element muwa- present in the indigenous names of the first millennium. The idea of a linguistic continuity between the second and first millennia that could be detected thorough the proper names was given further weight by new evidence in Goetze (1951), but the definitive work on this subject is the fundamental book of Houwink Ten Cate (1961), who demonstrated with a great number of examples that the Lycian names contained lexical elements of Anatolian origin. This theory came as no surprise, however; parallel to the study of onomastics, Lycian had been clearly established as a member of the Anatolian family, first in Pedersen (1945) and later by the work of Laroche, who demonstrated that Lycian was very similar to Luwian (Laroche 1958, 1960, 1968). More importantly, given the fact (already established by Kretschmer many years before, cf. above) that Anatolian onomastics in Classical sources showed a clear unity that suggested the existence of a linguistic group, the attribution of Lycian to the Indo-European Anatolian family together with Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic, made it very likely that the languages spoken in Cilicia, Isauria, Caria and in the other Minor Asian regions where this type of onomastics is well documented also belonged to this same Anatolian Indo-European group. In the case of Carian, this hypothesis constitutes one of the basic tenets of the proposals formulated by ”evoro“kin since his first works, and seems to be confirmed by the definitive decipherment of Carian. 2. Present Compilations of Carian and Anatolian Names Nowadays, we have at our disposal two complete and very up-to-date repertories of Carian place and person names respectively, both compiled by Wolfgang Blümel (Blümel 1992, 1998a). For the other Anatolian

the indirect sources

15

proper names from Classical sources, the books of Ladislav Zgusta (Zgusta KPN and the supplement Zgusta 1970 for the personal names, Zgusta KON for the place names) are still invaluable, although in the case of Lycian, there are now two updated repertories of personal names compiled respectively by Anne-Valerie Schweyer and Nicola Cau, which appeared after Zgusta’s works (Schweyer 2002:95–128, Cau 2003). It is to be hoped that these updates of Zgusta’s continue to appear, since not only do they incorporate new forms, but also offer revised forms and correct some mistakes, inevitable in works of such dimensions as Zgusta KPN and KON. For Anatolian onomastics of the second millennium, Laroche’s repertories remain indispensable: Laroche (LNH) for person names, and Laroche (TA1) and (TA2) for place names. 3. Carian Names from Indirect Sources vs. Those from Direct Sources A methodological problem arises when dealing with the Carian names found in indirect sources. In Adiego (1993a), these were analysed (although not exhaustively, looking only at the most significant aspects) dispensing totally with those Carian names directly attested in Carian inscriptions. The reasoning seemed be well founded at the time; the principal aim of the book was to defend a new decipherment of Carian wherein the use of Carian onomastics from indirect sources played a fundamental role, so it seemed preferable to avoid mixing forms directly obtained from the decipherment with indirect forms from Greek sources, which were the key to that decipherment (In Adiego 1993:26, n. 4, ”evoro“kin’s mixing of forms in his book of 1965 was severely criticized). Nowadays the situation is clearly different; this book is not conceived as a justification of a concrete proposal of decipherment, but is meant to offer as complete a picture as possible of our current knowledge of Carian, now that the new decipherment has been universally accepted. I therefore believe that all the data available from the indirect attestation of Carian names must be taken into account together with the Carian onomastics from direct sources. The study of Carian onomastics, both from indirect and direct sources, will consequently be dealt with in a specific section (Chapter 8). In Appendix C, a list of the Carian personal and place names, mostly based on the compilations published by Wolfgang Blümel (Blümel KarPN and KarON) is provided. The list is merely intended to offer a convenient compendium of Carian indirect onomastics: for the data corresponding to each name,

16

chapter two

the reader should turn to the articles written by Blümel. For extremely useful, updated accounts of the data obtainable using only the Carian names from indirect sources, without discussion of the direct documentation, I refer the reader to Neumann (1988) and, above all, Neumann (1994).

CHAPTER THREE

THE INSCRIPTIONS

A. Introduction The most direct and important sources of Carian language are obviously the inscriptions in Carian alphabet, although strangely the bulk of this epigraphic corpus does not come from Caria itself, but from various other locations in Egypt. The historical reasons for this curious circumstance have been covered in Chapter 1. Inscriptions on funerary stelae and other objects, mainly from Memphis and Sais, and graffiti found in other parts of Egypt are the result of this long presence of Carian-speakers in Egypt. About 170 inscriptions have been found in Egypt to date. All these texts are relatively short, given their typology (onomastic formulae in funerary texts—Carians were somewhat laconic when writing epitaphs—and brief graffiti).1 The epigraphic material found in Caria itself is far less abundant (approximately 30 inscriptions), but it includes several texts that are more extensive than those discovered in Egypt, particularly the following three: a decree from Kaunos whose precise terms are still unknown (C.Ka 2), the proxeny decree for two Athenian citizens written in Carian and Greek, also from Kaunos (C.Ka 5), and a decree enacted by the Carian satraps Idrieus and Ada, possibly concerning a syngeneia of the temple of the god Sinuri, near Mylasa (C.Si 2). To these three inscriptions now must be added the new inscriptions of Mylasa (C.My 1) and Hyllarima (C.Hy 1), the latter in fact a fragment that completes the inscription already known. Besides Egypt and Caria, we know of several other inscriptions found in the bordering regions of Lydia and Lycia, as well as in Greece. For convenience, I will classify the texts of Tralleis and of Krya (on the Gulf of Telmessos) as Carian, since we are dealing in both cases with areas very close to Caria. It is logical to assume that there was

1 On Carians in Egypt, see Masson (1969), Masson (1977[78]) and now Vittmann (2003:155–179).

18

chapter three

a linguistic continuity beyond the alleged political boundaries of Caria, and Carian was spoken in some border zones of Lydia and Lycia.2 For the same reason I classify as Carian the graffito from Didyma, near Milet, situated on the Carian border. 1. The Revised System of Transcription of Carian Letters Before dealing with the Carian corpus of inscriptions, it seems appropriate to present here the system of transcription of Carian letters that will be used throughout this book, since certain new conventions are introduced here. The phonological reasons behind the new transcription procedures for several signs will be dealt with in Chapter 7, and here I will limit myself to giving a brief justification of them. Although the bilingual of Kaunos has confirmed the overall ‘RaySchürr-Adiego’ system (see Chapter 4), and by extension the decipherment tables in Adiego (1993a), (1994a) remain essentially valid,3 I believe that this is a good opportunity to introduce slight modifications to the system. These will allow us to adjust the transcriptions of several letters more precisely to their actual phonological value, and to simplify other conventions in transcribing Carian signs. Moreover, since the publication of the works mentioned above, hypothetical sound values have been proposed for some formerly undeciphered letters, which will also be considered in the revised system presented here. 2. Vocalism The method of transcribing vowels used until now has been largely superseded by our improved understanding of the Carian vocalic system. In the case of i / j and u / v, a purely diacritical distinction

2 Tralleis was situated north of the River Maiander, which served as the traditional boundary between Lydia and Caria, but this boundary was undoubtedly permeable to contact between people, see Hornblower (1982:2). According to Strabo (XIV, 1, 42), Tralleis was inhabited by Lydians, Carians and Ionians, and the Carian flavour of the alternation -ll-/-ld- in Tralle›w vs. Tralde›w was already noted by Benveniste (apud Robert 1945:20, n. 2). As for the Krya inscription, it clearly belongs to the Kaunian alphabetic variety, which is congruent with the geographical proximity of the two places. 3 As a exception note only the Kaunian letters T t (vs. “ in the rest of the alphabets) and / “ (a specific Kaunian sign), whose value has been established from the bilingual (about these letters see here pp. 228–229).

the inscriptions

19

(“i”/“í”, “u”/“ú”) was employed in order to reflect the alternations detected between each pair of letters. At present, it seems clear that, at least originally, the alternation lay in a vowel vs. semivowel opposition, so that a transcription i / j, u / w would be more adequate. In the Carian alphabets of Caria itself, j and v were abandoned, and i and u took up their functions (cf. Kaunian u≤ol≤ vs. Carian of Egypt w≤ol≤ ). As for W and w, their character of ‘u-sounds’ led to a conventional and perhaps flawed transcription “ù” and “w”, respectively. The idea that these letters represent a /y/ sound, already proposed in Adiego, has been confirmed, at least in the case of W, thanks to the Kaunos bilingual (see p. 237). Therefore a transcription of W by means of y must be preferred. Consequently w, a letter that alternates with W, will be transcribed as ÿ. It is possible that w represented the semivowel corresponding to /y/, id est, /w/, but it is not absolutely certain, and moreover the transcription w could lead to confusion due to its formal resemblance to y (cf. the similar problem caused in Lydian transcription between n and v). The letter V/W is only documented in Sinuri, Kildara and Mylasa, where no traces of W are found. Assuming that a similar process of eliminating semivowel letters occurred, the simplest solution is to interpret V/W as the Sinuri-Kildara-Mylasa form for W = y, despite of the (apparently) more formal proximity of V/W to w than to W. For this reason, V/W will be transcribed by , in the same way that T, the Kaunian form of t = t, is transcribed simply by . 3. Consonantism The case of Kaunian T = t and / = “ has already been mentioned; given that there are no doubts about these values, and that these letters are simply the forms that t and f, respectively, adopted in the Kaunian alphabet, it is not necessary to resort to more complex transcriptions, such as t2—used by Marek-Frei in their works—or “2. The transcription of x X merits further consideration. In Ray, and in my early works, it was transcribed by h. A new transcription was introduced—suggested by Neumann—in my subsequent works: x, which has been commonly accepted. While this latter transcription is more consistent with the tectal and stop value of x X, discernable from the Carian-Egyptian equivalence ursxli- = 3rskr, a more in-depth analysis of Carian has allowed us to establish a more precise value for this

20

chapter three

letter, which cannot be a velar aspirated stop or a velar fricative, the kind of sounds that the transcription x would imply. Rather there is evidence that points to a palatal stop (see Chapter 7), hence the proposal that it should be transcribed as ∞, the grapheme used in IndoEuropean Linguistics for PIE voiceless palatal stop.4 The remaining consonants whose values are well known remain unchanged. Further modifications involve several letters of less certain value. In the case of 1 = z (instead of z), the reason is to avoid employing too many Greek letters in transcribing Carian. Insofar as z was not used at all, I think it reasonable to substitute it for z, although I recognize that z is a somewhat ambiguous letter and its IPA value is certainly not the same as 1 presumably had in Carian. However, I believe that this simplification is desirable, in the same way that there is a tendency to use x instead of x in transcribing Lycian. As for 0 and %, it is likely that they represent several types of tectal, but the evidence is inconclusive, and an exact value is impossible to determine. The possible identification ≤u0li- = Souaggela points to a *ng origin for 0, in parallel to & d < *nd and Ø b < *mb, so that a corresponding g transcription is adopted, although it is true that the option of was still available. Regarding %, the only clue we have is Schürr’s proposal to identify pr%idas with Bragx¤dai. Although he now seems to have abandoned this hypothesis, I still see it as an attractive idea that should not be ruled out. The purely conventional—and far from certain—transcription of <ã> is provisionally adopted here, although there is no strong supporting evidence. A rather different problem is posed by O, an exclusively Kaunian letter. In Adiego (2002) I offered arguments in favour of identifying it with the far more widespread c letter, absent in Kaunos (see here p. 252). In any case, I recognize that my arguments are not particularly strong, so I adopt, also cautiously, a transcription t2. To avoid confusion, I shall not attach a question mark to these rather uncertain values in transcribing Carian texts, but instead I will indicate such cases in the sign tables. The following table shows the new system of transcription of Carian used in this book:

4 A likely alternative was , which would coincide with the letter used in IPA for this type of sound. However, this is a very ambiguous letter in Indo-European studies, so a more precise letter like ∞ seems preferable to me.

the inscriptions

21

Nº (Masson)

Letters

Transcription

1(+8) 3 4 5(+41) 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24(+2) 25 26(+8) 27 28 29+30 31 32 33(+34) 35(+36) 37 38 39 _ 40(+23?) 42 43–44–45 46

a A ~ À (E) dDG l WùVW rR s2L qQ b5B mM o tT f F S/ _ s H uU ñ xX nN p p (¯) zZ IíÎÏyìYI ee w kK & vÚ 0 8? 199 % jT 1 c C / O? 6 Ø ® 4 B &? b? ÿ

a d l y r l

q b m o t “ s ? u ñ ∞ n p ≤ i e

ÿ k d

w g

z ã j ? t / t2?

®

b b2?

Note finally two conventions also used throughout this book. Dagger (†) indicates a transcription of a word or letter by means of a different system of decipherment. Double-dagger (‡) is used to mark an old reading of a word or letter now discarded. A combination of both signs (†‡) serves to signal both the use of a superseded deciphering system and an erroneous reading.

22

chapter three B. ‘Para-Carian’ or ‘Caroide’ Inscriptions

A serious problem is caused by a heterogeneous body of inscriptions, whose only common characteristic is the use of writing systems that have, or seem to have, certain similarities with the Carian alphabet, but which cannot be definitively classified as Carian inscriptions. A detailed analysis of this material cannot be provided here, so I merely intend to establish the problem in precise terms and to enumerate thecorpus of these inscriptions regularly referred to as “para-Carian” or “caroide”. For years, the temptation has existed to attribute any inscription from Asia Minor written in an unknown or barely recognizable alphabet to Carian. In a sort of obscurum per obscurius, such materials were classed as Carian at a time when the Carian alphabet itself remained un-deciphered. Today, we have a better understanding of the Carian alphabet (letter values, geographical variants, a complete inventory of signs) and we can reject the theory that these materials are Carian (canonical Carian, at least). 1. “Para-Carian” Inscriptions from Caria The “para-Carian” or “caroide” inscriptions discovered in the Carian area can be separated geographically in five groups: (1) Khalketor, (2) Ancin (south of Alabanda), (3) Labraunda, (4) Stratonikeia (a single inscription), (5) Aphrodisias (also a single text). Groups 2–4 are in factrock graffiti that are practically impossible to read. From the existing editions of the inscriptions, nothing can be acceptably identified as Carian. The cases of Khalketor and Aphrodisias are different; in Khalketor, at least one of the two inscriptions discovered is clearly readable. But this simply allows us to state that the alphabet of Khalketor has nothing to do with the Carian writing system. Concerning the language of texts from Khalketor, all attempts to interpret them using our limited knowledge of Carian have proved fruitless. In recent years the theory has been suggested that we are in fact dealing with much more recent inscriptions, perhaps written in Turkish. Finally, the Aphrodisias inscription consists of eight letters (the last one incomplete) and does not pose problems of reading. Some letters resemble Carian ones, but others are totally alien to the Carian alphabet. As a matter of fact, we cannot discard the possibility that this inscription actually represents the Carian alphabetic variety of Aphrodisias,

the inscriptions

23

but in this case, we ought to accept that this variety was extremely uncharacteristic. Since further Carian epigraphic testimonies from Aphrodisias are lacking, this text (which is also uninterpretable) will be excluded from our corpus. These texts had been included in the successive inventories of Carian inscriptions: Ancin = D 5, Labraunda = D 17 (recent edition: Meier-Brügger 1983), Estratonicea = 26* (Hanfmann-Masson 1967); Chalketor = D 4 and 27* (Neumann 1969a; revised in Blümel 1988); for the Aphrodisias text, see Innocente (1994:107–108 [text nº 7]). Blümel (1998:168) mentions the existence of several other inscriptions in Chalketor’s alphabet. The ‘Turkish approach’ has been suggested by Hasan Malay to Blümel, see Blümel (1998: 169). I have some doubts about the true Carian character of the two identical inscriptions from Keramos (here C.Ke 1, C.Ke 2), but I retain them, though in a provisory way, in the corpus insofar as all the letters that appear there can be analysed as Carian. The so-called ‘tegola de Iasos’, an inscription consisting of eight signs published by Lucia Innocente (Innocente 2002) could be Carian, but, as Innocente herself observes, the very few letters that can be identified are not unequivocally Carian, and no valuable results can be obtained. Therefore, I exclude it from the present corpus. For similar reasons I exclude from the corpus the alleged Carian inscription from Labraunda, recently published by Belli and Gusmani (Belli-Gusmani 2001). According to Gusmani, the inscription reads (a) e E 2 e s m (b) M U.. While part (a) has a Carian flavour, the co-occurrence of e and 2 would be very strange. Also, a form such as E is rather puzzling. As for (b), as Gusmani rightly observes (Belli-Gusmani 2001:41), a form M instead of the typical Carian form s for s is surprising. As for the alleged Carian fragment from Kaunos 51*, consisting of only two letters c a (see Frei-Marek 2000:125–126), I consider it as non-Carian: the letter c is totally absent from the Kaunian alphabetic inventory, and the form of a is very different from the all the variants attested for this letter in the Carian alphabets.

2. ‘Para-Carian’ Inscriptions from Other Places The rest of the ‘para-Carian’ or ‘Caroide’ inscriptions come from other locations: from the islands of Cos and Rhodes, possibly part of the Carian linguistic area; from the neighbouring countries Lydia and Lycia; from Egypt, and also from Persia. Even some texts of unknown origin have been arbitrarily interpreted as “Carian”. None of these texts can be included in a strict corpus of Carian inscriptions, but given their presence in former collections (particularly in Meier-Brügger 1983), I will include them here, accompanied by a brief note:

24

chapter three

• Inscription from the area of Telmessos (Lycia; 36* = Meier-Brügger 1981). It seems to be related to the Chalketor corpus, but its authenticity is not absolutely conclusive. • Inscriptions of Belevi (Ephesos, Lydia; 24* = Dressler 1966–67). Three inscriptions on stone fragments. Some letters seem distinctly Carian, whilst others are clearly alien to the Carian alphabet. • Inscription of Persia (32* = Pugliese Carratelli 1974[77]). An inscription on a bronze bowl, whose only alleged Carian trait is a sign, &, which recalls an identical Mylasean letter now known thanks to the new inscription C.My 1, and also, although more remotely, the typical Carian letter &. However, the presence of letters alien to the Carian signs inventory (P, K, Z) invalidates their classfication as Carian. • Tablets Peiser-Böhl-von Grotthus (23*). A group of three tablets, the first two edited by Böhl (1932/33), the third by Friedrich (1965), and carefully analyzed by Meriggi (1966). The exact origin of the tablets is unknown, as is their dating, but they have traditionally been attributed to Cappadocia. This means that the labelling of their writing system as ‘para-Carian’ is based merely on the alleged graphic similarities between this system and the Carian alphabet. Such similarities are indeed clear. It is particularly striking that several typical—and in some cases exclusive—Carian letters such as p, z, k, v, j seem to appear. But there are also Greek letters alien to the Carian alphabet (for instance K), and a number of signs that cannot be compared either to the Carian or to the Greek alphabet. The main difficulty in interpreting these three tablets lies in many cases in the impossibility of distinguishing between which signs are actually different, and which are mere variants. For example, the third tablet (Friedrich 1965), contains several types of r pointing in different directions and with slight modifications of shape, and it is impossible to know whether we are dealing with the same sign in all instances. As an indication of these difficulties, it is worth considering that whereas Friedrich identifies 217 different signs in this tablet, Meriggi reduces this number to 61, and Nahm (1974) further still to 34 (although in this latter case, Nahm applies somewhat unconvincing criteria). As a result, it is hard to ascertain whether the graphic system is alphabetic, syllabic, of a mixture of both. Furthermore, we are unaware of the language in which the tablets are written. All these problems make these texts undecipherable, and the Carian specialist must limit himself to

the inscriptions

25

noting the rather surprising graphic affinities between the Peiser-Böhlvon Grotthus tablets and the Carian alphabet. Only a significant increase of the documentation available would allow us to move forward in their study. The only effort at decipherment of which I am aware is that of Nahm, regarding the third tablet (Nahm 1974). After reducing the inventory of different signs as far as possible (cf. above), he transcribes with Greek letters those signs that show a certain similarity to them. His observations on several recurrent sequences are of some interest, but they are conditioned by the somewhat questionable attempt to decrease the total number of signs.

• Graffito of Cos (29* = Metzger 1973). A graffito inscribed on an amphora coming from the island of Cos. In this case, doubts arise from the almost complete illegibility of the inscription. ”evoro“kin (apud Metzger 1973:77) and Metzger claim to recognize some Carian letters such as j, v, or i, but a complete reading of the text is unfeasible. • Graffito of Ialysos (Rhodes) (Innocente 1994:101–104 [text nº 1]). Innocente has defended the inclusion of this four-letter graffito, formerly considered to be Lycian, in the Carian corpus. It is true that all the letters of the graffiti could be Carian, but none of the possible readings of this brief inscription offers compelling results (← u“tu, uatu, even utku /→ ut“u, utku) • “Poetto’s two para-Carian inscriptions”. Innocente (1994:108–109 [texts nº 8 and 9]) includes in her collection of supposed Carian ‘monstrosities’ two texts whose existence has been noted by Massimo Poetto: a cylindrical seal of unknown origin and extremely old possible dating (1000 B.C.!), and an object classified among the “Griechische geometrische Gemmen”, also of unidentified provenance. Each inscription contains only a few signs, and their attribution to Carian is based only on the possible resemblance of some letters to those of the Carian alphabet. Consequently, I believe that it is preferable to exclude them from the Carian corpus. • The “Oxford Para-Carian Inscription”, a tablet from Sardis first published by Sayce, and recently re-published with excellent photography by Innocente (Innocente 1995). The situation is similar to the preceding para-Carian texts: whilst some letters essentially resemble certain Carian signs, others are completely alien to known Carian repertoires (for example the three-straight sigma), and no linguistic interpretation is possible.

26

chapter three

• The most extreme case of resorting to Carian script as a panacea, is the attempt of to classify as Carian a number of masons’ marks found in very different locations. Gosline (1992) proposed a Carian origin for the masons’ marks discovered in Elephantine (Egypt); in another paper, the same author proposes the same origin for the masons’ marks of Pasagardae (Persia) (Gosline 1998). This line of argument has also been taken up by Franklin (2001) in order to explain masons’ marks found in North Israel (Samaria and Megiddo), dated to as far back as the IX century B.C. More recently, Avishur and Heltzer devoted a brief article to connecting these latter examples from Israel with the biblical references to the kàrì (AvishurHeltzer 2003). Although it remains possible that Carian masons were responsible for some of these marks (in the case of North Israel, however, I would think it unlikely),5 a careful observation of the collections of marks does not throw up compelling evidence of a connection with Carian: where the letters that can be easily identified are not specifically Carian (for example, an inconsequential letter such as a), the links proposed with distinctively Carian letters (w, j) are extremely tenuous. 3. The Ostrakon of Hou and the Naukratis Fragment None of the para-Carian or Caroide texts mentioned above comes from Egypt. In fact, the only examples of para-Carian inscriptions found in Egypt until now are the so-called Carian Ostrakon of Hou (Diospolis Parva), and the inscribed fragment of a piece of pottery known as the Naukratis fragment. The Ostrakon was discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1899. Sayce (apud Petrie 1901) considered it to be “Kaunian”, and later re-edited it himself as a Carian inscription (Sayce 1905). Masson and Yoyotte excluded the text from their edition of “pharaonic objects”, but some years later, Masson published it as a truly Carian text (Masson 1967). This view, however, seems to be too optimistic: once again, as in the para-Carian

5 Possible mentions of Carians in Biblical sources are, according to Hornblower, “an inviting but nebulous topic” (Hornblower 1982:16, n. 82). Avishur-Heltzer (2003) does not add any new evidence for these alleged references, and employs dangereously circular reasoning: the kàrì of the Bible are Carians precisely because the masons’ marks show Carian letters (!).

the inscriptions

27

texts mentioned above, a few resemblances to Carian letters are found alongside clearly non-Carian letters, and none of the sequences of letters offers the slightest possibility of a connection with known Carian words and sequences. It is rather surprising that Masson, generally sceptical about the acceptance of other documents as Carian (compare for instance his exclusion of the scarabaeum inscription, E.xx 5, much more likely to be Carian, Masson 1959b) defended the addition of this text to the Carian corpus (Masson 1967, a view repeated in Masson 1969:32). I include here Masson’s drawing of the ostrakon:

Ostrakon of Hou (Masson 1967)

The text inscribed on a piece of pottery (the ‘Naukratis fragment’), also found by Flinders Petrie, consists of only three letters, whose Carian character is unverifiable, and must therefore be excluded from a seriously conceived repertory of Carian texts. See Masson-Yoyotte (1956: 14–15) for further remarks. 4. Carian Grafitti from Sardis The Carian graffiti found in Sardis deserve closer attention. The Carian character of these texts, edited by Gusmani (1975) is in my opinion beyond doubt, since they contain some of the most typical Carian letters, such as p, z or %. However, the scarcity of the inscriptions, their highly fragmentary nature, and the serious difficulties encountered when analyzing and interpreting the texts (the direction of reading and the exact identification of the letters remain unclear in most cases) mean

28

chapter three

that we must exclude them, at least provisionally, from the current Carian corpus. A good indication of the uniqueness of and the difficulties presented by the graffiti from Sardis can be seen in the longest example: the joining made by Gusmani (1990) of two fragments (C I 1 and C I 5 in Gusmani 1975):

Sardis C I 1 + C I 5 (Gusmani 1990)

At first sight, many typical Carian signs can be easily recognized: v w w ÿ, p p, j j, z ≤, i i, etc., so that the attribution to Carian is incontestable. The first difficulties arise when one tries to establish the orientation of the reading. For example, the second line offers contradictory evidence: there are two m, oppositely oriented (m M). Even a reversal of the text cannot be rejected, due to the form of a. Nearly every possibility of reading direction implies a different interpretation of the letters (for instance B = b, but u = u). A further complication is that some letters are not easily identifiable: Z in the third line could simply be a variant of L l, but it could also be interpreted as a form of z; the letter 8 in the left part of the second line resembles a letter only documented in the alphabetic variant of Kaunos, a trait that seems suspicious. Similar problems of identification are found in other graffiti: a letter E appears at least three times. Are we dealing, then, with an ancient form of e e (note the alternative form e in Hyllarima and Mylasa) or rather with a quadrangular variant of i? But the main problem with this and the other Sardis graffiti is that none of the different possible readings yields a sequence that can be compared to the rest of the Carian documentation. The possible connections are far from conclusive, and only can be based on a handful of signs. For example, in C I 2, ]-?-mzto [, transcribed as ]-?-m≤to [, a possible ending of a name in genitive -m≤ could be identified,

the inscriptions

29

but the brevity of the fragment makes this interpretation simply an ad hoc one. In conclusion, the presence of the Carian alphabet in Sardis is undeniable, and this may have interesting implications for the chronology and spread of Carian writing, but from a linguistic point of view, the scarcity of these materials renders them useless. 5. Carian Inscription from Old Smyrna A similar problem to that of the graffiti from Sardis is posed by an inscription from Old Smyrna, the photography and drawing of which was published by Jeffery (1964, nº 23). It contains clearly Carian letters (note &, e and perhaps also p, f), but it is impossible to obtain a comprehensive and satisfactory reading of the inscription given the ambiguity of many of the signs, which can be interpreted in very different ways, and the impossibility of establishing the exact direction of the writing.6 One of the most significant features of this inscription is its possible age: the object is dated at the end of the 7th century (so it would be more or less contemporary with Carian graffiti from Abu Simbel). There are no reasons to suggest that the inscription should be dated much later than the object: the alleged palaeographical reasons put forward by Jeffery are untenable from a Carian perspective (Adiego, 1993a:86).

Old Smyrna ( Jeffery 1964)

6 Schürr (2001c) offers a very hypothetical interpretation of the text: em-?-l / salpde/ . . . ubrod bore“. No clear connection with the Carian corpus can be established for any of these sequences.

30

chapter three C. The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt

The epigraphic materials from Egypt (about 170 inscriptions, to which 50 new and still unedited inscriptions found by ”evoro“kin must be added, cf. below) are the most important part of the direct documentation of Carian. From a typological point of view, a differentiation can be made between funerary and votive inscriptions on the one hand, and graffiti on the other. The first group has been the best source for deciphering Carian, mainly due to the relative lack of reading problems, the regularity of the graphic system used, and the excellent editions of the inscriptions that subsequently appeared. The scenario presented by the graffiti is quite different. In contrast to the high degree of standardization of the alphabet used in the votive and funerary inscriptions, the graffiti show a markedly less careful use of writing, as a result of the spontaneity involved in their execution. This problem is further complicated by the lack of modern and reliable editions of the main body of graffiti. Of the graffiti already known since the times of Sayce, only the graffiti of Abu Simbel and Buhen have been revised and edited with a sufficient degree of reliability to be used without significant reservations. The rest of the documentation is still pending new collations, which in some cases will become unfeasible due to the likely destruction of the graffiti. The typological classification outlined above can easily be linked to geographical distribution: the funerary and votive inscriptions come from Memphis and Sais, whereas the graffiti have been found in various locations further to the south. The historical reason for this is clear; the graffiti are present because of the temporary presence of Carian visitors, particularly during the military campaigns, while the funerary and votive monuments exist due to the settlement of Carian people in cities like Memphis or Sais. When considering the dating of the Egyptian corpus, it is essential to mention the important work of Kammerzell on the Memphis Corpus. It had been assumed that this corpus should be dated after the settlement of Carians in Memphis by order of Amasis, i.e. around the middle of the VI century (Amasis is believed to have ruled Egypt between 570 and 526 B.C.).7 But Kammerzell, after carefully analyzing the typol-

7

Masson (1978:6–7), Martin-Nicholls apud Masson (1978).

the inscriptions

31

ogy of the funerary stelae, has established that some of these inscriptions can be assigned earlier dates. It is true that not all of the methodological procedures used by Kammerzell in order to determine the chronology of Caromemphite stelae are similarly convincing, but at least in the case of E.Me 7, wherein the same person is mentioned in both the Carian and the Egyptian parts, a dating before 570 seems very probable. A more speculative suggestion is his identification of the name pikre- of the stela E.Me 3, as corresponding to the Pigres (P¤grhw) mentioned in Polyaenus’ Stratagemata (7, 3). This figure was referred to as an adviser of Psammetichus I in the early years of his reign, so this stela should be dated approximately between 660 and 620 B.C. But it is very dubious to base, as Kammerzell does, the chronological attribution of E.Me 3 and typologically similar stelae only on this indemonstrable personal identification.8 Until now, the oldest Carian inscription from Egypt is the base of a statue of the goddess Isis, which can be dated to the second half of VII century thanks to the presence of a cartouche displaying the name of the pharaoh Psammetichus I. This document is therefore chronologically very close to the arrival of Carian and Ionian mercenaries in Egypt and their subsequent settlement in the Eastern Delta (Masson 1969:35–36, 1977[78]:335). As for the rest of the Carian documentation from Egypt, a precise dating can be given only to the graffiti from Abu-Simbel (E.AS); there is no doubt that these graffiti were inscribed in the course of the great Nubian campaign ordered by Psammetichus II and conducted by Potasimto, as is particularly evident in a long Greek graffito, where mention is made of this historical context. This campaign has commonly been dated in 591 B.C., but Ray (1982:85) suggests revising this chronology slightly, to situate the event in 593/92 B.C. The Buhen (E.Bu), Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS) and Murwàw (E.Mu) graffiti are also likely to date from the same period. The inscription on a bronze lion “de provenance égyptienne” (E.xx.7) is dated by Masson (1976) at around 500 B.C., given the Achaemenid artistic influence visible in the figure of the lion. For the remaining inscriptions (mainly graffiti plus some texts found inscribed on various objects), there is no certain dating. Only in the case of the graffiti from Abydos do we have some idea: Masson has

8

See the same criticism in Masson (1995:176).

32

chapter three

suggested that they may be contemporary with the oldest Greek graffiti from the same location, so that they can be dated around the end of the V century. 1. Sais (E.Sa) The sub-corpus of Sais is currently constituted by two bronze votive objects, included in Masson-Yoyotte (1956). Both texts are bilingual and have proved fundamental to the deciphering of Carian.

E.Sa 1 (= MY L)

E.Sa 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

“arkbiom: zidks mdane: ÿn-[?] mo | den: tumn (Egyptian text: Jtm ntr ‘3 dj ‘n¢ snb ”3rkbym) Inscription on a reliquary for mummified reptiles. The only problematic letter is the last letter of the first line. ”evoro“kin’s attempt to complete ÿn[s]mo (see ”evoro“kin 1965:119–120) is only based on the comparison with ÿnsmsos in E.AS 3 (cf. also E.Mu 1). Masson-Yoyotte (1956) mention two extremely divergent proposals made by Wild and Raphäel after examining the original (K k vs. 1 z, respectively!), and leave the letter without interpretation. The photography in MassonYoyotte is in this case unusable. The Carian inscription is accompanied by an Egyptian formula, “Atum the great god may give life and health to ”3rkbym”. The non-Egyptian, and presumably Carian, character of the name ”3rkbym was already noted by Sayce (1905:124), see Masson-Yoyotte (1956:52). Also correct are the observations in Masson-

the inscriptions

33

Yoyotte (1956:52) regarding the vocalisation o of ºym, based on its spelling using the Egyptian word for ‘sea’ ( ym = *yòm cf. Coptic eiom), and about the possibility that the name would be *Sarkebivmow in a Greek transcription (the form is not yet documented, but a form Kebivmow has appeared in the meantime). Surprisingly, though, none of this evidence encouraged Masson and Yoyotte to attempt to find this name in the Carian text, and the name was not identified there until Kowalski (1975). Photograph and drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:53, pl. VI).

E.Sa 2 (= MY M)

E.Sa 2

pdnejt qÿri≤ ∞i Inscription found on the base of a statuette of the Goddess Neith. For this text in scriptio continua, I adopt the division suggested by MeierBrügger (1979a:81–82), contra Masson (1978) and Meier-Brügger (1979b). In the Egyptian texts that accompany the Carian inscriptions, a P3-djNjt son of K3rr is mentioned.9 These two names clearly correspond to the pdnejt son of qÿri- in the Carian part. The use of the biliteral sign k3 for a syllable /ku/ or sim. (= Carian qÿº) has been correctly identified by Vittmann, see Vittmann (1996). The presence of a cartouche with the name of Psammetichus I allows us to date the object to the times of this Saite pharaoh (663–609 B.C.), which would mean that this is the oldest datable inscription of the Carian corpus from Egypt. Photograph and drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:63, pl. VIII).

9 Other names belonging to the genealogy of the dead are also mentioned. About these forms and the possible genealogical tree of P3-dj-Njt, see Masson-Yoyotte (1956:61).

34

chapter three

2. Memphis (E.Me) The inscriptions published in Masson (1978) and those of Memphite origin included in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) are grouped together under this label. This corpus has been crucial for the decipherment of Carian. The excellent quality and preservation of a great number of stelae, the fact that they appear on monuments, which implies a very standardized use of writing, the geographical and chronological consistency of the corpus, and the fact that it includes some bilingual texts (E.Me 5, E.Me 7, E.Me 8, E.Me 9, E.Me 15) make this sub-corpus the most important direct documentation of Carian. To this sub-corpus, we must add the so-called stela of Abusir (Masson 1978:91, Kammerzell 1993:138–139), although we need also to consider that its reading is very difficult. Very recently, Diether Schürr has tried to improve the reading of this inscription (Schürr 2003), and his efforts will be taken into account here. Finally, I also include the fragment 180* from Kammerzell (1993) (here E.Me 66), although it is a largely unusable document. Generally, I adopt the readings given in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) and Masson (1978). The differences, concerning certain details of reading and, above all, the order in which some texts must be read, will be duly indicated.

E.Me 1 (= MY A)

E.Me 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← ttbazi[≤] | p. iub[a]Ωi≤ | aor[≤]

the inscriptions

35

Inscription on a false-door stela. Reading according to Schürr (1996), the main difference being the interpretation of the first letter of the second name: Masson’s reading was l l, which must be discarded. Photograph: Masson (1953: pl. XII). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:2–3).

E.Me 2 (= MY B)

E.Me 2 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← uksmu | lkor≤ | mrsi≤ False-door stela. Unproblematic reading Photograph: Masson (1953: pl. XIII). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:3, 5).

36

chapter three

E.Me 3 (= MY D)

E.Me 3

← pikre≤ ue “arwljat≤ msnord≤ The fifth letter of the second line is not in fact k k, but an inverted form of l l, given the clear onomastic identification (“ar)wljat = Uliatow. For the penultimate letter of the second line, I adopt the reading d d instead of Masson i i, according to Schürr (2001b:103), who follows on from a new direct reading of ”evoro“kin: cf. also E.Me 48. Close observation of the photograph in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) supports the new reading. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IX). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:10), Kammerzell (1993:146).

the inscriptions

37

E.Me 4 (= MY E)

E.Me 4 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← terÿez≤ | upe | nuol∞. [—]sarmrol∞yt The reading of the text after the second division mark is very doubtful, and the photography in Masson-Yoyotte is not a great help. The ending in t -t is unexpected. Could it simply be a z? Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. I). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:19).

38

chapter three

E.Me 5 (= MY F)

E.Me 5 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← psm“kwneit≤ | ue | naria≤ | ≤ugliq | sarl? The inscription, published in Masson-Yoyotte (1956), was re-edited in Masson (1978). Despite this new edition, many doubts remain about the reading of the second, third, and final word. Particularly troublesome is the last letter: I adopt Schürr’s reading, l l (the photography points to l rather than to À). The first word must not be divided in two, contra Masson. Bilingual stela. In the Egyptian part, the name of the dead figure is mentioned: Psmtk-‘wj-Njt, son of W3˙-jb-r‘-[. . . .]. The first name corresponds clearly to psm“kwneit-, but there is no connection between the Carian and Egytian patronyms. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. II). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:21, 25), Masson (1978:92).

the inscriptions

39

E.Me 6 (= MY G)

E.Me 6 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

← triqo: parma≤≤ ∞i klorul ∞i There are no problems of reading. The stela also contains an inscription in Egyptian, but the Egyptian names (P3-dj-st, and his mother T3-dj(t)-wsir) do not correspond to the Carian ones. Therefore, either the stela seems to have been reused, or we must accept a double denomination—Egyptian and Carian—at least in the case of the deceased (the second name could be the father’s name in the Carian text). Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956, pl. III). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:28, 30).

40

chapter three

E.Me 7 (= MY H)

E.Me 7

← tamou tanai≤ qarsio[-?] Curved stela with images and hieroghlyphical inscriptions. The reading adopted here is taken from Schürr (2001b:118). The controversial point is the last letter: in Masson-Yoyotte (1956), it was read as o o, but in later works, Masson preferred the reading z ≤ (see for instance the index of words in Masson 1978). The photography points clearly to o, and the most likely explanation is that the word is incomplete, since the stone is broken just after this letter. The break in the text is not particularly big, so only one letter, or at the most, two, have been lost. Given the typical structure of Carian onomastic formulae, an integration qarsio[≤] would be a good solution, but I prefer to leave the question open. The stela provides an Egyptian inscription that also mentions the dead man T3j-Óp-jm=w son of T3[. . .]. The correspondence to the Carian text is evident: tamou, son of tanai. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IVa). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:33).

E.Me 8 (= MY K)

E.Me 8a

E.Me 8b

the inscriptions

41

→ a. paraeym: armon ∞i b. para!eym: sb polo Inscription on a bronze Apis. The fourth letter b, E, has always been a source of difficulty, due to the clear alternation with a (paraeWm / parEeWm). It has even been considered an independent sign (Masson nº 10), and the alternation a / E has received varying explanations. In my opinion, the simplest solution is to interpret E as an a, its strange form perhaps being the result of a spelling error and subsequent correction.10 The Apis also contains an Egyptian inscription: Ó3py dj ‘n¢ Prjm p3w˙m “Apis may give life to Prjm the dragoman”. The non-Egyptian name, Prjm, is logically the transcription of the Carian name Paraeym mentioned twice in the Carian section. For the problems posed by the Egyptian word p3w˙m, apparently translated in Carian as armon, see Chapter 11, s. v. armon. Photographs: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: Pl. Va, Pl. VIa). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: 43, 48).

E.Me 9 (= M 1)

E.Me 9 (Masson 1978) 10 Stephen Durnford (pers. comm. to C. Melchert) has suggested an excellent and very likely explanation for E as a spelling error: the scribe mistakenly wrote e right after r, omitting a. He then immediately noticed his error and repaired it by simply turning e into a by adding the horizontal bar (E).

42

chapter three

← arli“≤: upe: arlio[m≤] ∞i: yjas[i≤] The reading proposed here is an attempt to improve Masson’s edition. I read the penultimate letter of the first line as i i, instead of Masson’s j j, according to the photography. As for the integration of the second line, both arlio[m≤] and yjas[ i≤] are forms documented in other Saqqâra inscriptions. The space for integration seems to be adequate, and from a syntactic point of view, one expects two genitives in -≤ (arli“-≤ . . . arliom-≤ . . . yjasi-≤ ). The inscription is bilingual. The Egyptian part contains the names Jr“(3) son of Jrym3, two non-Egyptian names that are undoubtedly the adaptation of arli“- and arliom-, respectively. Photographs: Masson (1978, pl. I, 1; II, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:20, pl. XXXI, 1).

E.Me 10 (= M 2)

E.Me 10 (Masson 1978)

← [—]q. årm≤: q[—]≤ ∞i: p∂uüi≤ mno≤ [mw]don≤ ∞[i —]w≤ord≤ ∞i New reading following the work of Schürr (2002:169, n. 9 [but note ibid. the error u≤ord for w≤ord !]). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. I, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:21, pl. XXXI, 2).

the inscriptions

43

E.Me 11 (= M 3)

E.Me 11 (Masson 1978)

→ (a) wår[—]t[——]i[—]≤ | mdaÿn (b) [—15—]a[–]i≤ | mdaÿn The stela represents a man and a woman. According to Masson, the drawing included in his edition and reproduced here is too optimistic with regard to the reading of some signs, so it is preferable to make a very prudent reading. This would mean that only the respective final words of each line, in both cases mdaÿn, and the existence of a preceding form in -≤—also in both lines—are definite. For the iconographical importance of this stela, see Martin-Nicholls apud Masson (1978:61–70). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. II, 2, I II). Drawings: Masson (1978:22, pl. XXXII).

44

chapter three

E.Me 12 (= M 4)

E.Me 12 (Masson 1978)

→ pjabrm | w≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i kbjom≤ | m[no≤] In the stela, the prothesis of a woman is represented, which indicates a female character for the name pjabrm. The possible integration of the last word was suggested by Kammerzell (1993:213). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IV, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:23, pl. XXXIII, 1).

the inscriptions

45

E.Me 13 (= M 5)

E.Me 13 (Masson 1978)

→ “dtat≤ | upa | w | wet≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i As in E.M 13, here the prothesis of a woman is represented. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. V, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:24, pl. XXXIII, 2).

chapter three

46 E.Me 14 (= M 6)

E.Me 14 (Masson 1978)

→ irow | pikarm≤ | mwdon!≤ The surprising form of the last word, mvdoUZ mwdou≤ [sic], instead of the usual mvdoNz mwdon≤, was convincingly argued by Masson as a simple case of an incomplete sign U u for N n. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. V, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:24, pl. XXXIV, 2).

the inscriptions

47

E.Me 15 (= M 7)

E.Me 15 (Masson 1978)

← arli“≤ urs∞le≤ kidbsi≤ (Egyptian text: Jr“(3) s3 n 3rskr s3 J‘˙(?)[. . .) Bilingual inscription. The Egyptian part was interpreted by Martin and Nicholls (apud Masson 1978:86) as Jr“(3) s3 Nrskr s3 J‘˙(?)[. . . “’Jresh(a) son of Nerseker son of Ja˙(?)-. . .”. While the correspondence of each first name poses no problems ( Jr“(3) = arli“, as in E.Me 9), the divergences between Nrskr ~ urs∞le- have been debated at length. The correct solution was formulated by Kammerzell (1993:12), who discarded Martin-Nicholls’s analysis and argued persuasively in favour of an interpretation, Jr“(3) s3 n 3rskr s3 J‘˙- ‘‘Jr“(3) son of 3rskr son of J‘˙(?)-. . .”. This solution is far more suitable for the second name in the Carian part, and is now the commonly accepted interpretation. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VI). Drawings: Masson (1978:25, pl. XXXV, 1).

48

chapter three

E.Me 16 (= M 8)

E.Me 16 (Masson 1978)

← irow | p. ikra≤ ∞i semw≤ | mno≤ mwdon≤ ∞i No reading problems, with the exception of the initial letter of the second word, for which Masson’s intepretation, p, seems to be the best solution. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:26, pl. XXXV, 2).

E.Me 17 (= M 9)

E.Me 17 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

49

← “arnai≤ upe | quq≤ bem≤ ∞i mdaÿn No reading problems. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VII, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:27, pl. XXXV, 3).

E.Me 18 (= M 10)

E.Me 18 (Masson 1978)

← (a) ta“ubt≤ kuari≤bar | ≤en niqau≤ ptnupi (b) idmuon≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i

50

chapter three

The two parts have been inscribed by different hands. Whilst neither section poses problems of reading, the overall structure of the text remains obscure. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:28, pl. XXXV, 4).

E.Me 19 (= M 11)

E.Me 19

← pnu≤ol zmu≤ ∞i Curved stela (‘stèle cintrée’). No problems of reading. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. VIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:29).

the inscriptions E.Me 20 (= M 12)

E.Me 20

← uqsi | “rwli≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i False-door stela. Unproblematic reading. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IX, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:29).

E.Me 21 (= M 13)

E.Me 21 (Masson 1978)

51

52

chapter three

← punw≤ol≤: somne≤ qÿblsi≤ ∞i False-door stela. No reading problems. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. IX, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:30, pl- XXXVI, 1).

E.Me 22 (= M 14)

E.Me 22

← artay≤: upe: [. . . False-door stela. In the damaged part there is sufficient space for a complete onomastic formula. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. X, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:30).

E.Me 23 (= M 15)

E.Me 23

the inscriptions

53

→ ap[—]ws a[rb]ikarm≤ ∞i False-door stela. The integration of the second word was proposed by Kammerzell (1993:214), who also claimed to have identified a former inscription under the current one. Nevertheless, his reading of this previous text does not lead to any connection with the rest of the Carian materials: (a)?p[. . .]ws # --]b[-]aubm[-]. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. X, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:31).

E.Me 24 (= M 16)

E.Me 24

→ tdu≤ol kbos | “amsqi[. . .? False-door stela. The crack in the stone makes it impossible to establish whether the last word is complete. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:31).

54

chapter three

E.Me 25 (= M 17)

E.Me 25

← “ayriq | parpeym≤ ∞i yiasi False-door stela. The order of reading adopted here is different to that used by Masson (who began from yiasi ), and is the same as in Kammerzell (1993:214). Contra Masson and Kammerzell, I believe that there is no text after yiasi. It is true that the stone is damaged, but the existing part shows evidence enough to assume that yiasi is a complete word and that the text finishes here. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:32).

the inscriptions

55

E.Me 26 (= M 18)

E.Me 26

← [. . .]u≤ | upe sa | triel≤ | mrsi≤ False-door stela. Kammerzell completes the first word as [arm]u≤, but he does not propose any argument for this integration.11 In any case, the space preceding u≤ is small, so it is likely that only two or three letters have disappeared. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:32).

11 The inscription appears marked with an asterisk (*) in the transliteration appendix (Kammerzell 1993:214), which means that he controlled the text, but if he was able to recognize any letter before ]u≤, one would expect it to be marked as a doubtful reading, rather than using [ ].

56

chapter three

E.Me 27 (= M 19)

E.Me 27

← irow≤: psHÿm[-]≤ pttu≤: mno≤ False-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:33).

E.Me 28 (= M 20)

E.Me 28 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

57

← sanuq≤ | ue | pntmun≤ ∞i mwdon≤ ∞i False-door stela. Unproblematic. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:33, pl. XXXVI 2).

E.Me 29 (= M 21)

E.Me 29

← s[—]et≤ | [ue] | ynemori≤ | mwdon≤ False-door stela. The second word is definitely ue (already suggested by Masson 1978). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:34).

58

chapter three

E.Me 30 (= M 22)

E.Me 30

← “aru≤ol pleq≤ ∞i: ≤ugli≤ False-door stela. Unproblematic. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:34).

E.Me 31 (= M 23)

E.Me 31

the inscriptions

59

← wnuti≤ | kwar≤ mHm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ [∞]i False-door stela. The integration of the last word, already proposed by Masson, is suitable. For the second sequence, I adopt the segmentation kwar≤ mHm≤ suggested by Schürr (apud Vittmann 2001:48, n. 40). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:35).

E.Me 32 (= M 24)

E.Me 32

← iturow≤ | kbjom≤ | ∞i en | mw[d]on≤ ∞i False-door stela. Unproblematic. The integration of mw[d ]on≤ is clear. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:35).

60

chapter three

E.Me 33 (= M 25)

E.Me 33

← (a) idmns | myre≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i (b) idmns | myre≤ ∞i False-door stela. As Masson (1978) observes, both (a) and (b)—in fact a partial copy of (a)—seem to have been written by the same hand. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:36).

E.Me 34 (= M 26)

E.Me 34 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

61

← me®≤ | somne≤ | t®∞ata[r]≤ False-door stela. The integration of the last word, proposed by Masson, is based on the occurence of the same word in complete form in E.Me 41. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVI, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:36, pl. XXXVI, 3).

E.Me 35 (= M 27)

E.Me 35

← ntokris | dw≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i False-door stela. The current solution to the uncertainty regarding the fourth letter of the first word (a form of l l or an inverted K k?, see Masson 1978:37) is to favour the last option, which facilitates a very good onomastic identification (ntokris = Nitokris, a well known Egyptian female name, see Chapter 11, s. v.). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:37).

62

chapter three

E.Me 36 (= M 28)

E.Me 36

← wksmu≤ | wpe | lkor≤ ∞j → qarpsi≤ False-door stela. This order of reading was already adopted in Adiego 1993a—see also Kammerzell 1993—and differs from Masson’s (he read qarpsis as the first word). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:37).

E.Me 37 (= M 29)

E.Me 37

the inscriptions

63

← qlali≤ | [. . .] tkrabi≤ False-door stela. It is not possible to calculate the extent of the letters lost after qlali≤ (see Masson 1978:38). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:38).

E.Me 38 (= M 30)

E.Me 38

← “ÿin≤ | upe | arie?≤ ∞i ted False-door stela. This reading was made by ”evoro“kin, who has controlled the original. It differs from Masson’s interpretation in identifying e (with doubts) in arie ?≤ and, particularly, in the interpretation of the antepenultimate letter, a clear t t, not o o as indicated by Masson. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVIII, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:39).

64

chapter three

E.Me 39 (= M 31)

E.Me 39

← [. . .]s? | ar∞ila≤ mno≤ False-door stela. Different reading order (cf. also Kammerzell 1993:215): Masson’s reading began at mno≤. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XVIII, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:39).

E.Me 40 (= M 32)

E.Me 40

the inscriptions

65

→ plqo | pikrm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i False-door stela. The sign l of the second word is actually a k inverted (= /k/) (already noted in Adiego 1993a). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIX, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:40).

E.Me 41 (= M 33)

E.Me 41

→ |? or≤ | wpe | qdar®ou≤ | t®∞atar≤ False-door stela. The initial vertical small stroke and the brevity of the first name, or≤, perplexed Masson, who thought that, ‘pour des raisons obscures, le lapicide n’ait jamais gravé le début du premier mot.’ In fact, it seems to me most likely that the stoke is an accidental and intrusive mark. In any case, contrary to Masson, I see no problem in accepting the existence of a name or-≤ in Carian. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XIX, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:40).

66

chapter three

E.Me 42 (= M 34)

E.Me 42 (Masson 1978)

← (1) arjom≤: ue: mwsat≤: ∞i: mwdon≤: ∞i (2) tbridbd≤: ∞i False-door stela. Very clear reading (‘belle stèle intacte’, Masson 1978:41). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:41, pl. XXXVI, 4).

E.Me 43 (= M 35)

E.Me 43

the inscriptions

67

← (a) lÿ∞si≤ | upe | “rquq≤ ∞i | ksolb≤ (b) arliom≤ | mno≤ ∞i False-door stela. Different reading order (already in Adiego 1993a, Kammerzell 1993): Masson read firstly (b), then (a). The reading of the initial letter of the third word of (a) is also different: f “ instead of Masson’s a “. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:41).

E.Me 44 (= M 36)

E.Me 44 (Masson 1978)

← (a) apmen “rquq≤ kojol ∞i (b) mwton≤ ∞i False-door stela. Reading order different from Masson’s (already in Adiego 1993a, Kammerzell 1993): f “ instead of a a at the beginning of the second word of (a). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XX,I 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:42, pl. XXXVII, 1).

68

chapter three

E.Me 45 (= M 37)

E.Me 45

→ [q?]lalis [?]iam≤ ∞i alos ∞arnos False-door stela. The integration of the initial letter of the first word is already in Kammerzell (1993), from the parallel form qlali≤ in E.Me 37. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:43).

E.Me 46 (= M 38)

E.Me 46

the inscriptions

69

← (a) ÿasd≤ | yi≤{∞}biks≤ ∞i (b) mwdon≤ ∞i False-door stela. Different reading order (Adiego 1993a, Kammerzell 1993). Masson’s reading began with (b). Masson (1978) reads a sign X ∞ between ≤ and b in the second word of (a). A careful observation of the photography shows that this alleged sign appears placed between ≤ and b without keeping distance with them, unlike the other letters of the inscription. As Schürr (1996b:151) aleady pointed out, this ∞ seems to be ‘eine Illusion’, and I have therefore decided to discard it. As for the final sequence of this word, I maintain that the reading generally accepted until now, yi≤biks∞i≤ (see Masson’s drawing in the bottom part of the illustration), must be replaced by a more natural ÿi≤biks≤ ∞i (cf. ÿ≤biks in C.xx 2): in fact, the three later letters can be read beginning at ≤. Photographs: Masson (1978, pl. XXII, 1, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:43).

E.Me 47 (= M 39)

E.Me 47 (Masson 1978)

← tqtes | paraibrel≤ ∞i | mn[o-?] With this inscription, a series of texts on different objects and fragments begins (E.Me 47–64). In this case, it is a limestone plaque whose use is unclear (Masson 1978:43). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:43, pl. XXXVII, 2).

70

chapter three

E.Me 48 (= M 40)

E.Me 48 (Masson 1978)

← [—] j[-]≤ [-]owt≤ ∞i: msnord≤ Note our reading of d d instead of i i in the final word, cf. above, E.Me 3. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 2). Drawings: Masson (1978:44, pl. XXXVII, 3).

E.Me 49 (= M 41)

E.Me 49 (Masson 1978)

the inscriptions

71

→ loubaw | si← ral | pnld≤wl Possibly an oblong stela that has been reused. A very strange inscription, without clear connections with the rest of the Memphis corpus. Moreover, the reading is very difficult and therefore not absolutely certain. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIII, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:45).

E.Me 50 (= M 42)

E.Me 50 (Masson 1978)

← (a) “enurt (b) p∞simt≤ ∞i Also likely to be a reused oblong stela. No problems of reading. Drawings: Masson (1978:46, pl. XXXVI, 4).

E.Me 51 (= M 43)

E.Me 51 (Masson 1978)

72

chapter three

← arli“≤ | psikro≤ [? ue Upper fragment of a curved stela (‘stèle cintrée’). The reading offered here is new: in my opinion, the last sign of the second word is clearly z /≤/, and not N /n/ (see plate xxiv in Masson 1978). As for ue, which appears just below arli“≤, it is possible that it must be read immediately after this latter word (arli““´ue | psikro≤ ), which would represent a more logical structure (ue, upe, etc. always appear in a second position). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 1). Drawings: Masson (1978:46, XXXVII, 5).

E.Me 52 (= M 44)

E.Me 52

← [. . .] ardybyr≤ | md[. . .] Upper fragment of a false-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:46).

the inscriptions E.Me 53 (= M 45)

E.Me 53

← [. . .]q≤si≤ Fragment of a false-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXIV, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).

E.Me 54 (= M 45a)

E.Me 54

← [. . .] mrsj[. . .] Fragment of a false-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).

73

74

chapter three

E.Me 55 (= M 46)

E.Me 55

← [. . .] psma[≤/“k . . .] The integration proposed here is based on the identification of the beginning of the typical Egyptian name, Psammetichus. Given that this name can appear in Carian spelled either with “ or ≤, I choose not to discard either possibility. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:47).

E.Me 56 (= M 47)

E.Me 56

← [. . .] “ark[bi/jom . . .?] Fragment of a false-door stela. I follow the suggestion of Meier-Brügger (1979b) and Ray (1982b: 189) of reading f “ instead of i i (Masson 1978) at the beginning.

the inscriptions

75

The integration is based on the form “arkbiom, which appears in other inscriptions. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXV, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

E.Me 57 (= M 47a)

E.Me 57

← [. . .]i≤ ∞i Fragment of a false-door stela. Clear ending in genitive + particle ∞i. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

E.Me 58 (= M 47b)

E.Me 58

← [. . .]s≤ ∞i Undetermined fragment. A typical ending in genitive + particle ∞i, as in E.Me 57. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 2). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

76

chapter three

E.Me 59 (= M 48)

E.Me 59

← [. . .]utr[. . .] Fragment of a false-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

E.Me 60 (= M 48a)

E.Me 60

→ (?) [. . .]∞≤ Fragment of a false-door stela. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 1). Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

the inscriptions E.Me 61 (= M 48b)

E.Me 61 (Masson 1978)

[. . .]i Undetermined fragment. Drawing: Masson (1978:48).

E.Me 62 (= M 48c)

E.Me 62 (Masson 1978)

[. . .]≤[. . .] Undetermined fragment. Drawing: Masson (1978:49).

E.Me 63 (= M 48d)

E.Me 63

← (a) idyes≤ (b) m [?

77

chapter three

78

Fragment of a false-door stela. Although Masson indicates the presence of a M m, he does not transcribe it in his edition of the text. I follow Kammerzell (1993) in including the letter in the transcription. Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXVI, 3). Drawing: Masson (1978:49).

E.Me 64 (= M 49)

E.Me 64 (Masson 1978)

← (a) [. . . u?]p. e : pd[ (b) [. . .]mi [. . .] Fragment of a curved stela. I concur with Kammerzell (1993:217) in the interpretation of the first word. Drawing: Masson (1978:49).

E.Me 65 (= Stela of Abusir)

E.Me 65 (Schürr 2003)

← u[. . .]m | punm[-]≤ | mudo[n]≤ See Schürr (2003) for a new attempt at reading this extremely difficult inscription. I adopt his reading (with the integration of [n] in mudo[-]≤) and reproduce his drawing (Schürr 2003:94). Former references: Masson (1978:91), who was the first to confirm the Carian character of the

the inscriptions

79

inscription, already suggested by L. H. Jeffery: Kammerzell (1993: 138–139). Photograph: Masson (1978, pl. XXX). Drawings: Masson (1978:91), Kammerzell (1993:138), Schürr (2003:94).

E.Me 66 (= Kammerzell *180) —].[. . u][. . .]p[-]n[— Concerning this inscription on a fragment of stela, conserved in the British Museum, see Kammerzell (1993:144, n. 101). To my knowledge, neither the photography nor the drawing have yet been published, so I limit myself to follow Kammerzell’s reading. 3. Abydos (E.Ab) The Carian inscriptions from Abydos were found and copied for the first time by Archibald H. Sayce, who published them in his most important work on Carian (Sayce 1887[1892]). He discovered them in the temples of Ramses II and, more significantly, Seti I. Regrettably, there is not a definitive edition of the Abydos graffiti. Jean Yoyotte seemed to have revised these graffiti and even to have found some others in 1955–1956, but his work has never been published. In his index of Carian words, Masson (1978) pointed out that he had adopted, “insofar as it was possible”, Yoyotte’s revision, and added the most important unpublished graffiti found by Yoyotte. MeierBrügger (1979b) followed Masson in his collection of Carian inscriptions in transcription. ”evoro“kin also (1965) used Yoyotte’s new readings. My attempts to obtain more information on this sub-corpus from Jean Yoyotte were unsuccessful. As a result, our present knowledge of the Carian graffiti of Abydos is unsatisfactory. Neither Masson (1978) nor Meier-Brügger (1979b) offer any additional information on the readings adopted for each graffiti, so that in cases where Masson’s readings are not coincident with those made by Sayce (Sayce 1887[92] followed by Friedrich 1932), it is impossible to ascertain whether this is due to the revisions of Yoyotte, or it is simply a new interpretation of Sayce’s copies based on mere divinatio. However, thanks to ”evoro“kin (1965) and to some notices scattered throughout the works of Masson, it is possible to establish in a great number of cases that the text is in fact the result of Yoyotte’s collation.

80

chapter three

As for the unpublished graffiti, Masson and Meier-Brügger take into account, as already established, only the most important examples: they offer only 8 from a total of at least 34. Moreover, given that both authors limit themselves to transcribing the texts, nothing can be said about the graphic traits of these inscriptions. The only exception is E.Ab 43 (= Ab. 34 Y)—in fact an already known graffito—published in Murray (1904: 10 and pl. XII) and included in ”evoro“kin (1965) (= 24 ”), though absent in the editions of Sayce and Friedrich. Confusion with the Abydos graffiti is even augmented by the fact that Bork (1930) re-ordered Sayce’s list of inscriptions, putting together under the same reference number those inscriptions that he believed had the same content. This decision was not only disputable from an epigraphical point of view, but was in fact revealed as altogether erroneous, since in some cases Bork grouped together texts which were not strictly identical. This explains the posterior use of redundant reference numbers like “2a”, “2b” in works by Friedrich or Masson. In the new number system introduced here, I prefer to assign each inscription a different number, even in the case of inscriptions that seem to have the same content. Given the lack of an up-to-date edition, I adopt in general terms Masson’s readings, but in some cases I also include new attempts at improving these readings, mainly from Schürr (in various papers) and Vittmann (2001). Since the Abydos graffiti pose such problems, in the following sections, I will comment briefly upon each inscription and will explain the reading adopted here. For want of a better solution, I shall limit myself to reproducing Sayce’s drawings,12 although in some cases the present readings may not coincide.

E.Ab 1 (= Ab. 1 F = Sayce 1887[92] 1)

E.Ab 1 (Friedrich 1932)

12 For technical reasons, the source of my illustrations will be Friedrich (1932), where Sayce’s drawings are reproduced.

the inscriptions

81

← pisiri Revised by Yoyotte (Masson 1974:131). There are no reading problems.

E.Ab 2 (= Ab. 2a F = Sayce 1887[92] 2)

E.Ab 2 (Friedrich 1932)

← panejt iarja≤ Expressly mentioned as revised in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:13, 63). Masson’s reading is adopted, but with different segmentation (the first name is clearly an Egyptian one whose final element is -nejt).

E.Ab 3 (= Ab. 2b F = Sayce 1887[92] 3)

E.Ab 3 (Friedrich 1932)

→ ptn“e | ibarsi≤ Revised by Yoyotte, according to Masson-Yoyotte (1956:63). For the second name, I follow Schürr’s proposal of reading ibarsi≤, not ‡irarsi≤ (Masson).

E.Ab 4 (= Ab. 3b F = Sayce 1887[92] 24)

E.Ab 4 (Friedrich 1932)

82

chapter three

← “amow ltari≤ Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson-Yoyotte 1956:39). Masson’s reading is adopted, but with different segmentation (Masson’s reading would indicate ‡“amowl tari≤.

E.Ab 5 (= Ab. 3c F = Sayce 1887[92] 25)

E.Ab 5 (Friedrich 1932)

← “amow ltari[≤] Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson-Yoyotte 1956:39). Masson groups Ab. 3b F and Ab. 3c F under a single epigraph, “Ab 3bc F”. This procedure, debatable even if the content were exactly the same, is inappropriate here, as the second word appears complete in the case of E.Ab 4 = Ab 3b F, but incomplete in E.Ab 5 = Ab. 3c F (ltari[≤]). On segmentation, see above E.Ab 4.

E.Ab 6 (= Ab. 4 F = Sayce 1887[92] 5)

E.Ab 6 (Friedrich 1932)

← “aru≤ol | ÿrsbe | pdubi≤ Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson 1978:34).

the inscriptions

83

E.Ab 7 (= Ab 5a F = Sayce 1887[92] 6)

E.Ab 7 (Friedrich 1932)

← plat | pals≤

E.Ab 8 (= Ab 5b F = Sayce 1887[92] 9)

E.Ab 8 (Friedrich 1932)

← plat pals≤

E.Ab 9 (= Ab 5c F = Sayce 1887[92] 10)

E.Ab 9 (Friedrich 1932)

← plat pals≤ E.Ab 7, 8 and 9 do not pose reading problems. The three inscriptions are grouped together by Masson.

84

chapter three

E.Ab 10 = (Ab. 6 F = Sayce 1887[92] 7)

E.Ab 10 (Friedrich 1932)

← piubez qurbo≤ Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:9), this inscription formed by two personal names still raises serious reading problems. Masson’s reading (1978) distances the first name from the very similar example found in E.Ab 15. Schürr’s reading seems preferable (Schürr 2000:172, n. 7), because it allows us to connect this name with the second name in E.Me 1 and with the name mentioned in E.Ab 15 (although we cannot establish an absolutely certain link). Regarding the second name, although in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:9) the reading ‡≤urbo≤ is preferred (thus also ”evoro“kin 1965), in Masson (1978), Sayce’s reading qurbo≤ is restored.

E.Ab 11 (= excluded by Masson [Ab 7 F = Sayce 1887[92] 8])

E.Ab 11 (Friedrich 1932)

← ≤? [. . .]it Since the letters are apparently Carian, I reintroduce this very fragmentary inscription to the corpus, even though it is of no use to us.

the inscriptions

85

E.Ab 12 (= Ab. 8a F = Sayce 1887[92] 11)

E.Ab 12 (Friedrich 1932)

← untri uantrpo

E.Ab 13 (= Ab. 8b F = Sayce 1887[92] 20)

E.Ab 13 (Friedrich 1932)

← untri | uantrpu≤

E.Ab 14 = Ab. 9 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 12)

E.Ab 14 (Friedrich 1932)

← abrq∞[. . .? Regarding E.Ab 12, 13 and 14, I am unsure as to whether Masson’s readings are the result of a revision of the texts. Lacking a better reading, I adopt Masson’s.

E.Ab 15 = Ab. 10 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 13)

E.Ab 15 (Friedrich 1932)

86

chapter three

← pdubez or≤ Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:13). The reading in Masson (1978) is not the same as in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:13): ‡pdubtzor≤ vs. ‡pdubtzt r≤ (with r≤ as a part of a different graffito!) respectively. I adopt the reading proposed by Schürr and Vittmann (see Vittmann 2001:42).

E.Ab 16 = Ab. 11 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 14)

E.Ab 16 (Friedrich 1932)

← nprosn≤ Revised? In any case, it does not pose reading problems.

E.Ab 17 = Ab. 12 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 15)

E.Ab 17 (Friedrich 1932)

← pa[-]in[-]t≤ Revised? I follow Masson (1978)

E.Ab 18 = Ab. 13a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 16)

E.Ab 18 (Friedrich 1932)

← tamosi | inut≤

the inscriptions

87

E.Ab 19 = Ab. 13b F (= Sayce 1887[92] 17)

E.Ab 19 (Friedrich 1932)

← tamosi utnu≤

E.Ab 20 = Ab. 14 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 18)

E.Ab 20 (Friedrich 1932)

← ninut | tamosi≤

E.Ab 21 = Excluded by Masson [Ab. 15 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 19)]

E.Ab 21 (Friedrich 1932)

← to[-]a[—] l tamosi u?tnu≤? These four graffiti seem to coincide in that they contain the same personal name. Rather surprisingly, in Masson’s list, this name is read as trmosi- in E.Ab 18, E.Ab 19, and as tamosi- in E.Ab 20, while E.Ab 21 is excluded. These readings were adopted in Adiego (1993a). It is quite possible—although I cannot confirm it—that this discrepancy has arisen because only E.Ab 20 was revised by Yoyotte.13

13

Vittmann (2001:43) mentions Yoyotte’s collation of E.Ab 20.

chapter three

88

Vittmann (2001:43) has correctly noted this incongruity, and has offered a convincing reading of tamosi- everywhere, a view that is supported here.14 More problematic, and still unresolved, are the respective readings of the names that accompany tamosi- in the four inscriptions. They look very similar, but it is not easy to imagine a complete identity for all the forms. In the case of E.Ab 20, I continue to work with ”evoro“kin’s suggestion of reading ninut instead of ‡∞inut. For the other names found in the remaining graffiti, Masson’s readings are adopted. I include Ab 15 F, excluded by Masson for reasons that remain unknown for me.

E.Ab 22 = Excluded by Masson [Ab. 16 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 21])

E.Ab 22 (Friedrich 1932)

← [-]untlau[-]| This brief graffito is very difficult to read, but it seems to show true Carian letters. For this reason, I include it in the list (as ”evoro“kin did: ”evoro“kin (1965), 34 ”).

E.Ab 23 = Ab. 17 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 22)

E.Ab 23 (Friedrich 1932)

← be≤ol

14

A theory already envisaged by Ray, see Ray (1994:205).

the inscriptions

89

E.Ab 24 = Ab. 18 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 23)

E.Ab 24 (Friedrich 1932)

← [. . .] arli“ Revised by Yoyotte (cf. Masson 1978:51). This revision identifies the well-known Carian name arli“ (contrary to Sayce’s reading, ‡araii ).

E.Ab 25 = Ab. 19 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 26)

E.Ab 25 (Friedrich 1932)

← ttubazi kattÿri≤ Revised by Yoyotte (Masson-Yoyotte 1956:4, 33). According to MassonYoyotte (1956:33), the sign for t here adopts the form C, as in E.Me 7. The segmentation adopted here differs from that of Masson and is based on Schürr’s works.

E.Ab 26 = Ab. 20 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 27)

E.Ab 26 (Friedrich 1932)

← [. . .]pri | ptnuq?i? Masson (1978:28) points out that this graffito was not rediscovered by Yoyotte in 1956. Note that in Adiego (1993a) the end of the (incomplete) first word was transcribed incorrectly as †]pre, instead of ]pri (a

90

chapter three

mistake noted by Vittmann 2001:44). Here I adopt one of the two interesting corrections proposed by Vittmann for the second word (Vittmann 2001:44).15

E.Ab 27 = Ab. 21 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 28)

E.Ab 27 (Friedrich 1932)

← yysmt≤oHa[ Divergences between Sayce’s and Masson’s readings lead me to think that the graffito was revised by Yoyotte, but I cannot confirm this. I follow Masson’s reading. Note that the drawing is based on Sayce/ Friedrich editions.

E.Ab 28 = Ab. 22 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 29)

E.Ab 28 (Friedrich 1932)

← Hosurz | srton[-]t[. . .?] (or: → . . . +t[-]nota/rs | za/rusoH/l? Schürr) In Masson-Yoyotte (1956:68) this graffito is referred to as “not rediscovered”. Indeed, the reading adopted by Masson seems to be based on Sayce’s drawing. I maintain Masson’s reading, but I also consider as a plausible alternative the suggestions made in Schürr (1996a:65) that the text could be read in the opposite direction and that the letter H could in fact be L = l (a possibility to be ruled out if Masson’s reading is upheld, since it is very unlikely that Carian L l would appear at the beginning of a word). 15 The other possibility suggested by Vittmann is ptnuti. Both readings allow us to identify good correspondences with Egyptian personal names (see Chapter 11, s. v. ptnuq?i ).

the inscriptions

91

E.Ab 29 = Ab. 24 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 31)

E.Ab 29 (Friedrich 1932)

← [. . .]r[--]tnit Graffito consisting of only five signs. The readings given by Sayce and Masson coincide.

E.Ab 30 = Ab. 25 F (= Sayce 1874 5+6 = Sayce 1887[92] 32)

E.Ab 30 (Friedrich 1932)

← bid≤lemsa: “a[ru]≤ol: “aÿdiq≤ [. . .]allia: bsis I am unaware of whether it has been revised. In any case, Sayce’s reading is generally followed by Masson, who only improves the reading of the second word in order to obtain a well-known Carian name (fa[ru]zoL = “ar[u≤]ol).

E.Ab 31 = Ab. 26a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 33)

E.Ab 31 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞aye

92

chapter three

E.Ab 32 = Ab. 26b F (= Sayce 1887[92] 34)

E.Ab 32 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞arr≤

E.Ab 33 = Ab. 27 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 35)

E.Ab 33 (Friedrich 1932)

← “arpt≤ | p[-]lu≤ For E.Ab 31–33 I follow Masson’s readings.

E.Ab 34 = Excluded by Masson [= Ab. 28 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 36)

E.Ab 34 (Friedrich 1932)

← dbkrm [-]kb?[ Despite the difficulties of interpretation, Schürr has been able to identify a good Carian sequence, dbkrmº (Schürr 1996b:154, n. 8; see Chapter 11, s. v.). For this reason I have decided to reinstate this graffito to the Abydos sub-corpus.

the inscriptions

93

E.Ab 35 = Ab. 29 F (= Sayce 1874 4 = 1887[92] 37)

E.Ab 35 (Friedrich 1932)

← u≤ol | mi∞≤≤ kdu.usi≤ For this graffito, I adopt the reading proposed by Schürr (2001b:108, 111), apparently based on the collations of Yoyotte and ”evoro“kin. E.Ab 36—E. Ab 43: “inédits de Yoyotte”, unpublished new graffiti found by Yoyotte in 1955–1956. I include only those transcribed by Masson (1978). As mentioned above, E.Ab 43 = Ab. 34 Y is not strictly an unpublished graffito: a drawing of it appeared in Murray (1904), and it is also included in ”evoro“kin (1965) (= 24 ”). E.Ab 36 = Ab. 8 Y [-]ars, ∞[-]urb≤ E.Ab 37 = Ab. 9 Y “arur≤ E.Ab 38 = Ab. 15 Y piew E.Ab 39 = Ab. 26 Y uarila[-]os≤ E.Ab 40 = Ab. 27 Y ialli | q∞blio≤ E.Ab 41 = Ab. 28 Y ttbazi kt?tri≤ I follow Schürr’s reading (see Schürr 1996a:60). E.Ab 42 = Ab. 29 Y “aru≤[. . ?

94

chapter three

E.Ab 43 = Ab 34 Y = Murray (1904)

E.Ab 43 (Murray 1904)

?-ras Although Murray’s drawing points clearly to an initial k k (by extension, kras), Masson’s reading leaves the sign unread. Graffiti excluded from our collection: Ab. 3a F (= Sayce 1887[92] 4), also excluded by Masson.16 It seems to begin with “am[, which explains how Bork could link it to E.Ab 4 and E.Ab 5. Ab. 23 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 30), also excluded by Masson and by ”evoro“kin. Apparently it has not been revised since Sayce (MassonYoyotte 1956:46: ‘non retrouvé par J. Yoyotte; Masson 1974:131 n. 43: “non revisé”). The graffito could possibly be Greek. Ab. 30 F (= Sayce 1887[92] 38), also excluded by Masson. It is an almost illegible graffito, which cannot even be definitely identified as Carian. The drawings made by Sayce are reproduced below:

Ab 3a F (Friedrich 1932)

Ab 23 F (Friedrich 1932)

16

”evoro“kin (1965:313–314) unifies Ab 3a, b, c under a sole entry (20 ”).

the inscriptions

95

Ab 30 F (Friedrich 1932)

4. Thebes, Tomb of Montuemhat (E.Th) The case of the corpus of Carian inscriptions found in Thebes (tomb of Montuemhat) is even worse than that of Abydos: the corpus has never been published correctly. Leclant, the first to find fifteen graffiti engraved on the walls of the open court of the tomb, never produced an edition of them, instead publishing only the photographs of two graffiti (E.Th 13 and E.Th 14, Leclant (1951, tab. LXIV). ”evoro“kin included in his book on Carian (”evoro“kin 1965) a merely provisional edition, with drawings of these graffiti. This edition forms the basis of Masson’s transcriptions (in Masson 1978, reproduced in Meier-Brügger 1979b), although Masson aknowledges that these were improved thanks to the photographs and notes of Leclant that he had at his disposal. On the other hand, some years later, ”evoro“kin himself revised Leclant’s graffiti and discovered some new examples, although these have not been published either, and the new graffiti are circulated only in private copies. In the Carian conference held in Rome in 1993, Masson announced a new enterprise in order to adequately publish the Theban corpus (cf. Masson 1994a), but I do not know if this enterprise is in fact underway. More recently, Diether Schürr, who was able to gain access to the entire dossier of drawings, has drawn up a provisional corpus of Theban graffiti in transcription, which he has kindly made known to me. This corpus consists of four parts: (A) inscriptions found in the entrance of the temple. I already knew of the drawings of these texts thanks to a private copy made by ”evoro“kin and circulated among scholars; (B) inscriptions found at the end of the corridor; (C) graffiti located in the vestibule, the drawings of which I have never seen, and from which I knew only certain texts, occasionally cited by ”evoro“kin in recent articles; and (D) graffiti from the open court, in fact already mentioned in Leclant’s corpus (with some additions). I choose to adopt Masson’s readings for (D) (Leclant’s graffiti), introducing some corrections suggested by ”evoro“kin in published or unpublished works, and I include the drawings published in ”evoro“kin (1965). For (A), I provide the transcription, following Schürr and controlling ”evoro“kin’s drawings, but I refrain from reproducing the drawings,

96

chapter three

since they are as yet unpublished; my aim is merely to contribute to their use in linguistic research, not to actually produce an epigraphical edition, which must be made by ”evoro“kin himself. For (B) and (C), I limit myself to reproducing Schürr’s transcriptions, adapting them to the decipherment system followed in this study. According to standard practice within the Carian corpus, I begin my numeration of the inscriptions with the first to be published (Schürr D), which are then followed by the remaining inscriptions (A, B, C). E.Th 1 = 47 ” (= D 1)

E.Th 1 (”evoro“kin 1965)

← uarbe E.Th 2 = 48 ” (= D 3)

E.Th 2 (”evoro“kin 1965)

← dtÿbr | kbokt≤ k≤atÿbr E.Th 3 = 49 ” (= D 2)

E.Th 3 (”evoro“kin 1965)

pla?t

the inscriptions

97

E.Th 4 = 50 ” (= D 5)

E.Th 4 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ dokmmpint seqqejewsk | mqtjq ← ÿpdnmwd The second line was usually read in the opposite direction. The new reading was suggested by Schürr. I am somewhat sceptical about the last sign, now read & d, a letter rarely found in Thebes (in fact, it only appears in one other graffito, still unpublished and whose drawing I have not seen; E. Th 14, see below). Former readings pointed rather to B b (cf. ”evoro“kin’s drawing here reproduced). The reading of the letters preceding qt jq at the end of the first line probably comes from a new collation of the graffito, the old drawing showing a lacuna and some illegible signs. E.Th 5 = 51 ” (= D 6)

E.Th 5 (”evoro“kin 1965)

← dÿbr | t®∞atr≤ The second word, which posed serious problems in ”evoro“kin (1965), was re-read in a new collation by ”evoro“kin as t®∞atr≤, undoubtedly using the model of the form t®∞atar≤ that appears twice in Saqqâra (”evoro“kin, “Corrections to Existing Copies”, ms.). Schürr, however, does not rule out a reading of l l instead of ®.

chapter three

98 E.Th 6 = 52 ” (= D 7)

E.Th 6 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ bebnd The last letter, d, does not appear in the old drawing by ”evoro“kin and was thus absent in older collections of Carian inscriptions (for instance, Adiego 1993a, where the reading bebn was given). E.Th 7 = 53 ” (= D 10)

E.Th 7 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ wljat The doubts about the second and fourth letters, reflected in the drawing, can be dismissed due to the clear onomastic connection of the word (→ wljat). E.Th 8 = 54 ” (= D 11)

E.Th 8 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ qutbe

the inscriptions

99

E.Th 9 = 55 ” (= D12)

E.Th 9 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ kudtubr The initial letter is now read as k k. E.Th 10 = 56 ” (= D 8)

E.Th 10 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ a?q≤baq ewm ≤emot qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudk≤o mlane The most difficult letter to determine is the first one: read k by ”evoro“kin (1965) and in the Masson/Meier-Brügger collections. In Adiego (1993a), a reading w was introduced, based on ”evoro“kin’s observations. Schürr now reads it as a?. For the rest of the letters, the present reading differs very little from that offered in Adiego (1993a). Only a letter b immediately after owdown is not read by Schürr. E.Th 11 = 57 ” + 58 ” (= D 12)

(”evoro“kin 1965, 57 ”)

chapter three

100

E.Th 11 (”evoro“kin 1965, 58 ”)

→ psma≤[k] [? | nm[ mplat | o[ Schürr’s dossier puts these two lines together, formerly interpreted as different graffiti. The clearest element is the presence of the name psma≤k. E.Th 12 = 59 ” (= D 13)

E.Th 12 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ ?-˚bjqmq ewmlane qeb≤t | u[. . .]ü≤q | qwsal | mqabaewleqo“oski. oms This reading coincides almost exactly with that presented in Adiego (1993a), where some corrections from the work of ”evoro“kin had already been introduced. The sole difference introduced by Schürr’s reading involves the final sequence kioms, formerly read as ‡lkoms.

the inscriptions

101

E.Th 13 = 60 ” (= D 14)

E.Th 13 (”evoro“kin 1965)

→ dbiks | kbjoms | wdwn | sb a≤b≤t ← ewm The reading corresponds precisely to that offered in Adiego (1993a). Note that ”evoro“kin’s drawing shows sbb? instead of sba in the fourth word. This latter, corrected reading was introduced by ”evoro“kin himself after revising the inscription (“Corrections to Existing Copies”, ms.), and was already reflected in Adiego (1993a). E.Th 14 (= D 4) ]q[. . .]btdeo This graffito from the open court was absent from the corpus of published inscriptions. The presence of d is surprising, as in the new reading of E.Th 4 (see above). Schürr observes that a vertical p p appears under the graffito. E.Th 15 (= D 15) (Very uncertain reading) Also a new graffito. Schürr mentions two very different alternative readings, suggested by Kayser and ”evoro“kin respectively (see ”evoro“kin 1994:145).17 E.Th 16 (= A 1) ∂saml-?-?-o (vacat) dy “a Three unclear signs found under the end of A 1. 17 The readings are, respectively, [1] u?∞a pn-?-ek . . . i / plsiwbms and [2] ub∞l pn-?ekleai/pksiwrm≤.

102

chapter three

E.Th 17 (= A 2) ku E.Th 18 (= A 3) t n Very uncertain reading. E.Th 19 (= A 4) dbikrm k presents an inverted form l, apparently l, but the identification is based on the good onomastic correspondence of the reading dbikrm (see Chapter 11, s. v.). E.Th 20 (= A 5) orbá ˚ r i“ E.Th 21 (= A 6) mmn∞al An inverse reading la∞mmn is also possible. E.Th 22 (= A 7) mwk | te E.Th 23 (= A 8) bebi E.Th 24 (= A 9) kow[?-?] The drawing made by ”evoro“kin available to me points to koweq. E.Th 25 (= A 10) ktmno Inverted k (l). The interpretation as k, not l, is supported by the good onomastic connection of ktmno (see Chapter 11, s. v.). E.Th 26 (= A 11) brsi yri≤

the inscriptions

103

E.Th 27 (= A 12) pnw≤ol | mlqi≤ E.Th 28 (= A 13) bejeym | teboot K bebi. nt ken The strange ‘diamond-sign’ also appears in E.Si 3, preceding precisely the same word bebint, but it is not present in the other examples of this word (E.Th 30, E.AS 7), which makes it difficult to consider it an actual letter. The exact function therefore remains unexplained (see pp. 253–254). E.Th 29 (= A 14) ]ke Some uncertain signs follow. E.Th 30 (= A 15) bebint | psrkrte | mumn“tnse-? »ßwk˚n E.Th 31 (= A 16) (Very uncertain reading) “Impossible to describe” (Schürr). Allegedly a sign with the form s appears twice, and a sign % appears once, both of which are alien to the standard inventory of Carian letters (for this latter sign see also E.Th 34 below). E.Th 32 (= A 17) tqlow A reading in the opposite direction is also possible (wolqt) E.Th 33 (= A 18) ∞lbiks≤ The second letter could also be a k (”evoro“kin’s reading). E.Th 34 (= A 19) sl∞maewm | urt | kwri≤ | prna∞non | dm-?-n | maãtnor | qanor | uro

104

chapter three

The uncertain letter in the fifth word seems to be similar to %, but ”evoro“kin’s drawing in fact displays a sort of % form. Schürr questions whether it could merely be o o. E.Th 35 (= A 20) lÿ∞se | “i“≤ | mlan[-?] ”evoro“kin’s drawing and reading point to a final letter e e, somewhat damaged. Schürr omits it in his reading. E.Th 36 (= A 21) \ or≤ The first sign, apparently a \, could be the rest of a letter. E.Th 37 (= A 22) ktmn Perhaps an incomplete form of ktmno, cf. E.Th 25 above. E.Th 38 (= A 23) ]bewmsmnwdiq tebwnqmw For wdiq (and the suggested segmentation involved), see below E.Th 46. E.Th 39 (= A 24) krws | ko“m≤ E.Th 40 (= B 1) pnu≤ol From this graffito on, I shall simply reproduce Schürr’s readings, as I have not seen the drawings of this part of the corpus. I only comment on the forms that offer some parallel with known words. E.Th 41 (= B 2) tmonks E.Th 42 (= B 3) rdudmm»≤ E.Th 43 (= B 4) p

the inscriptions

105

E.Th 44 (= B 5) dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem≤ The first word shows a good onomastic identification, see Chapter 11, s. v. The second word contains the typically Theban sequence (m)lane. The third word is the same as in E.Th 28. E.Th 45 (= B 6) krwß Cf. the first word of E.Th 39. E.Th 46 (= B 7) prpwri∞ kblow≤ Apparently a sequence of two names. The first seems to belong to the family of yriq/ydiq names, but spelled with w, not y/ÿ, and with ∞ (as in Euromos idyri∞≤). For the first spelling, cf. perhaps the sequence ºwdiq in E.Th 38, although I do not think we should rule out that v w may in fact be a variant of W y, so that the name could be read *prpyri∞. E.Th 47 (= B 8) w.dbo≤kn ewál.å»e ˚[ E.Th 48 (= B 9) brsi

A well-known Carian name, see Chapter 11, s. v. and cf. above E.Th 26. E.Th 49 (= B 10) bal ewlane | “rb˚[-]sal| E.Th 50 (= C 1) pn-? E.Th 51 (= C 2) p E.Th 52 (= C 3) plqodse | ewm-?-?-?-? | rqemw | k-?[

106

chapter three

In plqodse, perhaps the name plqo should be identified, see Chapter 11, s. v. E.Th 53 (= C 4) dr“≤iem 5. Luxor Temple (E.Lu) Some Carian graffiti were recently identified in the Luxor Temple.18 They are very brief, damaged texts, and only one of the seven I consider to be genuinely Carian19 suggests a clear connection with the rest of the Carian Corpus.

E.Lu 1 (= G 19)

E.Lu 1 (ESS 1998)

→ ds-?

E.Lu 2 (= G 21)

E.Lu 2 (ESS 1998) 18 They have been published in: ESS (1998). I am very grateful to Richard Jasnow and to Theo van den Hout for the information provided about this sub corpus. 19 The graffito G 12 is excluded here: it could also be Carian, but none of its signs can be clearly identified.

the inscriptions

107

→ rsy suso “?rquq [. . .? The clearest graffito of the collection. The last word is—if the reading of the first letter here proposed is accepted—the well-known Carian name “rquq.

E.Lu 3 (= G 22)

E.Lu 3 (ESS 1998)

Very uncertain reading: o or t followed by m and another m or rather u. The order of reading is unclear.

E.Lu 4 (= G 23)

E.Lu 4 (ESS 1998)

→ ?-?-[-]ms[-]ry-?-? Very uncertain letters at the beginning and the end of the graffito. The letter immediately after y could be j j, and the last letter a D d.

108

chapter three

E.Lu 5 (= G 24)

E.Lu 5 (ESS 1998)

← b?s?ui∞am | oã? Van den Hout (pers. comm.) suggests reading the apparent interpunction trace .as L l. The resulting sequence mlo would have a good parallel in C.Ka 9 [. . .]ois?ur?mlo. The presence of % h, not a typical letter in the Carian alphabet of Egypt, is not certain: the letter could be also r r. But note that % also appears in the nearby corpus of Thebes.

E.Lu 6 (= G 25)

E.Lu 6 (ESS 1998)

→ | urq The reading is far from certain. The last sign could also be ≤.

the inscriptions

109

E.Lu 7 (= G 26)

E.Lu 7 (ESS 1998)

tksr or rather tasr? Neither of the two possible readings offers a good connection with other Carian sequences. Summing up, although these graffiti are practically unusable (with the exception of E.Lu 2), the presence of Carian graffiti among the graffiti of the Luxor temple is indisputable, as demonstrated by the presence of genuine Carian letters such as I or f. 6. Murwàw (E.Mu) In his monumental work on the inscriptions of Lower Nubia, Zbyn^k ¥ába published, in collaboration with Fritz Hintze, a Carian graffito found in the region of Murwàw, about two kilometres north of the temple of Dendùr (¥ába 1974[79] nº 196 & fig. 323). This inscription does not appear either in Masson’s indexes (Masson 1978) or in the transcribed corpus of Meier-Brügger (Meier-Brügger 1979b). Our only source is the unsatisfactory edition of ¥ába, which includes a fairly poor quality photograph, an inaccurate and unreliable facsimile (reproduced here), a transliteration to the systems of BorkFriedrich and ”evoro“kin, and some rather confusing notes. Only the reading of two words known elsewhere is certain.

110

chapter three

E.Mu 1 (= ¥ába 1971, 196)

E.Mu 1 (¥ába 1971)

→ p?owk | wljat≤ | ÿnsmsos saaw?on sa?awon Despite the drawing, the readings wljat≤ and ÿnsmsos are practically assured because they are known elsewhere: wljat≤ (not ‡wljot≤ !) = E.Th 7 wljat, and ÿnsmsos = E.AS 3 ÿnsmsos. The remaining words pose very serious reading problems. As well as powk, an alternative reading sowk is possible, and even the last letter of this word is far from certain: it could also be t t, which gives sowt/powt as further alternative readings. The alleged letter / in the second line—unexpected in an Egyptian inscription—seems in fact to be ~ a. The two words of the second line are generally taken as almost identical (already in ¥ába, see drawing), but they could be different, coinciding only in their final part (-on). In this sense, the letter under s in the second word might be not an a but in fact a b b, so that a reading sb-awon would be possible. In conclusion, only s—on is completely certain for both words of the second line. Therefore, the reading adopted here is merely provisional. 7. Silsilis (E.Si) There is not a modern edition of the Silsilis graffiti, it should be added at this point that in all probability producing this new edition will never be possible: according to Masson (1969:32), a great number of these graffiti must have been destroyed. The corpus consists of 11 generally very short and impenetrable graffiti. Only a pair of words that correspond to the rest of the Carian documentation can be clearly interpreted: psma≤k≤, the name Psammetichus, well documented in the Carian of Egypt (E.Si 2, E.Si 7), and be?bint (E.Si 4), also attested in Thebes. I adopt the readings of Masson (1978), with the exception of E.Si 2 and E.Si 10. In the first case, I follow

the inscriptions

111

Schürr’s proposal of reading the text as boustrophedon, and modifying the interpretation of some signs from the drawings of Sayce and Legrain (Schürr 2000:172). In the case of E.Si 11, Schürr has argued convincingly for a new reading, based on a photograph published by Hans A. Winckler in 1939 (see below). I provisionally reinstate the inscription Si 61 F (= Sayce 1906, n. 5), excluded from Masson’s corpus. This is also present in ”evoro“kin (1965) (69 ”), see also Schürr (1996b:149).20

E.Si 1 = Si 39 F

E.Si 1 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞iqud | marariso[-. . .]

E.Si 2 = Si 53 F

Sayce I

Sayce II

20 For technical reasons, the source of my illustrations will be Friedrich (1932), where Sayce’s drawings are reproduced.

112

chapter three

Legrain E.Si 2 (Friedrich 1932)

→ [—]e∞ld | wa | psma≤k≤ | ← uejresi | qan | kolt | kowrn[. . . ? I offer the three existing copies of this graffito (two by Sayce, the third by Legrain 1905) and adopt Schürr’s proposed reading (Schürr 2000:172). In any case, as noted above, the only clearly recognizable form is the name psma≤k≤ in the first line.

E.Si 3 = Si 54 F

E.Si 3 (Friedrich 1932)

← irasa | n[-]eakrnanb

E.Si 4 = Si 55 F

Sayce

Legrain E.Si 4 (Friedrich 1932)

the inscriptions

113

→ [. . .]t bebint | sqlumidun | sqla For the diamond-sign preceding the same word, see above E.Th 28. The reading bebint (instead of ‡bÿbint in Adiego 1993a) now seems preferable, given the clearer evidence of the Theban inscriptions.

E.Si 5 = Si 56 F

E.Si 5 (Friedrich 1932)

→ betkrqit[—. . .]

E.Si 6 = Si 57 F

E.Si 6 (Friedrich 1932)

→ bÿta“ | sursiabk | dr[-. . .] qku

E.Si 7 = Si 58 F

E.Si 7 (Friedrich 1932)

→ psma≤k

114

chapter three

E.Si 8 = Si 59 F

E.Si 8 (Friedrich 1932)

→ bij≤≤pe (. . . ?)

E.Si 9 = Si 60 F

E.Si 9 (Friedrich 1932)

→ [. . .]rbn“a[—. . .

E.Si 10 = Si 61 F

E.Si 10 (Friedrich 1932)

← ∞?mpi

E.Si 11 = Si 62 F

E.Si 11 (Friedrich 1932, modified)

the inscriptions

115

← dmo“bqs Reading taken from Schürr. The photograph of the inscription published by Winckler in 1939 (which I was made aware of by Schürr) quite clearly substantiates the reading proposed by Schürr. It also serves to definitively rule out the alleged presence of a letter b in the Carian alphabet of Silsilis.21 8. Abu Simbel (E.AS) Fortunately the current situation of the Abu Simbel corpus is very different to those mentioned above; we have at our disposal a recent and very careful edition of these graffiti, thanks to the efforts of Olivier Masson (Masson 1979), who was also responsible for the publication, some years ago and in collaboration with André Bernand, of the corpus of Greek graffiti from the same location (Bernand-Masson 1957). The Carian graffiti from Abu Simbel are strongly tied to the history of research on Carian: it was Richard Lepsius who first edited and correctly identified as Carian these inscriptions found on the legs of the two colossi of Abu Simbel (Lepsius 1844, Abt. 6, Bl. 98 [Kar. 1–3], and Bl. 99 [Kar. 4–7]). This theory was confirmed by Sayce (1874, 1887[92]) when texts in a similar alphabet were found in Caria and bordering areas. However, from an epigraphical point of view, Sayce could not contribute to an improved edition of the text, and he had to be satisfied with Lepsius’ copies (see Masson 1979:35–36 for details). Masson’s edition is based on the drawings and photographs made by André Bernand and Abd el Latif Ahmed Aly in 1956. The drawings had already been published provisionally (Bernand-Aly 1959?), and reproduced in ”evoro“kin (1965). The corpus presented here introduces some corrections and additions made by Diether Schürr.

21 See Schürr (1996b) where, contrastingly, the presence of a letter / is argued. Later, Schürr argued in favour of a f, which seems more likely. This latter reading is the one that I adopt here. For the alleged initial letter “my” in the inscriptions, see the convincing arguments in Schürr (1996b) for rejecting it.

116

chapter three

E.AS 1 = AS 1

E.AS 1 (Masson 1979)

← par≤olou [. . .]oe Graffito discovered by Bernand.

E.AS 2 = AS 2

E.AS 2 (Masson 1979)

← “abd?aikal Also a new graffito found by Bernand, absent from Lepsius’ corpus. Schürr’s reading is followed here.

E.AS 3 = AS 3 = Lepsius Kar 4

E.AS 3 (Masson 1979)

← pisma“k | “arnw≤ | ÿnsmsos

the inscriptions

117

E.AS 4 = AS 4 + Lepsius Kar 7

E.AS 4 (Masson 1979 + Lepsius 1844)

→ a∞akowr | emsglpn | b[. . .] pisma[“/≤k . . .] The first part of the graffiti (which appears in the drawing) was recognized by Bernand, while Lepsius was only able to identify some illegible characters (Bernand apud Masson 1979:39, n. 39). But as Schürr notes ( per litteras), Lepsius Kar. 7 (left out by Masson because it was not re-found by Bernand) is actually the continuation of E.AS 4, and the beginning of the Egyptian name (in its Carian adaptation) pisma“k/ pisma≤k is easily readable in Lepsius’ copy. The direction of the reading offered for AS 4 in earlier works (for instance Adiego 1993a) was incorrect.

E.AS 5 = AS 5 = Lepsius Kar 6

E.AS 5 (Masson 1979)

← pnyri≤ru | iÿkr≤ | “a[--]i≤b?wn Schürr suggests that the final letters may be part of another graffito.

118

chapter three

E.AS 6 = AS 6 = Lepsius Kar 3

E.AS 6 (Masson 1979)

← platt slaÿ≤ ∞i

E.AS 7 = AS 7 = Lepsius Kar 1

E.AS 7 (Masson 1979)

← naz ∞i∞ | bÿ“ | esak?dow“ | mÿqudem | pisma≤k | bebint | mo | ne | psÿ“[|?] ai[-]iqom Schürr’s reading (Schürr 2001b:108, and per litteras) is adopted here.

E.AS 8 = AS 8

E.AS 8 (Masson 1979)

the inscriptions

119

← nid≤kusas | meÿqak | sn≤ | ≤t≤ | ≤uni≤ | k“mmsm[. . .] [. . .]r≤wk[-]“[ Graffiti discovered by Bernand. Masson’s reading is followed, despite the significant problems posed by the final part.

E.AS 9 = Kar 2

E.AS 9 (Lepsius 1844)

→ ÿsm [? This graffito is omitted without any reference in Masson (1979). It had already been identified as a part of a Greek graffito in Bernand-Masson (1957:38; the graffito is Bernand-Masson nº 32), but Schürr ( per litteras) maintains that it is in fact Carian. In fact, no connection seems to exist between the clear drawing wsm of Lepsius and the Greek graffiti as reproduced in Bernand-Masson loc. cit. 9. Buhen (E.Bu) Also in the case of the graffiti from Buhen, we can refer to an excellent, recent edition, made by Masson and published together with the Saqqâra corpus (Masson 1978). In 1895 Sayce published seven inscriptions copied in the Southern Temple of Buhen (then mentioned as “Temple of Thothmes III at Wadi Halfa (Sayce 1895). He had serious doubts about the Carian nature of two of these (numbers 6 and 7). They have not been rediscovered since and must remain outside our collection. For his edition, Masson was able to re-read three of the five clearly Carian graffiti (E.Bu 2, 3, 6), and he also added a new and important graffito found during the British campaign 1962–1963 (E.Bu 1). For the remaining Carian graffiti (4 and 5), Masson was obliged to work only from Sayce’s copies.

120

chapter three

Despite the quality of his edition, Masson was unable to find a satisfactory solution to the problem posed by the same word that appears repeatedly in different inscriptions from Buhen. Following the decipherment of Carian, we now know that this word is the name Psammetichus in Carian, and that the many divergent readings adopted by Masson must be brought together. This correction affects E.Bu 1 ( psma≤k≤, not ‡psma≤u≤ ), E.Bu 4 ( psma≤k, not ‡psma≤m) and E.Bu 5 (identical correction). Other discrepancies with Masson’s edition affect the word ar®i“ (not ‡arli“ !) in E.Bu 1 and E.Bu 2 (”evoro“kin’s correction, see ”evoro“kin 1984[86]:199), and ibrsi≤ (not ‡iyrsi≤ !) in E.Bu 4 (Schürr’s correction: Schürr 1991–1993). These corrections were already set out in Adiego (1993a).

E.Bu 1 = M 50

E.Bu 1 (Masson 1978)

← [—]msal | ar[® ]i“ | psma≤k≤ | urm≤ | ankbu“ | trel kbou≤

the inscriptions E.Bu 2 = M 51

E.Bu 2 (Masson 1978)

← euml?bnasal | ar®i“ pdtom≤ urom≤ | ankbu“

E.Bu 3 = M 52

E.Bu 3 (Masson 1978)

← [-]tmai≤[—]

121

chapter three

122 E.Bu 4 (= M 53)

Sayce (1895) Masson’s copy of Sayce’s drawing E.Bu 4

← psma≤k ibrsi≤ This constitutes a good example of a biased interpretation of a text known only from a single copy; the inscription was not found again when Masson was preparing his edition, so he had to use Sayce’s drawing. Masson interpreted the second letter of the second line as a W, modifying Sayce’s copy in order to approximate the traces of the letter to a more standard form. However, as Schürr (1991–1993:167) has convincingly demonstrated, this letter is actually Ø b, and not W y, since we are dealing with the typical Carian name ib(a)rsi, brsi, attested by a number of examples. The other problematic letter is the last one of the first line, for which an interpretation as k k is now beyond doubt, as the whole word is the Carian form of the Egyptian name Psammetichus.

E.Bu 5 (= M 54)

E.Bu 5 (Masson 1978)

← psma≤k As in E.Bu 4, the last sign is now interpreted as k, in order to obtain the well-known Egyptian name psma≤k.

the inscriptions

123

E.Bu 6 (= M 55)

E.Bu 6 (Masson 1978)

← eypsal puor≤ | aor≤ ursea∞k ∞i This inscription is extremely difficult to read, so some uncertainties remain. In any case, the reading aor≤ for the third word should be preferred to ‡a≤r≤, as found in previous works, given the good parallel in E.Me 1 and the sound onomastic identification (see Chapter 11, s. v. aor≤ ). 10. Gebel Sheik Suleiman (E.SS) E.SS 1 (= 72 F) This graffito, which constitutes the southernmost document of Carian to be found in Africa, is known only from two different copies: Sayce (Sayce 1910 = Friedrich 1932) and A. J. Arkell (reproduced in ”evoro“kin 1965) respectively. As we are informed by Masson (1978: 35, n. 1, and 98), this inscription, which never was photographed, now lies beneath the waters of the Nile. The correction introduced in Adiego (1993a) is maintained here: the second word of the second line is read “ÿin≤, not ‡“ÿ“n≤, because it is undoubtedly the same word that appears in E.Me 38.

124

chapter three

Friedrich (1932)

”evoro“kin (1965)

← n≤n[-]s“|“aru≤ol pneit|“ÿin≤ parÿd∞≤ 11. Unknown Origin, Likely from Egypt (E.xx) Under this title I include seven inscriptions whose Egyptian origin seems clear, but for which no exact location can be determined.

E.xx 1 (= MY C)

E.xx 1 (Masson-Yoyotte 1956)

the inscriptions

125

← qorb | isor≤ ∞i | ≤ugli≤ This stela is known as the “stèle de Grenoble”. The attribution of an origin from Bubastis was discarded in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:7). In any case, the alphabet is clearly of the same kind as that used in Memphis and Sais. Unproblematic reading. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. IV). Drawings: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:8–9).

E.xx 2 (= MY I)

E.xx 2

← wliat This so-called “ichneumon of Berlin”, is actually a reliquary for a mummified shrew with a Carian name followed by an Egyptian votive formula ‘X (the god incarnated by the animal) may give life’. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. 4). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:37). My drawing of the shrew is based on the photograph.

E.xx 3 (= MY a)

E.xx 3

chapter three

126

→ ionel≤ Inscription on the mount of a ring. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. VIII). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:11). My drawing of the object is based on the photograph.

E.xx 4 (= MY b)

E.xx 4

→ pduba Word engraved on a vase. Photograph: Masson-Yoyotte (1956: pl. VIII). Drawing: Masson-Yoyotte (1956:12). My drawing of the object is based on the photograph.

E.xx 5 (= MY c)

E.xx 5 (Friedrich 1932)

the inscriptions

127

← ow∞meb≤t This is the “scarabaeum with a Carian inscription”, first edited by Sayce (1887[92]). It was briefly referred to in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) (MY c), but neither photography nor drawing or transcription was attempted at the time, given that neither editor knew where the object was. The object was rediscovered a short time after the publication of Masson-Yoyotte (1956), and Masson dealt with it in an article (Masson 1959b). In the absence of more information, Masson considered it to be “pseudo-Carian”. In Masson (1978) it was omitted. Contrastingly, ”evoro“kin included it in his book on Carian (”evoro“kin 1965: 127; 6 ”) and offered a very plausible reading (ow∞meb≤t). The final sequence ºb≤t is a particularly attractive suggestion, because it also appears in two graffiti from Thebes (E.Th 12 and E.Th 13). I have therefore included alongside the other Carian texts. Photograph: Masson (1959: pl. 2). Drawing: Masson (1959: pl. 3).

E.xx 6 (= 4 ”)

E.xx 6

← “arnajs | sb taqbos Inscription on the so-called “Leningrad Isis”, published by ”evoro“kin (”evoro“kin 1964b; ”evoro“kin 1965). As in the case of E.xx 2, a Carian

chapter three

128

onomastic formula is completed by an Egyptian votive phrase, here Js.t dj ‘n˙ ‘Isis may give life’. I adopt here a new suggested reading formulated by Diether Schürr. Photographs: ”evoro“kin (1964b:pl. I–IV). Drawing: ”evoro“kin (1964b:58–59). My drawing of the inscription is based on the photograph.

E.xx 7 (= Lion)

E.xx 7 (Masson 1976)

← ntros: prãidas or“a nu mdane: uksi wrm≤ Inscription on a lion of Egyptian origin, edited by Masson (Masson 1976). Some years ago, I suggested to Masson the possibility of reading ntros ntros, instead of noros ‡noros (sic in Masson 1976), a suggestion based both on the photograph and the comparable sequence ntro ntro in C.xx 1. Yoyotte’s revision of the inscription made this correction possible, which was already included in Adiego (1993a) and is now widely accepted. Photograph: Masson (1976: pl. 1). Drawing: Masson (1976 pl. 2).

D. The Carian Inscriptions from Caria The first and last specific edition of all the Carian inscriptions from Caria available at the time was produced by Louis Robert and Louis Deroy, in two complementary articles: Robert (1950), which includes

the inscriptions

129

photographs and epigraphical information, and Deroy (1955), a collection of drawings based on the photographs published by Robert. The numbering of the inscriptions introduced by Robert and adopted by Deroy became the standard (hence the use of “D” or, less frequently, “R.-D.” followed by a number to refer to the Carian inscriptions from Caria). This ordering did not follow a coherent set of criteria.22 As for the inscriptions published after the Robert-Deroy edition, in Meier-Brügger (1983) a catalogue was established (although the inscriptions were not edited) and the numbering system of Robert-Deroy was continued, but an asterisk mark was added to the new inscriptions instead of the “D” and “R.-D” abbreviations.23 The numbering criterion employed was the order of publication of the new inscriptions. A source of further confusion was the fact that both Robert-Deroy’s and Meier-Brügger’s catalogues included Para-Carian inscriptions, here omitted from the true Carian corpus. The inscriptions from locations other than Caria were also listed, so this catalogue actually comprises all the non-Egyptian-originated epigraphical documents of Carian. In this study, a new classification system, parallel to that introduced for Carian inscriptions from Egypt, will be introduced. The inscriptions are classified according to the locations in which they were found. We are clearly in a better position to analyse the corpus from Caria than the corpus of Egyptian texts: with the sole exception of C.Tr 2, at least photographic evidence is available for all the inscriptions. Moreover, some of the texts edited by Robert and Deroy have been revised thanks to the efforts of Blümel, Gusmani, Frei and Marek, whereas the texts found after Deroy’s compilation have generally been edited satisfactorily.

22 1–3 are already published. 4–5 are inscriptions neglected by scholars prior to Robert (in fact, “Para-Carian” inscriptions from Chalketor and Ancin, south of Alabanda). 6–13 are inscriptions found by Robert himself. 14 is a text discovered by G. E. Bean, 15 is a Carian (Kaunian) inscription from Lycia already known and previously published (as 1–3), and 16, offered in addendum, is the great inscription of Kaunos, also discovered by Bean. In Deroy’s article, the confusion continues: D 17 are Para-Carian graffiti from Labraunda, D 18 Carian coins, and D 19, the Greek-Carian bilingual inscription from Athens. 23 For the continuation of the numbering after Meier-Brügger (1983), see MeierBrügger (1994:113), Frei-Marek (1997:6, n. 10), Frei-Marek (2000:85).

chapter three

130 1. Tralleis (C.Tr) C.Tr 1 (= D 1)

Deroy (1955)

Kubitschek’s copy conserved in Vienna C.Tr 1

← sdi amt[ pau≤ art{ }mon This inscription has not been re-found since it was seen and copied at the end of the 19th Century, but Deroy’s drawing, based both on a photograph of the cast and a copy conserved in the notes of Kubitschek in the Austrian Academy of Vienna (which I reproduce here)24 is quite reliable. Moreover, the inscription does not pose any particular problems of reading. The third letter of the first line is definitely Y i. I adopt the reading suggested by Schürr (cf. Schürr 2001b:109, n. 12), but I am unsure about the segmentation of the first line. Photograph of a cast and drawing in Deroy (1955:307 and pl. I).

24 I am grateful to Dr. Georg Rehrenböck (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna), for your extreme kindness in sending me a reproduction of Kubitschek’s drawing and notes concerning this inscription.

the inscriptions

131

C.Tr 2 (= D 2)

Pappakonstatinou’s drawing (Meier-Brügger 1978)

Kubitschek’s copy conserved in Vienna C.Tr 2

→ an sidi artmi pau≤ parãaq? This inscription, which has since disappeared, is known only through drawings. I retain the reading adopted in Adiego (1993a), based on the image published by Meier-Brügger (1978:81), a direct reproduction of the drawing edited by Pappakonstantinou in 1895. The copy conserved in Vienna among Kubitschek’s travel notes (see above C.Tr 1), brought to my knowledge by Dr. Georg Rehrenböck, is concurrent with Pappakonstantinou’s drawing, the only surprising difference being the omission (accidental?) of r in the third line ( paãaq? instead of parãaq), see the illustration. The only problem of reading is the last letter of the inscription: Schürr (2001b:109, n. 12) argues that it is ≤ (“das letzte Zeichen wohl ≤ ”), but Pappakonstantinou’s and Kubitschek’s drawings points rather to a Q q. Drawings: Deroy (1955:308), Meier-Brügger (1978:81).

chapter three

132

2. Alabanda and Surroundings (C.Al)

C.Al 1 (= D 13)

(Deroy 1955)

→ sdi a[-]mob[ Found by Robert in Eski Çine, south of Alabanda. To my knowledge, the inscription has not been seen again. I adopt Schürr’s reading (Schürr 2001b:109, n. 12). Photograph: (1950: pl. II 1, VIII 2, XXI 2). Drawings: Robert (1950:17), Deroy (1955:319).

3. Euromos (C.Eu)

C.Eu 1 (= D 3)

Drawing conserved in Vienna

→ ≤as: ktais idyri∞≤: mn[os?] This inscription was copied, photographed and edited for the first and last time, by E. Hula and E. Szanto in 1894. As Meier-Brügger has demonstrated (Meier-Brügger 1978:78–79), the drawing made by the first editors is considerably better than that published in Sayce (1905) and Deroy (1955). I reproduce here a copy of the original drawing by Hula and Szanto conserved in Vienna, kindly sent to me by Georg Rehrenböck.

the inscriptions

133

The main difficulty is posed by the alleged sequence WW yy. Some years ago, ”evoro“kin (in his unpublished document “Corrections to Existing Copies”) proposed to correct it on the basis of the direct study of the cast: according to him, the sequence was actually a Wr yr. This correction is eminently suitable from a linguistic point of view, since a sequence WW yy is hardly acceptable; moreover, a reading Wr yr yields a good onomastic identification (see Chapter 11, s. v. idyri∞≤ ). However, considered from the point of view of the local alphabet of Euromos, we would expect a form R—rather than a form r—for r, as can be seen in the other inscription from Euromos (C.Eu 2). Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rehrenböck, I have been able to control directly the two (very similar) casts of the inscription conserved in Vienna. Both Dr. Rehrenböck and I agree that, at first sight, an W can be recognised in both casts. Without totally ruling out the possibility of an original mistake made by the engraver, one can suppose that either the intermediate trait or the lower trait is intrusive. It is true that the intermediate trait seems weaker, favouring thus a reading R (which would be more consistent with the testimony of C.Eu 2), but it is frankly impossible to decide definitively between a reading r, or a reading R. The last word, incomplete, must be without any doubt the Carian word for ‘son’, mno-. The difficulty lies in establishing whether it was inflected. In my proposal of integration, I tentatively suggest the completion mn[os?], based on the assumed concordance of this word with the name ktais, very possibly a name with an -s ending. Photograph: Robert (1950:Pl. VI 4). Drawings: Deroy (1955:309), Meier-Brügger (1978:80).

C.Eu 2 (= D 8)

C.Eu 2 (Blümel 1988)

134

chapter three

→ omob ∞i: temazi ≤dun: ≤o≤niabkol armon qyrbmudolo manon This inscription was re-edited almost simultaneously, and with divergent readings, by Blümel (1988) and Gusmani (1990). Wolfgang Blümel was kind enough to allow me to see a cast of the inscription, and I can confirm the accuracy of his edition. I reproduce Blümel’s drawing here. The text does not pose reading problems. The most remarkable innovation of the current transcription is the interpretation of the letter e not as a variant (Kaunian-like type) of L l, but rather as a local form of e e, as in Hyllarima and probably also in Mylasa (see below p. 225). Photographs: Robert (1950), pl. IV. Drawings: Deroy (1955:316), Blümel (1988:262), Gusmani (1990:49). 4. Kindye (C.Kn) C.Kn 1 (= D 6)

C.Kn 1 (Deroy 1955)

→ pareÿs Extremely fragmentary inscription found by Laumonier, which has been not recovered. Drawing: Deroy (1955:314). Photograph: Laumonier (1933:35).

the inscriptions

135

5. Hyllarima (C.Hy) C.Hy 1 (= D 7 + new fragment)

C.Hy 1 (col a: Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
→ (a) “asqariod dymda muot armotrqdosq brsi ari“≤ brsi≤ mane: u≤ol≤ rtim u≤ol≤ pur?i≤

u≤bzol tñu≤ brsi≤ pau mane≤ ybrs≤ (b) kdu≤opizipususot mol“ msot ylarmit (Greek text—only the oldest inscriptions that appear also in the illustration): (a) flere›ew ye«n pãntvn: ÑErm¤aw Fan°v ÑErm¤adow (b) flereÁw ye«n pãntvn: ÑUssvllow ÉArrissiow

The stone containing the Col. b, was discovered by Laumonier in 1933. In 2004, a new bilingual inscription was found in Hyllarima, which

136

chapter three

turned out to be a fragment of the same stone, the two pieces fitting together. This sensational discovery provides us with almost the complete marble stela (only the lower part is missing), and the result is a complex mixture of inscriptions from different periods, which makes the interpretation of the Carian text difficult, both internally and in connection with the Greek texts. The first problem is to establish whether the two first Carian lines of each column must be read as two complete lines (the first line of column (a) being followed immediately by the first line of column (b), and likewise for the two second lines), or if one must begin reading from the first two lines of (a) and then the first two lines of (b), or whether column (a) and column (b) in fact represent two independent inscriptions. Also problematic, and related to this discussion, is the connection between Carian and Greek texts. It is clear that the majority of Greek texts seem to have been engraved long after the Carian lines,25 but the first four lines of column (b) could be contemporary with the Carian texts. Whether this contemporaneity implies a connection between the two texts or not is impossible to decide. The problem is compounded somewhat by the fact that in the Carian text of (a), the last three lines, clearly separated from the preceding ones, show marked differences in the shape of the letters, and thus seem to have been written long after the preceding lines. A similar situation can be observed in the four Greek lines mentioned, the last two showing divergent traits to the first. This opens the way for a number of different hypotheses about the order in which the sections of the Carian inscription and the sections of the oldest Greek inscription were engraved. Independent from the problems of interpretation, which will be dealt with in pp. 305–308, the inscription of Hyllarima is an exceptional document: it is the best-preserved long Carian inscription, the text being complete and with only one difficulty of reading: the antepenultimate letter of the fifth line of column (a), apparently a R r. 25 The Greek texts are the following: in col. (a), immediately after the Carian inscription, a list of Apollo’s priests at the time of the joint rulership of Antiochos and his son, dated in 263–262. In col. (b), after the Carian text, a list of priests of all the gods followed by a sale of the priesthood of all the gods, and a land renting document. In the lateral side of col. (a), another sale of priesthood of the same date as that of col. (b), the name of the divinities implied not being readable. In the lateral side of col. (b), other land renting documents.

the inscriptions

137

Col. b, photographs: Laumonier (1934:347), Robert (1950:pl. V), drawings: Laumonier (1934:346), Deroy (1955:315). Edition of the new frragment in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
6. Mylasa (C.My) C.My 1

C.My 1

→ idrayridsemdbq mol“ ty∞[ tsial tusol≤: moi m[-]sao[ banol paruos≤: p?au paryri∞≤ qzali obrbi≤: tsial obrbi≤ banol yrqso≤: paryri∞ psoir≤ [-]bdo pnu≤o≤: myze trdy≤ “arkbiom qzali≤: ≤umo kbdmu≤ skdubrotoz≤: pau ∞toi≤ [-]qo idyri∞≤: ksbo idu≤ol≤ [-]obiokli≤: ∞toi yrqso≤ Inscription found in 2004 in Kırca
138

chapter three

his task—as the editors of the inscription have pointed out (BlümelKızıl 2004: 138)—and that some difficult readings could in fact be mere errors. The reading adopted here follows in general terms that given in Adiego (2005), but with the inclusion of improvements suggested more recently by Blümel (Blümel 2005). I am aware of some reading problems that still exist. In any case, this inscription is a very important document both for Carian onomastics and for our knowledge of the Carian alphabetic variety of Mylasa. Photograph: Blümel-Kızıl (2004). The drawing presented here has been made on the photograph.

7. Sancutary of Sinuri near Mylasa (C.Si) C.Si 1 (= D 9)

C.Si 1 (Deroy 1955)

→ adymd“: yri∞ñ: t[-]rsi: [. . .?] tbe≤ (vacat) yri∞ñ: binq: sñaidlo

the inscriptions

139

Found by Pierre Devambez in 1935, it has been not recovered since. The drawing reproduced here is from Deroy (1955). Several reading problems therefore remain unresolved. I adopt the reading that can be deduced from Deroy’s drawing. Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. 1). Drawing: Deroy (1955:316).

C.Si 2 (= D 10)

C.Si 2 (Deroy 1955)

→ (a) [—]ryin ∞tmño≤: sb ada ∞tmño≤ eri: pisñoi mda: pñmnn≤ñ: pda∞m≤uñ ∞i “aoyr∞ri mt∞elã ñmailo mda lrHñ: stspñ vacat sm“s[—5—] sb añmsñsi mda sm[—7—]a∞e[ ∞[—8—]tuñdñ[ ñe-?-[ (b) pim[. . .] Ha?[. . .]

chapter three

140 (Greek text:) Robert (1945), n. 75 [ ÉIdri°vw ÑEkatÒmnv] [ ka‹ ÖA]daw ÑEkatÒmnv ka[ [ ?S]uennitvn fler°iow [ [ ]now Ponmoonnou [ [ét°l]eian pãntvn ep[

[ÉId]rieÁw ÑEkatÒ[mnv ka‹ ÖAda] ÑEkatÒmnv ¶[dvkan? ét°leia[n sunge[n tis o[ oug.[

Robert (1945), n. 74 (+ C.Si 2). ] ßkastow ]areihw ?k]atÉ §niautÚn ?§]p‹ Nhsaiou ]w to›]w Suenn¤oiw

Bilingual inscription found by Louis Robert. The Carian part was edited by Robert (1950) and Deroy (1955). The Greek part can be found in Robert (1945). Regrettably, neither Blümel’s efforts to locate the inscription years later nor the steps given by Schürr in order to obtain Robert’s cast have been successful. In any case, the reading of the three first lines is quite certain, with the important correction made by Schürr, consisting in reading d d instead of F, in the name ada. Things are not so clear from the fourth line onwards: H in lrHñ could be U (therefore lruñ), and the t t in stspñ could be o o (sospñ), etc. Also problematic is the reading of the entire fifth line. Schürr’s suggestion of linking this fragment of stone with another from Sinuri that contains two decrees in Greek by Idrieus and Ada (Robert 1945, nº 75) seems to me a very attractive theory, and it is adopted here (see Schürr 1992:136–138; cf. Adiego 2000:134–135 for details; I reproduce the text Greek edited in this latter article).26 26

This edition was revised by W. Blümel.

the inscriptions

141

This inscription can be now dated more accurately: the mention of the joint ruling of Idrieus and Ada situates it between 351/350 and 344/343 (cf. Hornblower 1982:45). Photographs: Robert (1950:pl. II and III). Drawing: Deroy (1955:317).

8. Kildara (C.Ki) C.Ki 1 (= D 11)

C.Ki 1 (Blümel-Adiego 1993)

→ [. . . . . . . (.)]zolba∞a[..(.)] kil[ [. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[ kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[ iasoum Greek text: ¶doje KildareËsin, §kklhs¤hw genom°nhw: ÑUss[vllvi?] Samvou eÈerg°thi genom°nvi Kildar°vn ét°[leian] doËnai ka‹ proedr¤an ka‹ §sagvgØn ka‹ §jagv[gØn] ka‹ §n efirÆnhi ésule¤ ka‹ ésponde‹ ka‹ aÈt«i ka‹ §kgÒnoiw: ka‹ Kildar°aw e‰nai ín y°[lvsin?]

Discovered by Louis Robert in 1934, this inscription is followed by a Greek decree honouring Uss[vllow], son of Samvow. The inscription was seen again by Blümel, and a new edition of the Carian text was subsequently published in Kadmos (Blümel-Adiego 1993).27 The present 27 The Greek inscription has also been published by W. Blümel in Die Inschriften von Mylasa. II, Inschriften aus der Umgebung der Stadt (= I. K. 35), Bonn 1988.

142

chapter three

drawing and reading synthesize the readings of Deroy and BlümelAdiego, both conserving the letters that were impossible to identify in the revision, and incorporating the new readings of some letters. I still see the exact reading of the last word as problematic; the reading m of the last letter implies the presence of a M oriented to the left, contrary to all the other instances of the letter in the inscription (m), and also the rightward direction of the writing. The reading of the remaining letters is also uncertain. I believe therefore that a reading *ßAmous “amous, instead of ÎAsouM iasoum, cannot be altogether dismissed. Such a reading would be compelling, insofar as it would allow us to identify in the Carian text the name of the father of the individual honoured in the Greek section, and consequently to establish a connection between the texts. But for want of sufficient evidence, I maintain the old reading, iasoum. Photographs: Robert (1950:pl. VI 2, VIII 1, IX 2, X), Blümel-Adiego (1993:pl. 1). Drawings: Deroy (1955:318), Blümel-Adiego (1993:89).

9. Stratonikeia (C.St) C.St 1 (= D 12)

C.St 1

→ ]sel“ a[—]a[———]om≤ ]som[n?]e brsi≤ ula[——]ol ]latmne≤ ≤ysñal[

the inscriptions

143

] ari“ maqly≤[ ]sel“ piks[ ]sel“ p[ This inscription, found by Robert in 1946, has not been revised since then. The present reading and modified drawing are based on my own interpretation of the photograph published by Robert (1950). The most remarkable innovation appears in the second line. I propose that a possible personal name som[n]e (see Chapter 11, s. v. somne/somne≤ ) can be recognized, followed by the well-known name brsi≤, in genitive: the letter R r seems to be certain (and not W y, as formerly read), and the sign preceding it (b) seems to be the local form of $ 4 b, although neither Robert’s photograph nor Deroy’s drawing provides a clear image of what the exact form of the letter was. Also new is the reading Q q, not o o, of the seventh sign of the fourth line. For the first line, I adopt the reading of Schürr (2001b:106). Photograph: Robert (1950:pl. VI). Drawing: Deroy (1955:319). The drawing offered here has been made on the photograph.

C.St 2 (= 36*)

C.St 2 (}ahin 1980 modiWed)

→ u≤ol≤ uodrou u[ mute≤ ymezus[ ∞diye≤ uodryia[ uliade pidaru[

144

chapter three

mañ“qaraH≤rl-?-[ dar“qemorms[ Hda“qedormñs[ Inscription edited by }ahin (1980). I adopt Schürr’s suggestion that l. 7, sign 5 is Q q, not o o. In fact, some rounded signs of the inscriptions are difficult to distinguish correctly (they could be o, z, or Q). Photograph: }ahin (1980:pl. V 1). Drawing: }ahin (1980:206). The drawing presented here is a modified version of }ahin’s, in order to introduce the new readings of some letters.

10. Halikarnassos (C.Ha) C.Ha 1 (= 33*)

C.Ha 1

← smdÿbrs | psnlo | ml orkn tÿn | snn Inscription on a bronze phiale (6th B.C.) published by Jucker and MeierBrügger ( Jucker-Meier-Brügger 1978). The attribution to Halikarnassos is based on the information given by the dealer to Jucker (“Karien, Bereich von Bodrum”, Jucker-Meier-Brügger 1978:104; cf. also 109: “Der Händler, der als Fundort die Gegend von Halikarnass (. . .) nannte . .”). It is true that a phiale is an easily movable object, so it could have been made elsewhere. For this reason, the possibility that the alphabetic variant used here may represent that of Halikarnassos must be viewed with caution. The text does not pose reading problems. Photograph: Jucker-Meier-Brügger (1978:pl. 2). Drawing: Jucker-Meier-Brügger (1978:109). My drawing is based on the photograph.

the inscriptions

145

11. Didyma (Ionia, near Milet) (C.Di)

C.Di 1 (= 21*)

C.Di 1

← ]ub“ÿ Inscription on a broken fragment, datable to the 6th century B.C. Although this graffito is located not in Caria, but in Ionia, I include it in the Carian section of the corpus given the clear proximity of Didyma (and Milet) to the Carian country. This is a very difficult text: not even the direction of reading is clear. It is ascribed to the Carian corpus based on the clear presence of the letter w ÿ. The overall reading is far from certain (see remarks in Adiego 1993a:80). The reading proposed here (the same as in Adiego 1993a) is merely hypothetical. Steinherr’s reading, adapted to the present decipherment system, would be ‡ul“t, whilst Innocente (1994:106) prefers to read ‡∞a“ÿ, in reverse direction Photograph: Naumann-Tuchelt (1963/64: pl. 25). Drawing: Adiego (1993a:324). See also Tuchelt (1970), which includes a reading and some notes made by Steinherr. My new drawing is based on the photograph.

12. Iasos (C.Ia) Italian excavations in the Carian city of Iasos have brought several Carian inscriptions to light. Their value, with the exception of C.Ia 3, is very limited: the texts are extremely short and fragmentary, and no parallels with the rest of the Carian corpus can be traced.

146

chapter three

C.Ia 1 (= 20* a)

(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

→ ]la limtaoa | [ om Inscription on the neck of a vase. I have not seen any photography, and my only sources of information are the drawings and comments in Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (1961–62 [1963]:632) and Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:151). Drawings: Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (1961–62 [1963]:632), Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]: 151).

C.Ia 2 (= 20* b)

(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

← ]ue∞l | ∞ob[ Although a reverse reading is possible, given that all the letters present in the inscription are symmetrical, the theory is practically dismissed, insofar as it would situate L l as the initial letter of a word, which is highly improbable. Photograph: Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (1961–62 [1963]:632); Drawings: Levi-Pugliese Carratelli (1961–62 [1963]:632), Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]: 151).

the inscriptions

147

C.Ia 3 (= 38* a)

C.Ia 3

→ ?] are“ | “anne mlne | siyklo≤ | “ann | trqule | ∞lmud [? Inscription on a cratera. Published for the first time by Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:150–151). Gusmani (1988:145–149) offered a new reading that challenged Pugliese Carratelli regarding the identification of the two ~ in the second and fourth sequences: Gusmani proposed that they be read in both cases as /. This new reading would subsequently be discredited, because this letter is typical only in the Kaunian alphabet, where its existence is inseparable from the fact that in this alphabet there is no t t, and t is represented by T, so that a diacritically differentiated / (and variants) is used to represented “, instead of the f F of other alphabets. In the present inscription from Iasos, both t and f do appear, which leaves the need for a letter such as / unexplained. Careful observation of the photograph provided by Pugliese Carratelli shows that, at least in its second appearance, the letter in question

148

chapter three

clearly has a form of ~ very similar to the example in the first word (the only difference being the somewhat rounded upper trace). It can therefore extremely unlikely to be a letter comparable to / and variants. Therefore, Pugliese Carratelli’s reading is preferable. Photograph: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:pl. I). Drawings: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]: 150), Gusmani (1988:146). My drawing has been made directly on the photography published by Pugliese Carratelli.

C.Ia 4 (= 38* b)

(Pugliese Carratelli 1985[86])

→ n[. . .] pr[. . .] is[. . .] Very fragmentary inscription published by Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]). The few remaining letters are easily readable. Photograph and drawing: Pugliese Carratelli (1985[86]:152).

C.Ia 5 (= 47*)

C.Ia 5 (Berti-Innocente 1998)

→ baqgk[. . .]

the inscriptions

149

C.Ia 6 (= 48*)

C.Ia 6 (Berti-Innocente 1998)

→ [. . .]b?e≤

C.Ia 7 (= Berti-Innocente 2005)

C.Ia 7 (Berti-Innocente 2005)

← ?]y?n“ C.Ia 5–7 are three very recently discovered graffiti on vases, edited by Fede Berti and Lucia Innocente (Berti-Innocente 1998 for C.Ia 5, 6; Berti-Innocente 2005 for C.Ia 7). Note the surprising letter v in C.Ia 7, apparently a variant of Mylasa W, Sinuri-Kildara V (cf. Berti-Innocente 2005:21).

150

chapter three

13. Keramos (C.Ke) C.Ke 1 (= *39a)

C.Ke 1 (Varinlio[lu 1986)

→ usot

C.Ke 2 (= *39b) → usot

This pair of inscriptions with the same text, first published in Varinlio[lu (1986), were briefly the focus of attention when Ray ingeniously suggested that the sole word they contained could be identified with the well known Carian name Ussollos, u≤ol (Ray 1988). This identification was based on an assumption that has since turned out to be false: that the letter c could be equivalent here and in Hyllarima to the letter L l. It is now clear that c does not represent l in Hyllarima, where there is a particular letter for this sound (L), and the supposedly equivalent sequence ºusoc in Hyllarima has nothing to do with the Carian name mentioned (even the segmentation is far from certain!). As already mentioned (p. 23), I even have a number of doubts concerning the true Carian nature of these documents, which contain an initial sign | that makes no sense as a letter in Carian. The disposition of the letters is also a little strange, and their inclusion in the Carian corpus must be accepted not without certain reservations. Drawing: Varinlio[lu (1986).

the inscriptions

151

14. Kaunos (C.Ka) C.Ka 1 (= D 14)

C.Ka 1 (Deroy 1955)

→ sñis: sdisas: psu≤ol≤ mal≤: mno≤ This funerary inscription, discovered by G. E. Bean and published by Robert, does not pose any reading problems. Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. VI 3 and IX, 1); Masson (1973[75]: pl. I, 1) Drawing: Deroy (1955:320).

C.Ka 2 (= D 16)

C.Ka 2

152

chapter three

→ [ui?]omlã qrds grdso[-]i[ [-]r sb a∞mnnartnyr obsmns[ [-]∞arlanoã sb z“ariosã i∞[ [-]nudrma ∞yrpai sarni“ sb u[ [-]aH punot2 otr“ bi sb a∞tmsk[m [-]d bi 1aitk ouor gdb“laã1_i[-] [-] sarni“ sb 1orsol“ sb uHbit [-]bi qrdsol“ ait 1mali H∞it [-]intnor ∞yrapai≤ umot2 oba [-]diurt obsmsmñ1ñ ouor mt1_yr [—]abrun∞ur[-]“yn“Hynn sb vacat [——————]tbsms _1mali [ [——————]maH sb an[ [.............................]ba vacat This inscription, the longest Carian text known to date, has recently been revised by Marek and Frei, and this new reading is followed here. The segmentations are purely hypothetical, mostly based on the identification of some clear words (for example the conjunction sb) and endings (-“, -≤ ). Photographs: Robert (1950: pl. XXIX, XXX, XXVIII, 2); Masson (1973[75]: pl. II, 2); Frei-Marek (2000:86). Drawings: Steinherr (1950[51]:331), Deroy (1955:321), Masson (1973[75]:125). For an evaluation of these drawings, see Meier-Brügger (1978). I have made the drawing on the basis of the excellent photograph published by Frei-Marek.

C.Ka 3 (= 28*)

C.Ka 3 (Roos 1972 modified)

the inscriptions

153

→ “oru≤ ann ibrs≤ This funerary inscription, first published in Roos (1972), has been revised by Schürr (see Schürr 1996c, Adiego 1996), and the new reading has highlighted some important corrections: the first letter is not—as Roos’ drawing indicated—an unexpected form of a letter pi, but in fact a variant of the typical Kaunian letter /. This new reading is now confirmed by the photograph published by Frei-Marek (2000). Schürr’s revision also allows us to identify the well-known Carian stem ibrs-. Photograph: Frei-Marek (2000:126). Regrettably, this photograph shows only part of the inscription. Drawings: Roos (1972:93, and pl. 40), Schürr (1996c:158). My drawing is based on that of Roos, but implements the new readings made by Schürr and the information available from Marek’s photography.

C.Ka 4 (= 30*)

C.Ka 4

→ [. . .]u≤ou≤ ibrsdr[-] [. . .]a yomln r1_i [. . .]dar1_ idym“ This fragment, published by Masson (1973[75]), has been re-read and re-published in Frei-Marek (2000). The new revision has allowed some

154

chapter three

corrections of former readings and, perhaps more importantly, has lead to the rejection of Masson’s suggestion (supported by Peter Hermann) that this was a further fragment of the long stela C.Ka 2: the thickness of C.Ka 4 is more than 3 cm greater than that of C.Ka 2 (FreiMarek 2000:99). Photographs: Masson (1973[75]: pl. I, 2 and II, 1); Frei-Marek (2000:98). Drawings: Masson (1973[75]:125), Frei-Marek (2000:97). My drawing is based on the photograph published by Frei and Marek.

C.Ka 5 (= 44*)

C.Ka 5 (Deroy 1955)

the inscriptions

155

→ kbidn uiomln i[—] inis drual nik[—] lan lysiklas[-?] otonosn sb lys[ikl] an lysikratas[-?] otonosn sarni[“] mdot2 un sb undo[—] tl“ kbdyn“ sb b2o[—] ol“ otr“ sb a∞t[ms]— kmt absims sb [—] yt2 oru sb a∞t[—] bu∞y[——]i[——]i [—]≤ un moa[-]lboror [—]Hl∞sasot2 ort tab sb ort[-] sb Horouo bi mslmnlia purmoruos mnos aitusi Greek text: ¶doje Kaun[¤]oiw §p‹ dhmio[u]rgoË ÑIpposy°nouw: Nikokl°a Lusikl°ouw ÉAyhna›o[n] ka‹ Lusikl°a Lusikrãt[ouw] [ÉA]yhna›on proj°nouw e[ ‰nai k-] a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n auto-] Êw ka‹ §kgÒnouw ka‹ [——] n auto›w §[. . .

This is the now well-known bilingual inscription honouring two Athenians. The reading I adopt here is that published in Frei-Marek (1998), which improves the editio princeps (Frei-Marek 1997) and adds a new fragment of the stela. Concerning the dating, Frei-Marek (1997) proposes connecting the proxeny decree contained in the stela with events that happened in 322 B.C. However, Descat (1998) has argued in favour of a slightly more recent dating: 314 B.C. From a linguistic point of view this discrepancy is not particularly relevant. In both cases, the use of Carian writing at the very end of 4th century, in a post-Hekatomnid era, seems meaningful enough.

156

chapter three

The segmentation of the words is based in part on my own analysis of the text, and must be taken as provisional. Photographs: Frei-Marek (1997), (1998). The drawing here is mine.

C.Ka 6 (= 45*; Schmaltz 1998)

C.Ka 6

→ or Photograph: Schmaltz (1998: Abb. 4). My drawing is based on the photograph.

C.Ka 7 (= 46*; Schmaltz 1998) ]no≤?(or better: ]noñ?) C.Ka 6 and 7 are two very brief graffiti found on vases and published by Schmaltz (1998). No photograph is available for the second of these in Schmaltz, so we must make do with the reading he offers, leaving a doubt about the last letter (z or ñ? Schmaltz 1998:209).

C.Ka 8 (= 49* Frei-Marek 2000:116–119)

C.Ka 8

→ potko≤l≤? aba?d? ya

the inscriptions

157

Inscription on two blocks from to the wall of the so-called Demeter’s temple, published for the first time in Frei-Marek (2000:116–119). The reading offered here differs slightly from that of the first editors: instead of potko≤lo, I prefer to read—with reservations—potko≤l≤? with a final Z ≤, not o o: the differentiating trace is quite clear, and I do not believe, contra Frei-Marek, that the different form of the vertical trace regarding the other letter ≤ can is an obstacle to this reading. Moreover, I give (with some doubts) the reading of the last two signs of the first line. Both are clearly visible in the photograph, and even the two editors suggest these readings in their comment on the single signs of the inscriptions, although they decide against including them in their edition of the text. Photograph: Frei-Marek (2000:116). My drawing is based directly on that photograph.

C.Ka 9 (= 50* Frei Marek 2000:120–125)

C.Ka 9

→ [. . .]ois?ur?mlo Inscription on a broken fragment, published in Frei-Marek (2000:120–125). This text poses serious problems of reading, since if the we adopt the interpretation of signs proposed by Frei-Marek, it is not easy to establish the direction in which the letters must be read: Frei-Marek suggests four possibilities. I believe however that Schürr (2001a) offers the correct solution to the problem in reading i, not Z, for sign 2, and s, not m, for sign 3. If the s reading is not absolutely certain (the apparent trace that would allow to read it as s could be an intrusive mark), in the case of i, Schürr’s proposal must be accepted, and this latter reading would mean that the orientation of the text no longer

158

chapter three

poses a problem: the fragment must be oriented as it appears in my drawing, and it must be read from left to right (the photograph in Frei-Marek 2000 must therefore be inverted; the photography is correctly reproduced in Schürr 2001a:63). Some doubts remain, however, about the sign read as r r by Schürr. Photograph: Frei-Marek (200:120). My drawing has been obtained directly from this photograph.

15. Krya (C.Kr) C.Kr 1 (= D 15)

C-Kr 1

→ qot2omu sdisas? n≤ “odubr≤ or rather: mn≤ “odubr≤? sb mno≤ knor noril?amsor rather: norimams? The single inscription from Krya (the modern Ta{yaka) in the gulf of Telmessos, whose alphabet is clearly similar to the Kaunian variety, is not free from reading problems: there are several drawings of the inscription, yet none of these coincides exactly each the others. Sayce (1887[1892]: pl. III) reproduced two divergent drawings, by von HammerPurgstall and by Forbes and Hoskyns. A further drawing was published by Cecil Smith in 1888. Kalinka’s edition in the Tituli Linguae Lyciae offered a new drawing and reading, made in collaboration with Heberdey (Kalinka 1901:93). Deroy also included a new drawing based on two photographs sent by G. E. Bean (Deroy 1955). Finally, Gusmani (1990)

the inscriptions

159

produced a revision of the inscription, following the autopsy made by Roos. Gusmani’s reading was used in Adiego (1993a), although the drawing included there was a reproduction of Deroy’s copy (Gusmani did not publish any drawing in his paper). From these various readings and the photograph published by Deroy, and if we disregard several old reading errors that have since been superseded, it is clear that controversy still exists regarding two letters: the first letter of the second line, and the fifth letter of the last line. In the first case, Kalinka’s and Deroy’s readings, which both propose a letter M m, have been challenged by Gusmani’s suggestion that this letter could in fact be s s. As for the second problematic letter, Gusmani, following Roos, proposes M m instead of Deroy’s l l (HammerPurgstall, Smith, and Kalinka’s readings B can be ruled out, as this kind of letter is alien to the Kaunian alphabetic variety, to which this inscription belongs). The drawing I offer here is based directly on the photograph of the calque published by Deroy (1950). From this photograph it is impossible to tell if the first letter of the second line is M, as it would seem to be, or actually a broken s, as Gusmani suggests. This latter reading has the advantage that it creates the sequence sdis as, parallel to sdis as in C.Ka 1 (see p. 291 for an interpretation of this sequence). For the other problematic letter, the drawing points to l, but the horizontal line could be an intrusive one. The most prudent solution is to offer a reading that leaves open the alternative readings for both letters. Photograph: Deroy (1955:pl. II). Drawing: Deroy (1955:320).

16. Inscriptions of Unknown Origin, Presumably from Caria (C.xx) I group together under this title diverse inscriptions whose common characteristics are their unknown origins and the fact that the object on which they are incised points to a Greek-Carian background and not, as in the case of the “pharaonic objects”, to an Egyptian one.

160

chapter three

C.xx 1 (= 34*)

C.xx 1

← “rquq | qtblem≤ | ÿbt | snn | orkn | ntro | pjdl Text on a bronze phiale published by Gusmani (1978). Some doubts have arisen about the letter À, which Gusmani interpreted as a, but which is in fact l (as shown by the clear onomastic identification, qtblem≤ = Kutbelhmiw). Also concerning the last word, a reading pjdl must be preferred over a: from Gusmani’s photographs, it is beyond doubt that the final letter is the same as the third letter of qtblem≤. Photographs: Gusmani (1978: Pl. I, II). Drawing: Gusmani (1978:69). My two drawings showing the part of the phiale with the inscription have been made on the photographs of Gusmani.

the inscriptions

161

C.xx 2 (=35*)

C.xx 2

→ ÿ≤biks not: alosd ∞arnosd: jzpe mdane This inscription, on a bronze dinos, was published by Gusmani together with the previous text (Gusmani 1978). There are no reading problems. The segmentation of the first sequence as ÿ≤biks not is based on my own analysis of the text (see below p. 284). Photographs: Gusmani (1978: pl. III and IV). Drawing: Gusmani (1978:71). My drawing has been made by combining the two photographs of Gusmani (1978).

162

chapter three

C.xx 3 (= 40*)

C.xx 3

← akymyduÿeryly[vacat]d An inscription on a cult object conserved in Geneva, edited by MeierBrügger (1994:112–113; photograph and transcription). I adopt Schürr’s proposed reading (in Schürr 2001c). Photograph: Meier-Brügger (1994:112). Drawing: Schürr 2001c:118). My drawing is based on the photograph published by Meier-Brügger.

Meier-Brügger (1994:113) suggests that C.xx1, C.xx 2, C.xx 3 and also C.Ha 1, all of which have surfaced in the European antiques trade in recent years, come from the same Carian location, perhaps a sanctuary of the god *Natr- (or rather ntro- = Apollo according to the Lycian trilingual, see Chapter 11, s. v. ntro for further details), from which they may have been stolen.

C.xx 4 (= 41*)

C.xx 4 (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)

the inscriptions

163

→ kdu≤ol“

C. xx 5 (= 41*)

C.xx 5 (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)

→ kdu≤ol“ Regularized form of the letters of both inscriptions:

(Zalhaas-Neumann 1994)

C.xx 4 and C.xx 5 are two identical inscriptions on two bracelets published by Zalhaas-Neumann (1994). Although the origin of both objects, conserved in Munich’s Prähistorische Staatssamlung, is unknown, their inscriptions are not only clearly Carian, but even display manifest connections with the Kaunian alphabetic variant: note the form Z of z ≤ and particularly the presence of the letter / “, characteristic in this alphabet (see already Zalhaas-Neumann 1994:166). Note however the use of l l instead of l (L, Kaunos 2) in ºu≤ol (vs. u≤ol in other places). There are no reading problems. Photographs: Zalhaas-Neumann (1994: between 166–167). Drawings: Zalhaas-Neumann (1994:161–161, 164).

chapter three

164

E. The Carian Inscriptions from Greece

G 1 (= D 16, Athens)

G 1

→ seÇma ma tÒde: Tur[ KarÚw toÇ SkÊl[akow]

≤jas: san tur [ÉA]ristokleÇw §p[o¤e-]

This is the well-known Athenian bilingual, dated ca. 525/520 B.C. I maintain the reading adopted in Adiego (1993a), confirmed by my own revision of the inscription. Photograph: Masson (1977:between 90–91). Drawing: Deroy (1955:335). My drawing has been made on my own photographs.

G 2 (= 42*, Thessaloniki)

G 2 (Tzanavari-Christidis (1995)

the inscriptions

165

→ qlali≤ | k?[ This inscription was found in Thessaloniki and edited by Tzanavari and Christidis (Tzanavari-Christidis 1995). It appears on a fragment of a skyphos. The vase is dated by Tzanavari to the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. The Carian character of the inscription is indisputable. Photograph: Tzanavari-Christidis (1995:pl. I). Drawing: Tzanavari-Christidis (1995:14).

CHAPTER FOUR

THE HISTORY OF THE DECIPHERMENT

The history of the research to decipher the Carian Alphabet can be divided for convenience into three periods:1 1. The ‘semisyllabic era’ 2. The ‘alphabetic Greek era’ 3. The ‘Egyptian approach’ and the definitive decipherment of Carian It must be said that only the third period constitutes the true history of the Carian decipherment: until the pioneering work of Zauzich (1972), who was the first to correctly identify the solution—although his approach was unsuccessful—practically all the previous efforts had produced no results. This does not mean, however, that all the work preceding Zauzich is worthless: for example, all the studies devoted to clarifying the inventory of Carian letters—and in this sense, the roles played by Olivier Masson or Vitali ”evoro“kin should not be dismissed—must be considered important contributions to the decipherment of Carian Indeed, some intuitions have proved to be right, as for instance Steinherr’s interpretation of the bilingual coin of Erbbina (see below), although it is true that cases such as this are the exception.

A. The ‘Semisyllabic Era’ (1887–1962) The ‘semisyllabic era’ was dominated by the figures of Sayce and Bork, and lasted until the 1960s. As a conventional date for its end, I use 1962, the year ”evoro“kin’s influential article appeared in RHA (”evoro“kin

1

This periodization is different from that adopted in Adiego (1993a). There, it was more important to separate the previous unsucessful or incomplete efforts (including Zauzich and Ray) from the principal goal of the book: to present a complete decipherment of the Carian alphabet.

the history of the decipherment

167

1962). It is true that the foundations of the alleged Carian semisyllabism had already been questioned at the very beginning of the 1950s, when Theodor Bossert observed that the then recently discovered long inscription of Kaunos pointed to a purely alphabetic system, but it is also true that the semisyllabic transcription was still used (indeed in a conventional way) by Masson (1959b). To Archibald H. Sayce we owe, among many other things, the first paper to offer an overall table of sound values for Carian letters (Sayce 1887[92]).2 In order to decipher Carian, Sayce started with the mixed origin of the Carian writing system: he stated that, on the one hand, a great number of letters were of Greek-Phoenician origin, whereas some signs came from what he called an “Old Asianic Syllabary”, traces of which would also remain in the Lycian alphabet and whose last vestige would be the Cypriot syllabary: It is clear at first sight that the main part of the letters is derived from the Phoenicio-Greek Alphabet, but that, as in the case of the Lykian alphabet, certain other characters have been added to express sounds which were unrepresented in the Greek. Now Dr. Deecke, Dr. Isaac Taylor and myself have pointed out that these additional characters have in the case of Lykian been taken from the old Asianic syllabary, a local form of which continued to be used in Cyprus down to a late date. A probability therefore arises that the additional characters in the Karian inscriptions also come from the same source (Sayce 1887[92]: 128).

2 Sayce had devoted a previous article to Carian (Sayce 1874), but Sayce (1887[92]) is the first (and last) complete study of the Carian alphabet by the British scholar.

168

chapter four

The following table reproduces that of Sayce (1887[92]):

Sayce (1887[92])

the history of the decipherment

169

Therefore, whereas a r W m, for instance, come from a Greek model, the letter & has for Sayce the same origin and value as the equivalent sign in the Cypriot Syllabary. A dental value is assigned to 1 (dh), only on the basis of its similar value in Lycian, assuming that both letters have the same origin. In one case, Sayce was forced to accept that a sign coming from that alleged syllabary was used in Carian for a sound existing in Greek: the sign p, which he transcribed as mi, me, m on the basis of the value mi of a similar sign in the Cypriot syllabary. This anomaly is justified by the concurrence of the letter s with s. Sayce opens a series of interpretations of letters that will be continued by many other scholars: the differentiation between m and M and the vocalic value of t are also present in ”evoro“kin’s decipherment. The vocalic character of e and w and the dental character of 1, also defended by ”evoro“kin, are nowadays confirmed, following the definitive decipherment of Carian. Yet this does not mean that the arguments then used were as compelling as the present ones, and indeed it is clear that Sayce’s decipherment, like all theories prior to the Egyptian approach, was wrong. It is worth noting that Sayce’s system was not exactly semisyllabic. For Sayce, the syllabic component of Carian writing is in fact of a historical character: the Carian alphabet comes in part from a syllabary, but it is not actually a syllabary or semisyllabary as such. Our label “semisyllabic era” must therefore be interpreted in a broad sense. The semisyllabic character of Carian writing was developed by Bork. As for the Carian language, Sayce was commendably prudent. Moreover, he was able to establish two basic and correct principles of interpreting the texts: that the Carian inscriptions of Egypt must contain essentially person names, and that -z ending was of genitival character. However, Sundwall (1911) was very much to the point in criticizing the failure of Sayce’s decipherment to offer forms comparable to the Carian onomastics known from the Greek sources. The possible equivalences are scarce and—we are now able to say—ill founded: †Ü-z-âkho-e = Osogva (E.xx 3, now reads in the opposite direction: ionel), †‡L-e-le-kh-ä = Lelegians (mythical inhabitants of Caria) (E.AS 7: bebint). The transcription system of Sayce (1887[92]) is also used in his subsequent contributions to Carian, although there are doubts, modifications (the clearest ones regarding vocalism, in Sayce 1906) and some incongruities.

170

chapter four

As for the connection of Carian to other languages, although Sayce assumes provisionally that Carian belongs to the “Aryan family” (Sayce 1887[92]:117), this hypothesis is not based on data from his decipherment, but merely on a combination of his own impression that Lydian was an Indo-European Language, and the notices given by Herodot of a kinship between Lydians and Carians. Sayce’s decipherment was only used until the appearance of Bork’s articles (Bork 1930, 1931). Yet despite the failure of his decipherment, and the dilettantism of many of his proposals, Sayce deserves recognition as the founder of Carian studies: he localized and edited all the texts then available and established the basis for a scientific study of Carian. Although they cannot be considered decipherments per se, since they are merely contributions to the line of research begun by Sayce, some other works must be mentioned: Kretschmer (1896:377–384), where an o-value for z was proposed, and where the typical final sequence -xi, read †hä (now ∞i ) was compared with Lycian genitival ending -he ; Torp (1903:43–50), wherein Sayce’s system was adopted in an attempt to find a sigmatic nominative in Carian; and Sundwall (1911), who formulated several interesting ideas, for instance, that e was different from k, and w from K, and that k and K were mere variants of one sign. He also tried to analyze the Carian inscriptions in the wider background of Minor Asian onomastics. In Torp (1903:44) a value i for t is proposed for the first time, an idea later repeated by ”evoro“kin.

The next decipherment was proposed by F. Bork, who in two papers (Bork 1930, Bork 1931) laid the foundations of the semisyllabic theory (the so-called Bork-Friedrich system). In Bork (1930) the proposed decipherment differed from Sayce’s in two basic points: a) A clear-cut distinction between alphabetic signs and syllabic signs. Moreover, the latter have the same value as the (allegedly) corresponding signs of the Cypriot syllabary. Needless to say, in most cases, the similarities between Cypriot signs and Carian were extremely questionable, both formally and phonetically. b) A fixation of the sound values for the Carian signs more precise than that of Sayce, based on the assumption that the sound inventory of Carian must be not very different from that of Lycian, given their common origin (according to Bork) and their geographical proximity.

the history of the decipherment

171

This latter point could have offered interesting results—at least regarding the criterion of geographic proximity, since it is well known that nearby languages tend to share phonetic traits—, but Bork had a very sui generis vision of Lycian phonetics, far removed from the communis opinio. For both languages Bork assumed the existence of sounds like /pf/ or /k’h’/ (this latter an affricate palatal), and in Carian he established five series of consonants (labials, dentals, palatals, gutturals and velars), with three articulation modes for each one ( fortes, affricates and spirants). Bork’s transcriptions therefore appear complex, with an array of aspirates mixed with syllabic signs. This is his decipherment system, as appears in Bork (1930):

Bork (1930)

172

chapter four

This is, v. gr. his transcription of E.Sa 1: R-a-v-ro-l.h’(e).on | No-qh-ro-s.n R(e)-a-kh’.ja | va-kh’-?-no | re.ja-kh’ | h(e)-u.vu.kh’ [“arkbiom zidks mdane yn[-?]mo den tumn] Bork (1931) focused on the linguistic analysis of Carian. The grammatical elements that Bork believed to have recognized are not worthy of consideration, as his analyses are totally arbitrary. Similarly, the meanings he attributes to the words are capricious. Finally, the typical Carian onomastics known from Greek sources do not appear anywhere in his study. To quote a few examples, in the aforementioned inscription E.Sa 1, Bork claimed to recognize two Carian names hardly reconcilable with the indirect sources, Ravrol and Noqhros. Other “Carian personal names” were forms like Kh’asja, Ravuvoc, or Rejajape, equally aberrant. Bork (1931) offers the first attempt to situate linguistically the Carian language based on a particular decipherment. According to Bork, Carian would belong to an “Old Caucasian” family that would also include Sumerian, Elamite, “Mitani” (nowadays known as Hurrian), Lycian and “Alasian” (the language of the Cypriot Minoic inscriptions). At present, none of these languages is believed to have any connection with the others: Sumerian is an isolated language, Elamite has been linked— very tentatively, however—to the Dravidian family, Hurrian forms an independent group together with Urartian, Lycian is an Anatolian IndoEuropean dialect, and “Alasian” is yet to be deciphered. Needless to say, all these speculations, based on an invalid decipherment and a nonexistent linguistic family, have been totally superseded. The relative success of an overly unscientific decipherment must be attributed to the authority of J. Friedrich and W. Brandenstein. Friedrich used it in his important work Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (Friedrich 1932) for transcribing the Carian inscriptions. However, Friedrich himself recognized that Carian could still not be seen as comprehensively deciphered (Friedrich 1932:91) and uses a simplified transcription that substitutes for , for , etc., which in fact means destroying Bork’s complex speculations about the sound system of Carian:

the history of the decipherment

Friedrich (1932)

173

174

chapter four The so-called Bork-Friedrich system was adopted in a purely instrumental way by Masson in his editions of Carian texts until 1976.

Brandenstein also adopted Bork’s system—although with some modifications—in his article “Karische Sprache” for the Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie (Brandenstein 1935a): he not only took on the simplifications of Friedrich (1932), but also recovered two values proposed by Sayce: t = ä (Bork he) and i = e (Bork h’e, Friedrich he). His proposal of attributing a value p to x X is new, and based on the alleged labial value of X in Lydian (at present, this Lydian letter is in fact commonly interpreted as representing a labiovelar [transcribed by q]).3 This proposal, put forward by Brandenstein in a former paper (Brandenstein 1934b) was unsuccessful:

Brandenstein (1934b) 3

See now Gérard (2005:56–57).

the history of the decipherment

175

Brandenstein made some efforts to find Carian personal names in the inscriptions: in E.Ab 16, read as †k-mi-v-o-s-k-vo (now nprosn≤ ), he believed he had identified the final element of the Carian names Se-skvw, Saskvw. In other cases, he included Bork’s interpretations. In general, Brandenstein’s contributions are scarce and not particularly convincing. After Bork’s decipherment and until the end of 50s, I know of only one attempt to decipher Carian letters: that of A. Mentz (Mentz 1940). Its only interest lies in being the first work to employ the CarianEgyptian bilingual inscriptions in order to establish sound values for the Carian signs, and in having ruled out the alleged semisyllabic character of Carian writing.4 Otherwise, Mentz’s decipherment is an exercise in dilettantism, and has received harsh, but merited, criticism: “ganz dilettantisch in Lesung und Deutung” (Friedrich, quoted by Masson 1973:207); “tentative ambitieuse (. . .) qui n’a pas convaincu” (Masson ibid.); “It is difficult to imagine that there can exist works on Carian language more prone to fantasizing than Bork’s ‘researches’. Mentz showed that it was indeed possible” (”evoro“kin 1965:51; my translation).

Mentz (1940) 4

“Die entscheidende Erkenntnis ist, daß das karische Alphabet keine Mischung von

176

chapter four

Mentz’s use of bilingual inscriptions is very surprising, as he tries to find Egyptian verbs and nouns in the Carian parts. The resulting Carian is a somewhat bizarre, mixed language. In his translation, the Carian short graffiti turn out to be of a pleading tone: “Râ, gib”, “Râ Amon, gib Leben”, “Hathor, gib”. Such demonstrations of Carian devotion to Egyptian deities may indeed be praiseworthy, but when they are based only on an analysis like E.Si 11 = †‡pn–obpya “Apis Ptah”, they are highly suspect.

B. The ‘Greek Alphabetic’ Era In 1949, George E. Bean found an inscription of Kaunos (C.Ka 2) that remains to this day the longest Carian text conserved. Almost immediately, Th. Bossert (apud Steinherr 1950–51:332) rightly observed that this long inscription, where less than 30 different letters were used, pointed clearly to a pure alphabetic system: “Nach dem Zeichenbestand der Kaunos-Inschrift zu urteilen kann von einer Mischung von Alphabetund Silbenscrhrift nicht die Rede sein. Es handelt sich um eine reine Buchstabenschrift (. . .)”. It is true, as we have seen above, that Mentz was in fact the first to discard the semisyllabic approach and to defend the purely alphabetic nature of the Carian writing system, but his only argument was his decipherment itself, which we have already established as being even worse than Bork’s (if this is possible). In any case, it was Bossert’s well-reasoned contribution that put an end to the alleged semisyllabism of Carian. In general, the proposals of decipherment of this new period concur in their assumption that the Carian writing system is alphabetic, and in attributing Greek values to letters of Greek shape.5 Between Mentz’s and Stoltenberg’s (see below) decipherments, it is also fair to mention the contributions of F. Steinherr (Steinherr 1950–51, 1955). Steinherr did not offer a concrete decipherment, rather he limited himself to formulating remarks on certain Carian signs. His observations are generally very thought-provoking and, in some cases, surprisingly accurate. Among them, the following four must be highlighted:

Laut- und Silbenschrift ist, wie man seit Sayce allgemein annahm, sondern ein rein Lautschrift.” (Mentz 1940:279) 5 The sole exception is Stoltenberg’s decipherment, where syllabic values are assigned to a few letters in a rather capricious way. But even he refuses any connection to Cypriot syllabary, see below.

the history of the decipherment

177

1. Steinherr (1950–51:336) proposed a liquid value for the sign z resorting, among other arguments, to the comparison of the “genitival” endings in -z with the oblique case in -l of Lydian. This proposal anticipated an idea developed later by ”evoro“kin, but which has since been superseded. 2. Steinherr suggested that j had to have a value near to i, because both alternate in some inscriptions. Consequently, he proposed a transcription ê / e, respectively. This observation, for many years ignored (a nasal-like value for j was for a long time the preferred theory), has since proved to be correct, now that the Carian alphabet has been definitively deciphered (i = i, j = j ). 3. Steinherr pointed out that the sign f F (and variants) could hardly have an r value, because it often appears in an initial position, whereas Anatolian languages show a clear reluctance to an initial r, a well-founded argument reiterated by Ray (1987). 4. For this latter sign, Steinherr suggested a t value. We now know that he was wrong, but only partially: the sign has in general an “ value, but the bilingual inscription of Kaunos has revealed that in the Kaunian alphabet the letter T was actually used for t. Moreover, in at least one case his analysis was right: he proposed that the letters i F in the bilingual coin of Erbbina, dynast of Telmessos, read t e, could correspond to the Lycian legend teleb(ehi) erbbina ‘Telmessos / Erbbina’ in other coins (Steinherr 1955:184–192). Similar reasoning is nowadays used to explain the Carian legend i F, by assuming that the alphabet used is of Kaunian type (a very plausible assumption from a geographical point of view), see Adiego (1998b: 58–60), Meier-Brügger (1998:45). Steinherr’s work can hardly be considered a decipherment, but it does deserve a great deal of respect: before the “Egyptian approach”, this was the only moment in the history of decipherment that a correct method of analyzing the Carian alphabet had been envisaged, even if it was in a very limited way. The fifties ended with another failed attempt at decipherment, by H. L. Stoltenberg (Stoltenberg 1958a, b, 1959). Stoltenberg started with the automatic attribution of Greek values to the allegedly Greek letters: a = a, o = o, m = n, p = m, and so on. As for the apparently non-Greek signs, he rejected any comparison with the Cypriot syllabary and proposed as an alternative to resort to the Minor Asian onomastics of Greek sources, and the comparison with

178

chapter four

‘Termilian’ (= Lycian). This latter hypothesis would in principle be acceptable, were it not that that Stoltenberg, like Bork, had a very peculiar vision of Lycian: he believed that Lycian belonged to a group that he called ‘Laric’ together with Etruscan, ‘Tyrsenian’ (= Lemnian, an Etruscan dialect of the Lemnos island) and the language of the “Cretan pelasgians”. Moreover, this alleged ‘Laric’ group would be connected with Uralic languages. This classification of Lycian is clearly wrong, and most of the meanings for Lycian words that Stoltenberg proposed are also completely incorrect (see Neumann 1969b:364). If this approach does not promise good results, any hope of success vanishes when the values attributed to the ‘non-Greek’ letters are taken into account: let us examine the following table that contains his decipherment system (Stoltenberg 1958a):

Stoltenberg (1958a)

the history of the decipherment

179

By attributing values such as ija, nda, and öm to some letters, it is easy to obtain words of a falsely Anatolian flavour. For instance, ‡1wmuip ← ‡piumz, now read piubez (E.Ab 10), transcribed as †‡me-u-n-uwa-nda can be easily compared with the typical Anatolian names in -anda, -wanda. However, even resorting to these tricks Stoltenberg was unable to obtain convincing results. It is worth remembering that during the fifties the Carian corpus underwent a considerable improvement. It was during this period that the complete corpus of Carian inscriptions of Caria to date was published by Robert (1950) and Deroy (1955), Masson and Yoyotte collected the inscriptions on pharaonic objects (Masson-Yoyotte 1956), and a provisory edition of graffiti of Abu-Simbel appeared (Bernand-Aly 1959?). Moreover, the important Greek-Carian bilingual stela of Athens was discovered, as well as graffiti in Thebes. At the beginning of the sixties appeared the first works of Vitali ”evoro“kin, one of the most prominent Carian scholars, and the author of the first book devoted exclusively to the decipherment of Carian (”evoro“kin 1965). ”evoro“kin’s method offers some innovative elements. In order to separate vowels from consonants, he resorts to typology: given that the languages combine vowels and consonants in different ways, which implies different patterns of sequences such as CVC. VCV, etc., ”evoro“kin tries to establish the patterns of Carian on the basis of personal and place names from Greek sources. Remarkably, the results are not far removed from the distribution of vowels and consonants in Sayce’s decipherment. The explanation for these rather surprising results is that Sayce himself took into account the distributive properties of the signs, albeit in a rudimentary way. After establishing a first separation between vowels and consonants, ”evoro“kin moves on to the statistical comparison between Carian signs and the phonemes present in the names of Greek transmission. However, in some cases this criterion seems to be used merely to confirm a value obtained by other means. These other methods are the formal analogy with Greek letters and the identification of onomastic elements in Carian words. The following tables reflect the system of ”evoro“kin as it appears in ”evoro“kin (1965) and thirty years later, in ”evoro“kin 1994, respectively:

180

chapter four

”evoro“kin (1965)

the history of the decipherment

”evoro“kin 1994

181

182

chapter four

It is clear that ”evoro“kin follows the traditional equivalence between Carian signs and Greek letters in a great number of cases. Regarding the “non-Greek” signs, one also comes across values already outlined by other scholars: t = i, suggested by Torp 1903; z = l (1965) / L (1994), for which a liquid value was defended by Steinherr. A less exact precedent is the value ù for e (Sayce ô ) or the dental character of c, already suggested by Bork. However, other proposals are totally new: j = ñ (based undoubtedly on the Lycian N ñ ); & = t (1965) / D (1994), a dental sound, based primarily on the sequences m& that ”evoro“kin identified with the typically Minor Asian consonantal group o nd o); k K = p (1965), b (1994), based on statistical criteria and on the comparison with names from indirect sources. Careful examination of both tables shows that the changes introduced by ”evoroskin during three decades of research on Carian were of no great importance. Perhaps the most significant modification is v = U, resulting from the observation of Memphis corpus, where it alternates with u = u (formerly, ”evoro“kin took v as a sort of e). In the remaining cases, the modifications are aimed at adjusting the transcription to etymological explanations. This is the case, for instance, of x X, transcribed as q (formerly h) in order to better reflect his etymology of xi †qe [now ∞i ] < PIE *kwe, or of k K, previously transcribed as p and more recently as b. One of the most characteristic values that ”evoro“kin defended was z = L (formerly transcribed as l). This was a not totally new idea (it was previously considered by Steinherr 1950–51, see above), but in ”evoro“kin’s hands it took on greater importance. Using this value, he believed he could recognize the Carian name Lujhw in zu0Li-, read as †Luxze- [now ≤ugli-], comparing the genitival ending -z = †-L with the genitival adjective ending -li- in Lydian, and he claimed to find typical Carian names in -vllow/-vldow in some sequences uz = †uL [now u≤ ]. Obviously, these proposals have since been proved erroneous, as the sign has been definitively identified as representing a sibilant sound. However, the main problem with ”evoro“kin’s decipherment is that the typical Carian names attested by indirect sources do not appear anywhere in Carian inscriptions if we adopt his system of decipherment. In this sense, a case such as Lujhw = †Luxze- is almost unique. In most cases, the only means of establishing connections between ”evoro“kin’s readings and the stock of Anatolian names in Greek (and Hittite) sources is to resort to partial comparisons of constituents, ety-

the history of the decipherment

183

mologically reconstructed forms, complex sound changes, and so on. Indeed, such techniques can be used to explain any form as Anatolian and/or Indo-European. However, almost none of the typical Carian names (for instance Ussvllow and related forms) are obtained with this decipherment. Masson rightly pointed out this deficiency: Contrairement à bien d’autres tentatives, celle de ”evoro“kin paraît raisonnable: les discussions philologiques sont judicieuses et les comparaisons linguistiques sont intéressantes, sinon toujours convaincantes. Peut-on alors parler d’un véritablement déchiffrement? Il ne le paraît pas, car l’ensemble des lectures ne donne pas une impression d’évidence, et les noms d’hommes cariens (. . .) ne se retrouvent pas de manière tangible.

This inability to find recognizable Carian names could explain why, in his works of the 80s and 90s, ”evoro“kin focused his efforts on the search for nouns and verbs in Carian texts, paying far less attention to the amount of onomastic formulae provided by the recently published corpus of Memphis inscriptions. ”evoro“kin seemed to feel more comfortable translating long and complex texts in a rather speculative way than analyzing the abundant personal names in the laconic funerary inscriptions from Saqqâra. Nowadays, in the knowledge that ”evoro“kin’s decipherment was a failed attempt, continuing critical analysis seems unnecessary, and it is preferable to instead note some important merits of his work. The first, although apparently negative, does in fact have a positive reading: despite his methodological weakness, due above all to the abuse of etymological and analytical speculations, ”evoro“kin’s study remains the only serious effort to interpret the Carian alphabet as a ‘normal’ Anatolian alphabet, similar to Phrygian, Lydian and Lycian writing systems, wherein letters with Greek shape have their Greek or like-Greek sound value, and other letters are added to reflect peculiar sounds not found in Greek. After ”evoro“kin’s failure, this method became impracticable, and a different approach became necessary. The other merits of his work are decidedly more positive: ”evoro“kin contributed decisively to the demonstration that Carian writing is purely alphabetic. He showed that the seemingly large number of letters was due to the existence of alphabetic varieties, which he was able to separate correctly. Moreover, ”evoro“kin has always defended the supposition that Carian was an Anatolian Indo-European language, ruling out the attempts of the dilettanti to connect it with other languages, and emphasizing the need to include the other Anatolian languages in an analysis of Carian forms.

184

chapter four Reviews of ”evoro“kin 1965: Pisani 1967, Gusmani 1967 (laudatory, although he believes that it is precipitate to consider the decipherment as done), Zgusta 1968 (totally favourable: “We can then, conclude that . . . the basic step is done and the Carian inscriptions are really deciphered” (p. 154)).

In contrast to the predominantly serious approach adopted by ”evoro“kin the so-called decipherment of R. Shafer (Shafer 1965) can be taken as an example of how a language must not be deciphered. He combines a lack of rigor (different values assigned to the same sign, absence of a table to display sound values, senseless hypotheses about the meaning of the inscriptions . . .) and an arrogant dismissal of other scholars, which explains the harsh but just opinion formulated by Masson: “tentative vaine et très prétentieuse d’un renouvellement complet des lectures et des interprétations” (Masson 1973:211). As is often the case in other attempts to decipher Carian, the beginning of Shafer’s work seems very promising, despite the somewhat inappropriate tone. He rightly criticizes Bork-Friedrich’s decipherment system, the outcome of which is a language he derisively terms “Super-Hawaiian” because of the profusion of vowels and semivowels, phonologically very distant from the Carian names in Greek sources. But the interest of his paper ends here. When trying to establish sound values for Carian letters, the solutions he resorts to are routinely bizarre: for instance, he attributes a strange value br to p, takes the clear interpunction sign | as a letter i, and imagines surprising evolutions of the letters, like L > R > r. As for the linguistic interpretation, in the Egyptian-Carian bilinguals, he claims to identify stereotyped formulae referring to pharaohs in the Carian part. In many cases, he even reads the texts in the opposite direction to that commonly accepted. One of his “interpretations” surpasses Mentz’s litanies: †(q)-lolak qirmdun b(a)bu kimrda (E.Si 4) According to Shafer, this means: “In the language of the Leleges qirmdun is spoken kimrda” or “The Leleges qirmdun pronounce kimrda”. It is not easy to imagine the reason for which a Carian mercenary would feel the need to write a sentence such as this, which instead seems to belong to a sort of Carian Appendix Probi ! This period of the history of Carian decipherment ends with another somewhat superficial effort, that of Ju. V. Otkup“‘ikov (Otkup“‘ikov 1966; cf also Otkup“‘ikov 1968, on the origin of the Carian alphabet). His proposal is shown below:

the history of the decipherment

Otkup“‘ikov (1966)

185

186

chapter four

These are the more notable elements of his decipherment: 1. Otkup“‘ikov assumes that some signs have two forms, one frequent (‘asto), and other more infrequent or rare (redko). For instance, B would be the infrequent form corresponding to the frequent a (!). 2. By this logic, Otkup“‘ikov converts the Carian alphabet into a pure Greek alphabet, wherein the apparently non-Greek letters are subsumed beneath the Greek ones. The values attributed are in general also the Greek ones, note for example j = ks. 3. In fact, for Otkup“‘ikov, the Carian language is merely a Greek dialect. None of these three assumptions are convincingly argued. The groupings are largely unjustified and absurd (for example k = u), and Otkup“‘ikov arbitrarily assigns different values to a single letter: for instance, q is both a frequent letter with value th and a redko letter equivalent to o, and similarly in the case of B (=l / a). As for the supposed Greek character of Carian, the dialect resulting from this decipherment proves to be rather curious: ue uh would mean ‘daughter’ and would be connected with the Greek uflÒw ‘son’(!) (Otkup“‘ikov 1966:22); paraeWm, read SaWaieien would be an optative (Otkup“‘ikov 1966:24) and so on. It is not difficult to agree with Masson’s judgement: “on aura peine à conclure autrement que par un scepticisme total devant la langue qui nous est proposée . . .” (Masson 1973:193). Reviews of Otkup“‘ikov (1966): O. Masson (1967), Heubeck (1967–68), Jordan (1968), all adverse.

Before concluding this section, it is worth mentioning the contributions made to Carian studies by the Italian scholars Piero Meriggi and Roberto Gusmani. Their presence here can be justified by the fact that, in their approach to the language, both scholars broadly adopted the ‘Greek alphabetic’ interpretation of the Carian writing system. In the 60s, Meriggi published two papers on Carian (Meriggi 1966, 1967). The first, though devoted to the study of Para-Carian tablets, contains very useful inventories of signs. The second consists of a series of remarks regarding several inscriptions from Caria itself and certain Carian letters. Although Meriggi did not offer a decipherment as such, he assumed implicitly that the “Greek” letters had Greek sound values. In the 70s, Meriggi dedicated two of his last works to Carian: Meriggi (1978) adds little new material to Meriggi (1967), aside from

the history of the decipherment

187

his argument in favour of the Luwian character of Carian based in a process of elimination. More interesting is his review of Masson (1978 (Meriggi 1980), in which he leaves aside any discussion of the letter values and aims instead to analyze the structure of the inscriptions of Saqqâra, with some thought provoking hypotheses, such as the meaning ‘son’ for mno-≤ (already suggested in Meriggi 1967:223), or the possibility that mwdon-≤ could be an ethnic (‘Caromemphite’). Gusmani’s first approach to the study of Carian—other than his review of ”evoro“kin (1965), Gusmani 1967—was his edition of the Carian graffiti from Sardis (Gusmani 1975), wherein he adopts the conventions of ”evoro“kin’s system (except in a few cases, such as j = †≤, not †ñ). In any case, the very limited linguistic usefulness of these graffiti does not allow Gusmani to enter into discussions about the sound values of the signs. Similarly, no linguistic discussion is present in Gusmani (1978), which contains two Carian inscriptions: Gusmani adopts Masson’s system of transcription, with the sole difference of & = †≥ (= Masson “31”). In fact, the very first work by Gusmani devoted specifically to Carian decipherment itself is Gusmani (1979). Here he focuses on the letters 2, t, i, e, K and j. The most valuable contribution is the observation that t alternates with d, which invalidates ”evoro“kin’s theory of a vocalic value for t. Less successful is his attempt to defend a similar alternation between e and o, leading to a transcription of e by means of †ò. Other suggestions are equally unconvincing, with the sole exception of the alternation j / i. Most of the ideas Gusmani puts forward in this article are no longer recognised, having been superseded by the definitive decipherment.

C. The ‘Egyptian Approach’ 1. The First Attempts The Egyptologist K.-Th. Zauzich deserves to be considered as the pioneer of the so-called ‘Egyptian approach’: his use of Egyptian-Carian bilinguals as the starting point to decipher the Carian alphabet is an approach that has proved successful. From a historical perspective, it is interesting that for one hundred years (from Sayce’s first work to Zauzich’s monography), with the sole

188

chapter four

and frustrating exception of Mentz, nobody considered the possibility of using the bilingual inscriptions to decipher Carian, despite this being the most customary way of focusing a decipherment. The flaw in Zauzich’s attempt is its inability to establish a clear connection between Greek and Carian parts of the bilingual inscriptions. Practically the only correct value that he discovered was p = p, which appears at the beginning of three names in both the Carian and Greek part of three bilinguals (E.Sa 2. E.Me 5 and E.Me 8).6 Other than this equivalence, both the methods and the results are very disappointing: he corrects Carian texts whose readings are not in doubt, offers unconvincing equivalences, like Prjm = †patalem [now paraeym], assigns the same value to different letters, as b e = l, z v = s, and, finally, concludes that Carian is a Greek dialect, rendering his study as defective as Otkup“‘ikov’s (see above). Consequently his decipherment received fierce criticism from serious scholars like Masson and Heubeck. Reviews of Zauzich (1972), both very critical: Masson (1973[74]), Heubeck (1974:97 col. 1): “Die Entzifferung Z[auzich]s hat uns . . . keinen Schritt weiter gebracht”.

The way opened by Zauzich (1972) was followed by Thomas Kowalski, with more promising results (Kowalski 1975). The most striking element of Kowalski’s only paper devoted to Carian is that he sets most of the values later established by J. D. Ray, but he does so in an unusual way, often starting from weak or even erroneous suppositions. Moreover, his article gives the impression of being a condensed version of a more extensive study on Carian that was never published: nowhere does it attempt to justify, for example, the grouping together of clearly different signs or the separation of mere variants.

6 Zauzich also believed that a Carian name beginning with p could be connected with an Egyptian name with an initial p in E.Me 6, an incorrect assumption, because this is a case of a re-used stela, and indicates no correspondence between Egyptian and Carian epigraphs. It is also true that Zauzich was right in assigning a sibilant value to z, but this attribution was based on faulty interpretations.

the history of the decipherment

Kowalski (1975)

189

190

chapter four

I consider the main deficiencies of Kowalski’s proposal to be the following: 1. Kowalski tried to obtain and correlate results from very dissimilar inscriptions, treating Egyptian-Carian and Greek-Carian inscriptions in the same way, even though connections are far more difficult to establish within the latter type, increasing the risk of falling into hazardous speculations. He also considered the inscription E.Me 6 truly bilingual, when it is in fact a reused stela and indicates no connection between Carian and Egyptian names. 2. His transcription and interpretation of the frequent sequence xi as † yrº ‘son’, clearly reminiscent of Zauzich (1972),7 was not only absurd per se, but also seriously impeded the overall decipherment, because it implies an rº value for i, a clearly vocalic letter. 3. It has already been mentioned that Kowalski’s article lacks a detailed explanation of the treatment of certain Carian letters as mere variants, and vice versa. The above table demonstrates how inconsistent these groupings and separations are: Kowalski separates N (= t’ ) from ø (= h), L (= z´ ) from 2 (= ˙), and yY (= c) from i (= rº ). Conversely, he puts together v and ç (= t ). The most surprising case is z: two different values are offered: ¬, and Æ. In the first case it is grouped with 9 and 6, and in the second, with ñ. All these assumptions have turned out to be false. 4. Kowalski does not apply the values obtained from the bilingual inscriptions to the rest of Carian texts, which would be the only way to check the validity of the decipherment, particularly regarding those signs whose values are dependent on the weak interpretation of a single inscription. To sum up, Kowalski’s decipherment—though it far exceeds Zauzich’s attempt when Egyptian-Carian bilinguals are used, offering correct values for some important signs (p = p, k = k, r = r, m = m, b = b, f = “ )—is fatally flawed by excessive speculation and its chaotic treatment of signs and variants that inexplicably disregards the illuminating

7 = Zauzich ‡ir. However, Kowalski does not make reference to Zauzich’s interpretation. Zauzich aimed to connect this form with Greek uflÒw, an assumption untenable from the point of view of both Greek dialectology and the structure of Carian inscriptions.

the history of the decipherment

191

work of ”evoro“kin and Masson. As a result, its usefulness is extremely limited, working only for those words where the correctly deciphered letters mentioned above appear almost exclusively, for instance in farKbiom = †“arkbrºom [now “arkbiom], a not entirely correct transcription—note rº—based on the Egyptian form ”3rkbym. The ‘Egyptian approach’ took a brief step back with Jean Faucounau (Faucounau 1980). In this article, the Egyptian-Carian bilinguals are considered, but the overall attempt is rendered worthless by the author’s customary dilettantism. Faucounau bases his work on two assumptions: that Carian local alphabets are very dissimilar to each other, and that they may reflect different dialects or even languages. Both assumptions are untenable, at least in the form in which Faucounau develops them: it is true that there are local alphabetic varieties, with some peculiar forms in each case for certain signs, but Faucounau proposes absurdly that letters such as f or t may have different values in diverse inscriptions from Egypt, where the general unity of the Carian alphabet is undeniable. As for the existence of different languages, not only is there no evidence for this assertion, but in fact the presence of similar words and endings in distant Carian sub-corpora points in the opposite direction. The presumed existence of different alphabetic systems and languages combined with a markedly unscientific approach result in an continuously ad hoc assignation of sound values to the letters and to an inconsistent decipherment. Faucounau also attempts to identify proper names, but in many cases he resorts to alleged “Carian” names transcribed in Greek (without any reference) that do not appear in either Zgusta’s or other similar collections. 2. The Seminal Work of Ray The ‘Egyptian approach’, as the definitive method for deciphering Carian, begins in earnest with the fundamental work of British Egyptologist John D. Ray. It must be pointed out that for his decipherment Ray starts from scratch: it is clear that when he begins to work on Carian, he is still unfamiliar with Kowalski’s article. Whilst his decipherment of Carian cannot be considered complete, the definitive decipherment could not have been produced—at first independently, and later jointly by Diether Shürr and myself—without the seminal work of Ray, which acted as its starting point. Ray’s first work on Carian is his recension of Masson (1978), received by the editor of the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology ( JEA) in 1980,

192

chapter four

but published three years later (Ray 1983). This brief article is important for two reasons: here Ray already establishes a criterion for the use of bilingual inscriptions, consisting in leaving aside those inscriptions where the individual has an Egyptian name in the Egyptian part and deciphering only those where the Egyptian part contains a nonEgyptian, presumably Carian, name. The other contribution is his hypothesis, now confirmed, that the name Psammetichus can be identified in the Carian sequence of signs kfa«sip ←/ pismazk →, which would suggest totally innovative values for allegedly ‘Greek’ signs as p, m or f. It is interesting to note that the first assertion is now known to be partially false: Egyptian names from the Egyptian part of the bilingual inscriptions do appear in the Carian part (E.Sa 2, E.Me 5). However, in somewhat paradoxical fashion, this limitation imposed on the inventory of bilingual inscriptions proved instrumental in triggering the first dramatic steps towards a definitive decipherment. Apart from the two inscriptions mentioned above, Ray also left out E.Me 6, in this case with good reason: there is no correspondence between the names in the Carian and Egyptian parts. So we can see that, unlike Kowalski, Ray did not obtain incorrect sound values for his decipherment by using an inappropriate bilingual inscription. Kowalski’s error was, as we have seen, to include this inscription in his decipherment. Ray (1981) offered the first complete proposal of decipherment, based on the inscriptions of Saqqâra. His method consisted in bringing the sound values obtained from the bilingual texts to the remaining inscriptions, in order to find Carian proper names comparable to those preserved in Greek sources. This onomastic comparison as a form of confirming and developing the decipherment was not new, as the history of Carian studies shows. The singularity of Ray’s approach to the onomastics of indirect sources lies rather in the cautiousness with which he operates: the onomastic identifications are not so numerous, but some important similarities begin to appear. Another prudent decision was the initial limitation to the Saqqâra corpus: almost all the bilingual inscriptions used were from Saqqâra, where a very unitary and standardized alphabet was used. This left little room for confusion between letters and variants, a risk that the former followers of the ‘Egyptian approach’ did not take care to avoid. It must be added that Ray was also much more rigorous than his predecessors in the use of the Carian alphabet: unlike some, he did not distort the Carian signary in order to obtain a particular equivalence between forms.

the history of the decipherment

193

In Ray (1982b), undoubtedly his most ambitious and important work, numerous inscriptions are transcribed and briefly commented, not only those from Saqqâra, but also the graffiti from Buhen, Abu-Simbel, Silsilis and Abydos, as well as other inscriptions. Ray (1982a) is an article focused rather on historical aspects and theoretical problems of decipherment. In Ray (1987) he responds to criticisms formulated by Gusmani (1986), by comparing the results of his own decipherment with those gained from the traditional approach.

Ray (1982b)

The proposed sound values vary slightly from one article to another, but they can be characterized in the following way: 1) A significant number of signs had been transcribed in a similar manner by Kowalski. The coincidence is logical: these are the letters that appear in the bilingual inscriptions used by both authors. However, in contrast to Kowalski, Ray does not offer arbitrary groupings or separations of signs. Ray’s use of bilingual inscriptions is shown in the table of p. 194. There were admittedly some problems of interpretation: the value of l, that in Egyptian appears adapted by means of r, and which was

Carian forms

Egyptian version

E.Me 15

ursxlez Nrskr [sic; now: 3rskr]

E.Sa 1 farKbiom ”3rkbym E.Me 5 psmfk . . . PsmΔk . . . E.Me 7 Camou T3-n-jm.w E.Me 7 Canaiz T3[ E.Me 8 paraeWm Prjm E.Me 9, 15 arlifz Jr“3, Jwr“3 E.Me 9 arlio [ Jry[m]3

Inscription

“-a-r-k-b-e-o-m p-s-m-“-k-. . . ‘-a-m-o-u ‘-a-k‘-a-e-≤ p-a-r-a-j-é-m a-r-d-e-“-≤ a-r-d-ê[sic]-o[m-≤] u-r-s-h-d-j-≤

Ray’s transcription (Ray 1982b)

arlio[m≤] urs∞le≤

“arkbiom psm“k . . . tamou tanai≤ paraeym arli“≤ +

+ +

Current interpretation f =“

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ +

Resulting sound values m = m p = p l = d s = s x = h c = ‘

+

+ +

k = k

+ +

+

r = r

Sound values established by John D. Ray on the basis of Carian-Egyptian bilinguals

194 chapter four

the history of the decipherment

195

troublesome for Ray; the only partial analysis of the name in E.Me 5; the problematic reading Nrskr (now read 3rskr); the imprecise analysis of vocalism, hampered by the almost purely consonantal adaptation in Egyptian. Yet most of the values proposed by Ray have in fact turned out to be right. Note that a great number of the sound values were established on the basis of more than one correspondence: m = m results from its presence at the end of two names (”3rkbym, Prjm), and in the middle of a third one (Ô3n-j.mw), f = “ is established thanks to E.Sa 1, E.M 5, E.Me 9, and E.Me 15, etc. 2) Other values are the result of graphical alternations in the inscriptions of Saqqâra already noted by Masson (1978) and Meier-Brügger (1979a): i / j, u / v, etc. 3) Curiously, two of the most important sound values proposed by Ray were not obtained from the bilingual inscriptions: L = l (Ray used ld to transcribe it) and z = ≤. The first equivalence- totally new- is based on C.Ki 1(Kildara) †ke-ld-a[ (now kila[ ) interpreted as the Carian form of the place name Kildara (following Kowalski’s suggestion, although he interpreted L as †z), and the endings in -oL = †o-ld (now -ol), that Ray correctly compared with the typical Carian names in -vllow from Greek sources. The second equivalence (z = ≤ ) was already suggested in Meier-Brügger (1979a)—as Ray pointed out—but based on weak argumentation, and without exploiting the consequences. Ray’s basis for this equivalence was initially only the interpretation of the name vzoL- as †ü-≤-o-ld(now w≤ol-), corresponding thus to the Carian name Ussvllow (Ray 1981:161), although it was subsequently noted in Ray (1982b:189) that more convincing evidence could be found: the clear alternation between z and f = ≤ in the Egyptian name pisma≤k / pisma≤k. 4) For the remaining signs, whose values he could not ascertain from the bilinguals used, Ray generally kept to the traditional transcription used by other scholars (”evoro“kin, Meriggi, Gusmani, Masson), id est, that is based on the similarities with Greek alphabet: d = g, t = q, n = k, k’ [= kt ?], q = t, even l = d, etc. This is also valid for vocalic signs: given the consonantal character of the majority of Egyptian transcriptions, Carian-Egyptian bilinguals were useless for establishing vocalic values, and Ray chose to keep the traditional value e for i, despite the evidence of onomastic identifications, that pointed clearly to i. In Ray (1988), several inscriptions from Caria itself are analysed. The most relevant contribution is the comparison of the final sequence

196

chapter four

in C.Hy 1, read †é-d-a-r-m-e-ld (now ylarmit) with the place name where the inscription was found, ÑUllãrima. Two further articles by Ray previous to the definitive decipherment should be cited here: Ray (1990a) is an ambitious attempt to systematize the results of his decipherment, but there are few new ideas. The most striking contribution is the discussion devoted to the sign n, in which Ray mentions, and rejects, the proposal of a nasal value suggested to him privately by Schürr. Ray (1990b) offers an interpretation of the initial line of C.Si 2, which owes much to Schürr’s brilliant analysis, also privately communicated (see below). However, in trying to adapt this to his own decipherment system, Ray seriously distorts Schürr’s ideas and the final result is unconvincing.

The role played by John D. Ray in the decipherment of Carian is crucial: for the first time, true Carian names emerge from the inscriptions, although in some cases Ray’s transcription does not correspond exactly to the Greek adaptation: †u-≤-o-ld = Ussvllow, †“-a-r-u-≤-o-ld = Sarussvllow, †a-r-d-e-“ = Arlissiw. Even more importantly, a great number of the values involved in these forms were established from the independent evidence of Egyptian bilinguals and the alternation of letters. Yet despite these merits, Ray was unable to offer a complete decipherment system. The values proposed for very important consonantal signs were either wrong (d t q n), or inaccurate (l & X), while others remained undeciphered. As for vowels, Ray’s transcriptions were also imprecise, when not mistaken (i = †e, j = †ê, e = †j, W = †é), to the extent that the Egyptian bilinguals were rendered useless given the almost purely consonantal notation of Carian names. Only in the case of a o u v and to some extent w, did his transcriptions seem to more accurately reflect the actual value of the letters. The sound system that arose from his proposal was also inadequate, the most important gap being the absence of a letter for n, the basic nasal consonant in all the sound systems of the world. As for the onomastic identifications, although the spectacular comparisons cited above pointed clearly to the accuracy of the Egyptian approach, they were counterbalanced by the great number of personal names in the Carian inscriptions left without suitable interpretation. Forms such as †ü-d-e-a-q, †‡e-r-t-u-t, †‡t-q-b-a-j-m-, †“-a-ju-g-e-t-, †‡“-a-r-ü-k-ê-a-q-, †‡m-s-k’-o-r-e-, (now wliat, “ !rquq, qtbl!em-, “aÿdiq-, “arwl !jat-, msnord-) and many others, which are now easy to interpret from the point of view of Carian onomastics by using the definitive system, remained obscure in Ray’s system.

the history of the decipherment

197

The first effort to improve Ray’s dechipherment was made by Faucounau (Faucounau 1984). But the typical dilettantism of this scholar converts his work into a practically worthless attempt. The only interesting suggestion was l = l (vs. Ray †d ) later confirmed more definitively. Much more serious is the work of Frank Kammerzell, who devoted his doctoral dissertation of 1990 to Carian (published with a Nachbemerkung in 1993: Kammerzell 1993). However, his decipherment differs too little from Ray’s: any differences—not in transcription, but in interpretation—are found only in the vocalic system. The consonantal values for letters are coincident with those already proposed by J. D. Ray. 3. The Definitive Decipherment (‘Ray-Schürr-Adiego System’) In this history of the decipherment of the Carian alphabet, I must speak of my own contributions to the subject. In my first work, produced in 1989 and published one year later (Adiego 1990), I concentrated on only two letters, l and n. For the first, new evidence was presented in favour of an l value, following the suggestion made by Faucounau. As for n, I tried to demonstrate that this sign was actually the Carian letter for n, a sound surprisingly absent in Ray’s system (see above). In this later case, the evidence was exclusively based on onomastic identifications that seemed convincing (for instance p-nu≤ol = pnu≤ol = Ponussvllow). Shortly after writing this brief article, I decided to devote my doctoral dissertation to Carian, with the aim of offering a complete analysis of all Carian materials available (Adiego 1990b). For the decipherment, the most important contribution was to use as a further clue two Carian-Egyptian bilingual inscriptions disregarded by Ray because they contained true Egyptian names in the Egyptian part. A more attentive study of these two inscriptions (E.Sa 2, E.Me 5) showed that the Carian parts did indeed reflect the same Egyptian names present in the Egyptian ones. This lead to new values for very important letters: n, whose value n was now confirmed, t, which reflected a t sound (transcribed t in Adiego 1990a, t already in Adiego 1993a), and d, a d sound (d in Adiego 1990a, d already in Adiego 1993a):

198

Carian form Egyptian form Ray Adiego (1993a)

chapter four E.Me 5

E.Sa 2

psmfkvneitz Psm“k-‘wj-Njt p-s-m-“-k-ü-k‘-j-e-q-≤ p-s-m-“-k-ú-n-e-i-t-≤ [now: psm“kwneit≤ ]

pdnejt P3-dj-Njt p-g-k‘-j-e-q p-d-n-e-í-t [now: pdnejt]

The t value of t allowed me to analyse the Athens bilingual inscription in a both straightforward and convincing way: read ≤ías : san tur[ (now transcribed ≤jas : san tur[ ), the third last letters could be connected to the Carian name present in the Greek part, Tur[. Another important improvement concerned the vocalic letters: i = i (not †e), j = í (given its alternation with the former, not †ê [now j ]), e = e (not † j ) and sound values close to /u/ for the letters w = w (Ray † ju, but on a weak basis; now [ÿ]), W = ù (Ray †é [now y]). All these values are now universally accepted. As for other letters, a labial character was proposed for $ (m [now b]), based on the good correspondence ( para)i$rel = Imbarhldow, and a liquid value for 6. A brief report on this new decipherment system was published in Kadmos (Adiego 1992a). An error of decipherment, regarding q, was rectified shortly after the completion of the doctoral dissertation, in which a more traditional value t was envisaged (which explains the use of t for transcribing t). However, a more detailed analysis of E.Sa 2 brought me to the conclusion that the second name in the Egyptian part, K3rr, was also identifiable in the Carian part, qwri-, so that a tectal value for q was proposed. This value was also reinforced by convincing onomastic identifications, such as quq = Gugow, or qtblem = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw. The new value was presented in a lecture held in Cologne in 1992 and incorporated into my book Studia Carica (Adiego 1993a), wherein a definitive decipherment of Carian was proposed.

the history of the decipherment

Adiego (1993a)

199

200

chapter four

As for the linguistic results obtainable by means of this decipherment, a very prudent method was adopted: both in Adiego (1990a) and in Adiego (1993a) the attention was focused exclusively on the most evident grammatical information recognizable in the Carian texts: the existence of an opposition Nominative -Ø / Genitive (or ‘Possessive’) -≤. The clear connection with Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Sidetic, and Pisidian sigmatic genitives and possessives, and the Lycian, Sidetic, and Pisidan zero nominatives was seen as a clue for the consideration Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian language, more closely related to these later dialects. This assertion was fully consistent with the indices observable in Carian onomastics, as ”evoro“kin and others had already showed. During these decisive years for the elaboration of my own decipherment system (1989–1992), I was unaware that another scholar, Diether SchÜrr, had already obtained to the same results for the sound values of t, d, q, n, i and j. As early as 1982, also inspired by the works of Ray, Schürr had observed the significance of the bilinguals E.Sa 2 and E.Me 6 for deciphering Carian, which explains the coincidence of the values proposed for these letters. However, Schürr merely communicated his theory privately to Ray, who rejected it, and after this disappointing answer he became silent until the appearance of my first works. This explains why his first contribution appeared after Adiego (1992a) (Schürr 1992). The positive side was that the two studies had reached very similar conclusions independently of each other, which served to reinforce the validity of the decipherment. However, Schürr’s decipherment was not totally coincident with my own: the main difference lay in the values attributed to vocalic signs. While he agreed with i = i, and j = í [now j ], he was very sceptical about e = e, or about the u-like values of w and W. In any case, Schürr has since come to accept these values. He has been also sceptical about other aspects of my decipherment, such as my interpretation of the Athenes bilingual, or the identification of the name ÑUllãrima in C.Hy 1 ( ylarmit)—an idea formulated by Ray (see above) and easily integrated into my decipherment system. Despite these discrepancies, Schürr’s proposals opened up new interpretations of some aspects I had disregarded. The most relevant was undoubtedly his brilliant explanation of the Sinuri bilingual inscription (C.Si 2), in which he was able to recognize the Carian version of the formula ‘Idrieus (son) of Hekatomnos and Ada (daughter) of Hekatomnos’ that appears in Greek, in some decrees enacted by this pair of Carian satraps. Schürr’s explanation of the letters & and $, which he con-

the history of the decipherment

201

vincingly interpreted as representing the outcome of Proto-Anatolian (PA) *nd and *mb respectively, is also relevant. In 1993, an international congress on Carian decipherment took place in Rome. In this congress, I presented a long list of onomastic identifications that could be obtained with the new system (the “RaySchürr-Adiego”).8 The new decipherment clearly won the support (expressed either in public or privately) of many relevant scholars, like Günter Neumann and Heiner Eichner, but both ”evoro“kin and Gusmani rejected it: while the former continued to argue in favour of his own system, Gusmani declared his scepticism for a decipherment that implied extremely surprising sound values for letters of Greek shape (the socalled ‘metakharakterismós’). I must stress here the role played by Günter Neumann in backing the new decipherment. Although his public position was very cautious (for instance at the Rome congress), he encouraged it with meaningful gestures, for instance writing the preface for Adiego (1993a) or offering support and suggesting ideas in private correspondence. In Neumann (1993) he expressed his conviction that the ‘Egyptian approach’ of Ray and myself was a step in the right direction.9 In the same paper, he suggested linking Carian sb, very likely to be a coordinative conjunction, to Milyan sebe ‘and’. It is also worth mentioning the clear support for the decipherment manifested by Heiner Eichner in the Rome Symposium (see Eichner 1994). Even more decisive in gaining wide acceptance of the new decipherment was H. Craig Melchert’s contribution. In an important article published in Kadmos (Melchert 1993), Melchert not only accepted the new system, but also employed it to interpret Carian texts, opening new and thought-provoking ways of deciphering the language. Of particular note was his proposal of connecting Carian ÿbt (in C.xx 1) to Lycian ubete ‘he offered’). As in the case of Neumann’s sb = Milyan sebe, a word of common lexicon was recognized, and the generic connection of Carian with Lycian and in general Anatolian was thus

8 Different ordering of names has been given by scholars to refer to the system of decipherment that has become standard (alphabetical: Adiego-Ray-Schürr, strictly chronological regarding the published works: Ray-Adiego-Schürr). The ordering adopted here responds to the authentic chronological succession of the research, even if Schürr’s first contribution appeared after my first works. 9 ‘. . . aber nun endlich scheint doch ein erfolgreicher und nahezu vollständiger Abschluß der Entzifferung in Reichweite zu kommen’ (Neumann 1993:296).

202

chapter four

reinforced. Also important was the analysis of snn and orkn as accusatives in -n (< PA *-n < PIE *-m), an analysis equally relevant for the linguistic position of Carian, and later confirmed by the Kaunos bilingual. Another scholar to take the Ray-Schürr-Adiego system as a starting point for research on Carian was Michael Janda, who in his contribution to Rome Symposium offered a series of new ideas, among them the fascinating hypothesis (developed here) regarding the presence of ethnic names in the onomastic formulae of Saqqâra ( Janda 1994). Finally, Ivo Hajnal was another of the scholars quick to take up the new decipherment, with excellent results: he devoted a paper to the Carian particle ∞i, analysing it as originally a relative pronoun from PIE *k wi- (Hajnal 1997a). Moreover, in an independent way, Hajnal and Schürr (1996[98]) identified two further Carian words: ted ‘father’ and en ‘mother’, clearly related to the corresponding Lycian and Lydian nouns. It is not easy to briefly sum up the amount of new ideas and hypotheses regarding Carian—some confirmed, others ruled out- that arose in the first half of the 90s: apart from those quoted above, other particularly sound theories were: the sound value z (< *st) proposed in Schürr (1996a) for the letter 1; the identification of the name of the Anatolian Storm God under the forms trqude, trqd (Blümel-Adiego 1993) and of the name Hekatomnos in the unedited graffiti from Thebes (Adiego 1995); the reconstruction of the Carian name of Kaunos as *kbid(Adiego 1995:21), definitively confirmed a year later by the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual; the attribution to Kaunos of the coins with the Carian legend kb, interpreted as the beginning of the place name, discovered by Konuk and also confirmed by the bilingual (Konuk 1998);10 the satem-treatment of PIE palatals in Carian, as in Luwian and Lycian (Melchert 1993); the identification of the Carian family of names in (i)br- = Gr. Imb(a)r- made by Schürr (1991–1993), etc. During the excavations of summer 1996 in Kaunos, a new bilingual inscription in Greek and Carian was found. The behaviour of the two scholars responsible for the editing of the inscription, Peter FREI and Christian Marek, was exemplary: they edited the text as quickly as possible, but also extremely accurately (Frei-Marek 1997), and suggested

10 Although this paper appeared after the publication of the Kaunos bilingual, it is clear that Konuk’s hypothesis was formulated previously (see Konuk 1998:218, n. 14, and 223 n. 51).

the history of the decipherment

203

holding an international conference on the subject in the same year as their article appeared, to which the principal scholars researching Carian were invited (1997, in Feusisberg, Switzerland). The new inscription was the outside evidence that was needed to remove any doubt about the validity of the Ray-Schürr-Adiego system. The presence of the place name Kaunos, and of the onomastic formulae of two Athenian citizens in both parts of the inscription led to values such as k = k, b = b, d = d, i = i, l = l, W = y, r = r, n = n, s = s, a = a fully coincident with the values established in Adiego (1993a). The only anomaly, T = t (not = “ according to the Egyptian approach) is merely apparent, and easy to explain: there is no t (= t ) in the Kaunian alphabet, so that in its writing system, a letter in the form of T represents the value t, whereas for “ a clearly diacritical form of the common Carian form for “ (/) was used in order to distinguish it from T. This particularity affects only the Kaunian alphabet: in the other alphabetic varieties, the value “ for f continues to be valid. Shortly before the Feusisberg meeting, during the summer campaign of 1997, a new fragment of the inscription was found, which enabled the beginning of the Greek part to be completed, showing that FreiMarek’s integration of the lost endings of the line, based on the Carian(!) part, was correct. Therefore, the complete edition of the inscription can be found now in Frei-Marek 1998. The following table shows the Greek-Carian correspondences obtainable from the bilingual inscription of Kaunos: Greek

Carian

Transcription

Lycian evidence

Kaun[¤]oiw, Kaun¤v[n Ipposy°nouw Nikokl°a Lusikl°ouw Lusikl°a Lusikrãt[ouw] ÉAyhna›o[n] [ÉA]yhna›on

k5idn, k5dWn/ i[—]ini ni[—]lan lWsiklas[ lWs[—]an lWsikraTas oTonosn oTonosn

kbidn, kbdyn“ i[—]ini ni[—]lan lysiklas[ lys[—]an [ lysikratas[ otonosn otonosn

Cf. Lyc. Xbide- ‘Kaunos’, xbid˜eñne/i- ‘Kaunian’

Unfortunately, the bilingual inscription of Kaunos, so useful for confirming the decipherment of the writing, has proved to be less useful in deciphering the Carian language, given the incompleteness of the Greek part and the possible non-literal correspondence between the two texts:

204

chapter four

perhaps the most notable new discoveries are: (1) the word otr-“, whose probable meaning is ‘self ’ and is possibly etymologically connected to the Lycian atra/etli ‘self ’, (2) the ethnic suffix -yn- in kbdyn-“ ‘Kaunians’, clearly comparable to Luw. -wanni-, Mil. -wñni-, Lyc. -ñni- (with the same function in all three languages), (3) the accusative plural ending -“, related to Lyc. and Mil. -s < *-ns. To these discoveries we must add the confirmation of -n as an accusative singular ending, and of sb as a coordinative conjunction. A plausible interpretation of the remaining words and formants has yet to be made.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE CARIAN ALPHABET

A. Alphabetic Varieties One of the areas of Carian studies in which our knowledge has dramatically improved in recent years is undoubtedly the writing system. Thanks to the definitive decipherment and the appearance of new inscriptions, we can now create an overview of the different alphabetic varieties that, although still limited and with very important gaps, was unthinkable some years ago. If we compare the table of the Carian alphabet established by Masson in the 1970s with the results that will be uncovered here, it will be easy to acknowledge the progress made in this field. Masson was able to offer a complete inventory only for the alphabetic varieties of Egypt and Kaunos; we now have an almost complete inventory for the alphabets used in two other two Carian cities (Hyllarima and Mylasa). Moreover, the combination of new information obtained both from the decipherment and from these new inscriptions gives us a much better understanding of the relationship between the different alphabetic varieties. Certain signs that Masson had deemed independent are now interpreted as variants, in some cases within an alphabetic variety, in others belonging to different alphabetic inventories but functionally equivalent. Finally, the total of 44 different letters in the table drawn up by Masson, the result of combining the alphabets of Egypt and Caria could give the false impression that the Carian alphabet consisted of a surprisingly high number of different letters. In fact, as we will see, the number of different letters found in each alphabetic variety barely exceeds 30 (31 in Memphis is currently the highest number of letters documented for a concrete alphabet). Many questions remain unresolved, however. The new inscriptions from Caria complicate to a certain extent former classifications of the different alphabets of Caria proper, based on a geographical criterion that now seems to be too rigid. Our current knowledge also makes it difficult to establish the exact nature of the relationship between the Carian alphabet of Egypt, a very homogeneous sign inventory, and the alphabets of Caria proper, which are much more varied between

206

chapter five

themselves, and are also different from the Egyptian alphabet. Finally, the most intriguing question of all is yet to receive a wholly satisfactory answer: what is the origin of the Carian writing system? In the following pages, we will see firstly the known inventory for each Carian alphabetic variety, together with a succinct commentary on the main characteristics in each case. In the subsequent sections of this chapter, the open questions mentioned above will be briefly dealt with. 1. Alphabetic Varieties of Caria Proper Alphabet of Tralleis We do not yet possess sufficient Trallean materials to reconstruct the alphabet used in this Carian-Lydian city: C.Tr 1 offers 12 different letters, C.Tr 2, 12 or perhaps 13.1 Given the brevity of the texts and the coincidence of some words, the combination of both inscriptions produces an inventory of only 13–14 different letters. This means that in all probability less than the half of the complete inventory of letters is attested. However, despite the very limited number of letters, some interesting traits can be observed. Perhaps most striking are the unique characteristics of C.Tr 1: it shows a right-toleft orientation, totally atypical for Carian inscriptions from Caria proper. Moreover, the letters for a and r seem to be A and A respectively. This is a clear contrast with the corresponding forms in C.Tr 2: a and R. The form of a A is the same as that found in the Sinuri-Kildara variety, and shows the particularity of a dextrorse orientation in a sinistrorse context. As for A, at a glance it seems closer to Egyptian and Kaunian r (r) than to the more extended shape of the letter in the alphabets of Caria proper (R). In any case, it is very likely that the definitive form of both letters is the result of internal tendencies to symmetry (A | A): such tendencies to structural uniformities are well known in the history of the writing system. Regarding the rest of the letters from C.Tr 1, particularly remarkable is the form adopted by the sign for i, a right-to-left version (Y) of the i found in Hyllarima (y). Also in this case, C.Tr 1 diverges—though to a lesser degree—from C.Tr 2, where the corresponding letter is Y. Both y and Y point to an identical subtype of Carian i characteristic of the Northern zone (see above), 1 The real sign that appears at the very end of C.Tr 2 is much disputed: it could be a Q (as assumed here) or simply a z. See p. 131 and here below.

the carian alphabet

207

but it is rather surprising that the form found in C.Tr 1 is in fact closer to that of the Hyllarimean alphabet than to its equivalent in the other Trallean inscription. Compared to C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2 appears more as we would expect: a for a, R for r. It is worth noting the presence of %, a letter absent from the alphabet of Memphis. But the most uncertain point of this inscription is the last letter, as mentioned in p. 131: the drawings are ambiguous, pointing to either Z or q. The first of these forms would suggest a z ≤ of Kaunian type, but the second drawing, and the fact that in the same inscription ≤ appears as z, make it more plausible in my opinion to interpret the letter as a q, comparable to the form that this sign adopts in the most local alphabets of Caria proper (Q). Alphabet of Hyllarima The new fragment of the sole remaining inscription of Hyllarima, added to the part of the text already known, has allowed us to create an almost complete inventory of the letters of the alphabetic variant used in that city. They are shown below: Alphabet of Hyllarima a D l W R L Q B m o t S s

a d l y r l q b m o t “ s

U ñ N p z y e K & 9 c B

u ñ n p ≤ i e k d z t b

The most remarkable absence is the letter for ∞ (x X in other alphabets). This absence is most probably a matter of chance. It is also possible that other letters, less common but nonetheless found in other alphabets of Caria proper (such as %, H) could have belonged to the inventory of Hyllarima. In any case, these 25 letters constitute an inventory large enough to allow us to consider our knowledge of Hyllarima’s alphabet to be fairly comprehensive.

chapter five

208

While most of the letters used in Hyllarima are clearly comparable to the other Carian alphabets, the new fragment sees the appearance of three somewhat surprising new forms of letters: L l, e e, and B b. In the case of L and B, it seems clear that we are dealing with graphical innovations produced within Hyllarima’s alphabet. Both letters have undoubtedly been created from Greek letters: L is a diacritised form of B that only can be explained by a Greek lambda (B is b in Hyllarima).2 B is simply a Greek beta, used for the Carian sound represented in other alphabets by Ø 4 (< *mb). e, however, could be an old variant of e e assuming a common origin from Greek archaic eta E, and considering its probable presence in the Carian alphabets of Euromos and Mylasa (see below). The reasons for a recent introduction of L and B are not clear. In the first case, it is worth mentioning the fact that some alphabetic variants (Thebes, Mylasa) lack a specific letter for l, this sound being covered by the sign for the ‘basic’ lateral liquid l, l. Perhaps this was also the original situation in Hyllarima, so a specific letter may have been created when the local alphabet already existed. Regarding B, the same explanation could be envisaged, although the alternative suggested in Adiego (2005) must not be discounted: that the original form of Ø 4 was &, i.e. the form attested in Mylasa, and that the similarity of & to & could mean discarding the first letter in favour of a new sign directly borrowed from the Greek alphabet, B.3 Alphabet of Euromos Our knowledge of the alphabet used in the Carian city of Euromos is more limited than that of Hyllarima. The two brief inscriptions that remain give us an inventory of 20 letters: Alphabet of Euromos a d l W R (/ r?)4 Q

a d l y r q

s U x nN z íI

s u ∞ n ≤ i

(continued on next page) 2 3 4

However, we must not rule out an alternative origin from Carian l l. For a detailed discussion on these new letters, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio[lu (2005). On the doubts about the presence of the variant r for r in C.Eu 1, see p. 133.

the carian alphabet

209

table (cont.) Alphabet of Euromos B m o t

e kK & 9

b m o t

e k d z

The absence of the signs for two very important and widespread Carian sounds ( p and “ ) is without doubt a coincidence. It is also likely that the alphabet of Euromos had specific letters for ñ, t and b, as in Hyllarima. It is particularly unfortunate that we are unable to ascertain whether there was a specific letter for l, or if this sound was assumed by l l, as is the case in Thebes and Mylasa.5 The letter e, formerly interpreted as a sign for l similar to the Kaunos form of the letter (rotated 2 against L in other alphabets), must now be considered a sign for e: Kaunian 2 is a peculiarity that is hard to separate from the similarly rotated form Z of z ≤, a letter that appears in Euromos in the more widespread form z. e as e in Euromos is more consistent with the use of the sign with this value in the nearby cities of Mylasa and Hyllarima.6 Alphabet of Mylasa The newly published single inscription of Mylasa, of significant length, offers us a very wide inventory of letters, which undoubtedly marks a clear improvement in our knowledge of the local alphabetic varieties of Caria. Alphabet of Mylasa a D l W R Q B

a d l y r q b

U x N p z I e

u ∞ n p ≤ i e (continued on next page)

5 The two sole examples of l (in C.Eu 2) appear in contexts without the parallels that would allow us to decide if they represent l or l. 6 Schürr (pers. comm.) has independently come to the same conclusion.

chapter five

210 table (cont.)

Alphabet of Mylasa m o t F s

m o t “ s

k & 9 &

k d z b (?)

The presently known inventory consists of 23 letters. None of the most widespread Carian signs are missing here (on l, see immediately below). If we compare this inscription with that of Hyllarima, for example, the only notable absences are c and ñ, neither of which is a particularly common Carian letter. The most notable traits of the alphabet of Mylasa are the following: • There is not a specific sign for l, the sound involved being represented by means of l l: note idu≤ol≤ besides dw≤ol≤ (E.Me 35). • Given the use of l for l in idu≤ol≤, the letter e cannot represent this sound here, and it is more likely that we are dealing rather with a letter for e, as in Hyllarima and perhaps also Euromos. Unfortunately, the only example of this letter in E.My 1 appears in an unclear context. • For y, a letter similar to that used in Sinuri and Kildara is employed: W (Sinuri-Kildara V). • Also very close to Sinuri and Kildara alphabetic variety is the form adopted by i in Mylasa: I (cf. Sinuri-Kildara Î). • It is interesting to note the angular form of some letters: besides the sign for i (I), the same trait is observed in 9 z (9, 1 in other alphabets), and in & if we accept the interpretation of this latter sign proposed here (see the following point). • The most troublesome sign in this alphabet is &. I have proposed to interpret it as the local form of the letter for b, which in other alphabets is Ø, 4 (Adiego 2005). From these observations, the alphabet of Mylasa turns out to be of a very idiosyncratic nature; while it shows some clear affinities with the Sinuri-Kildara variety, as could be expected ( W = y, I = i ), the use of e for e (against Sinuri e) or the lack of a specific sign for l (which

the carian alphabet

211

does exist in Sinuri-Kildara) prevent us from speaking of a common local alphabet for the region of Mylasa, Sinuri and Kildara. Alphabet of Stratonikeia The two inscriptions from Stratonikeia give us an inventory of 25 letters: Alphabet of Stratonikeia a d l W R L Q m o t F s H

a d l y r l q m o t “ s ?

U ñ X N p z Ï e K & 9 b (?)

u ñ ∞ n p ≤ i e k d z b

It is somewhat strange, but perhaps merely a matter of chance, that there is no letter for the widespread sound b. Leaving aside this one uncertainty, the inventory of Stratonikeia, with a number of different letters identical to that Hyllarima, seems almost complete. When compared with Hyllarima, the only letter that might be missing is c,7 since the other letters that are not present here are rather idiosyncratic for some local alphabets or for the alphabet attested in Egypt. I offer the new suggestion of recognizing in C.St 1 the Stratonikeian letter for b, a hypothesis based on the identification of the name brsi in the second line (see p. 143). The problem arises from the fact that it is not easy to establish the exact form of the letter: the photograph in Robert (1950) is not absolutely clear, and the drawing published by Deroy (1955) could not be totally faithful. Given that the question cannot be satisfactorily resolved, I use conventionally a form based on Deroy’s drawing (b). In any case, this letter seems to be formally related to the Egyptian (Ø) and Kaunian (4) signs for b. 7 About the possibility that in other alphabets of Caria proper the undeciphered letter H could in fact represent c t, see p. 253.

chapter five

212

Apart from this new letter, the alphabet of Stratonikeia does not offer other remarkable traits, with the exception of the form of i, Ï, until now exclusively documented in this alphabet, and which shows certain similarities to corresponding signs in Mylasa and Sinuri-Kildara. Also comparable with Mylasa and Sinuri- Kildara is the form of F “. Regarding the rest of the letters, we find the typical forms Q, 9 of Caria proper (against q, 1 respectively, in Egypt and Kaunos). In any case, it is worth noting the form of ∞, X, against x in most of the Carian alphabets from Caria proper (including Kaunos).8 Alphabet of Sinuri-Kildara The combination of the letters documented in the inscriptions of Sinuri and Kildara gives a total of 26 different signs: Alphabet of Sinuri-Kildara Sinuri

Kildara

A d l V R L q (??) Bb m o t TF s H (?) U ñ x N p z Î e

A d

& %

V R L Q B mM o t s u x n Î k & 9

a d l y r l

q b m o t “ s ? u ñ ∞ n p ≤ i e k d z ã?

8 The form X only appears in the inscription C.Ia 3 (but note also x in Iasos, C.Ia 2) and in the inscription C.xx 2 (of unknown origin).

the carian alphabet

213

An attentive examination of the inventories of letters used in each location reveals the close affinity between the alphabets used in Sinuri and Kildara, which allows us to speak of a single alphabetic variety. Note particularly the forms of a (A), y (V), i (Î). The new inscription from Mylasa has served to reinforce this theory, because several letters, which formerly seemed unimportant given their presence in other varieties, have become more representative insofar as they are absent, or different, in the inventory of Mylasa. This is the case of e e (against Mylasa e) and L (absent in Mylasa). What is alleged to be the most remarkable difference between Sinuri and Kildara—the use of q in Sinuri against Q in Kildara—perhaps does not exist: the reading of q in C.Si 1 is far from assured (see p. 138). Note that other divergences occur within the alphabet of one or both places: b and B in Sinuri, m and M in Kildara (but about the doubts regarding the reading of this latter sign, see p. 142). We can suppose that this inventory of Sinuri-Kildara is practically complete. If compared with the inventories of Hyllarima, Mylasa, and Stratonikeia, only the letters for b and t are missing.9 Conversely, it is interesting to note the presence of % (as in Tralleis and Kaunos). Alphabet of Kaunos The alphabetic variety of Kaunos is the best known of all the varieties attested in Caria proper, thanks for the most part to the long inscription C.Ka 2, and the bilingual text C.Ka 5. The inventory of signs, which we can consider complete,10 consists of 29 letters.11 Alphabet of Kaunos a d l W r 2 q

a d l y r l q

ñ x N p Z I k

ñ ∞ n p ≤ i k (continued on next page)

9 This latter sound, however, could be represented by H, see the similar observation on Stratonikeia above. 10 Obviously, it is not impossible that some letter has still not been documented, but in this case its functional value would be very low. 11 I assume that ÿ is the form of C.Ka 5 corresponding to 4 in C.Ka 4.

chapter five

214 table (cont.)

Alphabet of Kaunos 5 M o T / s H U

b m o t “ s ? u

& 8 1 % 1 O 4, ÿ

d g? (if = 0) z ã? _ ? t (if = c) b

The main characteristics of this alphabet, some of which have already been mentioned, are the following: • Leaving aside the particular cases of Iasos and Halikarnassos (see below), this is the alphabet that shows the most resemblances to the Carian alphabet of Egypt: as the table seen above makes clear, in this alphabet the forms for r, q and z are identical to those found in Egyptian inscriptions (r, q, 1 against R, Q, 9 in other alphabets of Caria proper, respectively). • However, despite these formal analogies with the Egyptian alphabetic model, from a functional point of view, Kaunos behaves as a typically Carian local alphabet: unlike the Egyptian model, there are no specific letters for semivowels (j j, v w, perhaps also w ÿ), and it also lacks 6 ®. Conversely, it does contain letters such as ñ ñ or % ã?, both of which are absent in the Memphis Alphabet. • As for the specific traits that characterise Kaunos, the following must be mentioned: 1. A letter for e is missing. The reasons for this absence seem to be rather of phonological nature (the Kaunian vowel system would lack a sound /e/). 2. Some letters have only been documented in Kaunos: 8, O, 1_. It is very likely that some, if not all of these letters have the same value as other letters with a different shape in the rest of the alphabets: 8 seems to be the Kaunian form of 0, and for O I have proposed an identification with c t (Adiego 2002; see here p. 253). But even if these correspondences were correct, these Kaunian letters would remain unique.

the carian alphabet

215

3. The letters for l and ≤ show a rotation (2, Z) regarding the rest of alphabetic varieties (L, z).12 Other Less Documented Alphabets (Kindye, Eski Çine, Keramos) Little can be said about the alphabet varieties of other Carian locations due to the scarcity of documents. In Kindye, the most remarkable feature of the single, six-letter inscription is the sign w, unknown in the other alphabets of Caria proper. Merely hypothetically, we could consider the possibility that this is the form adopted by V y in this alphabetic variety. Note that in Kindye the ‘Egyptian-like’ letter w exists side by side with R, the typical form for r in Caria proper (against Egypt and Kaunos r). In the case of the Eski Çine (near Alabanda) inscription (C.Al 1), note the shape of the sign for i, apparently ì,13 which recalls the typical “northern” forms (Tralleis Y, Hyllarima y). The Problem of the Iasos and Halikarnassos Alphabets The alphabets studied to date share the characteristic that they are attested in inscriptions for which an origin from the location where they are found is the simplest and most logical explanation. In the case of Hyllarima, Kaunos, or Sinuri-Kildara, for example, there is no doubt that each alphabetic inventory reflects the local writing used in each place; in Kaunos, Kildara and Hyllarima, evidence is given by the mention of the place name (kilara, kbid º ‘Kaunos’) or the ethnic name ( ylarmit ‘Hyllarimean(s)’, cf. also kbdyn“ ‘Kaunians’). In Sinuri, the Carian text of C.Si 2 is inseparable from the preceding Greek text, and the two together fit well in the context of inscriptions concerning the syngeneia in charge of the sanctuary of Sinuri. The funerary inscriptions of Tralleis and Euromos, and the long inscription of Mylasa also seem to be closely related to the places where they were found, and the characteristics of the respective alphabetic varieties are consistent with the geographical situation. The case presented by the inscriptions from Halikarnassos and Iasos is very different.

12 It is true that z can occasionally appear as Z in some Egyptian inscriptions (see for instance E.Me 14), but this occurs as a result of the disposition of the text on the stela. The particularity of the Kaunos alphabet is that this rotated form is the canonical form of the letter. 13 At least this is the form that can be hypothesized both from the photograph in Robert and the drawing in Robert and Deroy, see p. 132.

chapter five

216

For Halikarnassos, there is only one inscription, found on an object that could be moved very easily, but even its origin in Halikarnassos cannot be assured. Here is the inventory of letters documented in C.Ha 1 (note that the inscription is written right to left): Alphabet of C.Ha 1 # L ª M o t s N p w K &

r l b m o t s n p ÿ k d

The possibility that this alphabet could be that used in Halikarnassos has important repercussions for the discussion of the origin of the different Carian local scripts, because although the inventory of letters that can be obtained is very limited, it is sufficient to draw some clear parallels with the Carian alphabet attested in Egypt: w ÿ, # r, or the right to left orientation, a very unusual practice in the alphabets of Caria proper but well known in Egypt. This would make the region of Halikarnassos the most likely origin of the Carian alphabet from Egypt. The situation is similar, but more complex, in Iasos. Here, six of the seven inscriptions documented until now appear on fragments of vases, so they may be of non-Iasian origin. The sole inscription found on a stone fragment, C.Ia 4, consists of only five letters, the only remarkable trait being the form R (‘not-Egyptian’) of r (against Egypt-Kaunos r). Of the remaining inscriptions, the longest is C.Ia 3, where we find, rather surprisingly, r and R side by side. Also of note is the ‘Egyptian’ or ‘Kaunian’ form for q, q (against Q in the rest of Caria, including another inscription from Iasos, C.Ia 5). Another ‘Egyptian’ trait could be recognized in the brief fragment C.Ia 6, where it would possible to identify the letter Ø b, not attested in this form in the rest of the alphabets of Caria proper. However, this reading is not certain (see p. 149).

the carian alphabet

217

Similarly puzzling is the letter v in C.Ia 7 (= Mylasa W, Sinuri-Kildara V?). The following table synthesizes the letters documented in the corpus of Iasian inscriptions: C.Ia 1

C.Ia 2

C.Ia 3

C.Ia 4

~

~

l

l W rR L q

R

m o t ßF s u X ë

s

L

o

U x

i e

z i e k &

C.Ia 6

C.Ia 7

a v(?) Q B

B m o t

C.Ia 5

D

ë p

ë

I

z e k 0 Ø?

a d l y r l q b m o t “ s u ∞ n p ≤ i e k d g? b

Supposing that all the inscriptions found in Iasos reflect the local writing, we obtain a total of 24/25 different letters, a number very similar to the almost complete inventories of signs documented in other Carian cities. Note the presence of 0, a typical ‘Egyptian’ letter, and the absence of H, c, ñ, %, and of a sign for z (1, 9, 9 in other alphabets). Such absences could be due to chance. None of the specifically “Egyptian” letters j, v, w appears (but note v!). The Alphabets of the Inscriptions of Unknown (but Presumably Carian) Origin It is particularly regrettable that we are ignorant of the origins of the

chapter five

218

two inscriptions on vases, C.xx 1 and C.xx 2, since they show the closest affinities with the Carian alphabet of Egypt: in both inscriptions the letter j j is found; moreover, in C.xx.2 the letter w appears, also typically Egyptian; signs for r, q, i, z are of the Egyptian (and Kaunian) type: r, q, I, 1. In fact, both inscriptions could fit well in the Egyptian corpus, because all the letters have a similar form to the Carian alphabet of Egypt, and there is no example of a letter alien to that writing variety. Here is the inventory of letters from both inscriptions: C.xx 1

C.xx 2 a

£ À # q ª m o t D s u N p z e w k

j

l +

m o t s X nN p ÷ i e w k & 1 j

a d l r q b m o t “ s u ∞ n p ≤ i e

ÿ

k d z j

C.xx 3 also shows a notable “Egyptian” trait: the coexistence of w and W in the same alphabetic inventory. As far as we are aware, in the alphabets of Caria proper there is only one letter for the sound /y/ and its semivocalic form, /w/ (W, V, perhaps also w in Kindye, but the evidence is lacking, see above). In any case, unfortunately the inscription C.xx 3 is hard to analyse, and the reading of some letters remain uncertain. This, together with the brevity of the text, prevents us using it as a valuable source on the Carian alphabet.

the carian alphabet

219

We must recall the possibility, suggested by Meier-Brügger (1994:113) that Cxx 1, C.xx 2 and C.xx 3, together with C.Ha 1, could come from the same place (a sanctuary of the god ntro-), see above p. 162. The affinities between the alphabets of all these inscriptions are consistent with this hypothesis, and a common origin from Halikarnassos is an attractive possibility. Finally, C.xx 4 and C.xx 5, in fact two identical inscriptions containing only a single word, clearly belong to the Kaunian alphabet, as was observed previously by the editors (Zalhaas-Neumann 1994) and has been referred to here (see above p. 163). The close connection to the Kaunian alphabet can be ascertained on the basis of the use of the letter Z (= Kaunos Z against z in the rest of the alphabets) and, above all, the letter / for “: this letter only appears in the Kaunian alphabet, where its presence is closely related to the use of T for t (see above). But contrary to Kaunos, these inscriptions show the lack of a specific letter for l, instead of which the letter l (l) is used (as in Mylasa and Thebes). 2. Inscriptions from Continental Greece In the case of G 1, G 2 only G 1, the Athens bilingual inscription, shows some significant traits regarding the Carian alphabet: we note the presence of the “Egyptian” letter j j, clearly used for the semivowel /j/ (≤jas). However, this “Egyptian” trait is counterbalanced by the use of R (not ‘Egyptian’ r) for r. 3. Egyptian Alphabets The main characteristic of the Carian alphabets used in Egypt is their homogeneity, which contrasts with the pronounced local differences that can be seen in the alphabetic varieties found in Caria proper. This homogeneity has been demonstrated by the Saqqâra alphabet, which offers us a point of reference for analysing the other Egyptian alphabets. It is true that the different sub-corpora of graffiti can at initially suggest the contrary, because the forms of the letters show a high degree of variety, but these differences are in reality very superficial, and can be attributed to the less accurate writing in the graffiti. If we look at the more pronounced differences for some letters in the varieties of Caria proper (for example q / Q for q, r / R for r, i / y / Y / Ï . . . for i ), we can observe that in all the documentation found in

chapter five

220

Egypt only one form for each letter is found (q, r, i), which implies a common alphabetic model for the Carian of Egypt. Only in the case of Theban graffiti can we envisage a sufficient number of remarkable traits to speak of a specific variety, and even in this case the differences are more functional (the absence of some letters whose function is fulfilled by another sign) than formal. Alphabet of Memphis As already said, the corpus of the alphabet of Memphis (Saqqâra) shows a complete and clear inventory of letters: Alphabet of Memphis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

a dD l Wù r L q bB mM o t fg s H uU xX

a d l y r l q b m o t “ s ? u ∞

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

nN p zZ I kK & 0 1 c Ø e w vÚ jT_ 6

n p ≤ i k d g z t b e ÿ w j ®

The following traits must be taken into account when making a comparison with the best-known alphabets of Caria proper: • The Memphis Alphabet, along with the other alphabets from Egypt, has specific letters for the semivowels /j/ /w/ and perhaps also /w/: j, v and w or W. In this latter case, it is not possible to clearly establish which of the two letters was originally used for the semivowel, and which for the vowel. In the Carian alphabets of Caria itself, there is neither j nor v, and in the case of w/W only one of the signs is used (V/ W, very probably an evolution of w in SinuriKildara and Mylasa, W in the rest). • Also specific to Memphis, and to some other Egyptian alphabets, is the use of the letter 6 for a special liquid sound (® ). No comparable

the carian alphabet

221

letter has been identified in any alphabet of Caria proper.14 Moreover, it is interesting to note that if the identification ar®i“ = Arrissiw is correct, this would mean that, at least in Hyllarima, where the name Arrissiw can be definitively identified under the form ari“, there is not any particular strategy for spelling a possible sound cluster -r®(Greek rr). A similar situation seems to exist in Stratonikeia, where the same name also appears (ari“ ). • Typical shapes of certain letters separate the Egyptian alphabet from most of the alphabets of Caria proper, as has been noted repeatedly in the preceding pages: q q, r r, I i, 1 z (against Q, R, and diverse variants of i, respectively). • None of the Carian alphabets of Caria proper display a simultaneous use of H and c (the only exception would be Kaunos, and only if the very hypothetical identification O = c is accepted). Obviously, this does not necessarily mean that both letters must be related, but the fact certainly merits consideration. • Two letters documented in the alphabets of Caria proper are absent from the inventory of Memphis: % and ñ. The first of these letters does appear in the inscription (of apparently Egyptian origin) E.xx 7 and probably also in Thebes (E.Th 34) and in the Luxor temple (E.Lu 5). In Caria, it is documented in Tralleis, Sinuri and Kaunos. More meaningful is the absence of ñ, until now not documented at all in Egypt, but very widespread in Caria proper (Hyllarima, Sinuri, Stratonikeia, Kaunos). The Remaining Carian Inscriptions of Egypt Leaving aside the particular case of Thebes and E.xx 7 (see immediately below), the alphabet used in all the inscriptions from Egypt is consistent with the inventory of letters that makes up the alphabet of Memphis. Even the less commonly attested letters in Memphis are present to some extent in the different sub-corpora. This is the case, for instance, of 6 ®, present in Buhen (and also in Thebes), or Ø b, documented in Abydos and Buhen (and Thebes). Allegedly ‘abnormal’ letters, such as B in Silsilis (E.Si 11), have turned out to be the result of an incorrect reading (it must be read g “ ). Perhaps the most significant variants found in the other Egyptian inscriptions are B for b (against Memphis b (), and G for d (against

14 However, it is methodologically advisable not to rule out the possibility that in Kaunos the sign 1, still undeciphered, corresponds to 6 in Memphis.

222

chapter five

Memphis d D). Regarding the remaining letters, the differences are not so marked, and in fact seem to correspond to the more informal character of the graffiti or to varying degrees of skill of the engravers. The Case of Thebes The alphabet of Thebes shows some singularities when compared to the alphabetic model of Memphis. Unfortunately, the importance of these differences is hard to estimate without a complete epigraphical edition of the entire Theban corpus. I can only base my observations on the partial knowledge gained from the drawings of the inscriptions, thus the conclusions that will be formulated here must be taken as merely provisional. One singularity of the alphabet of Thebes is the absence of a letter for l, a sound represented simply by l l, a feature also apparent in the alphabet of Mylasa and in the two objects C.xx 4 and C.xx 5. This particularity is best attested by the clear example pnw≤ol, against pnu≤ol, punw≤ol≤ in Memphis. Another trait already observed in this alphabet, namely the absence of a letter for d (against & in the rest of the alphabets), and the use of l (and occasionally t)15 in its place, is nowadays less clear: in the corpus of Theban inscriptions provisionally elaborated by Diether Schürr and followed here, the letter & does appear (in E.Th 4 and E.Th 14). Rather surprisingly, both inscriptions are not new, but were in fact already published in ”evoro“kin (1965), where the letters in question were read in a different way. Due to a lack of further information, the question remains open. In any case, it must be stressed that the problem posed by the presence or absence of & in Thebes transcends the topic of the alphabetic varieties and affects the linguistic interpretation of Theban inscriptions, because the identification of the Theban word mlane with the form mdane depends on the hypothetical lack of & in Thebes and its substitution by l l. Also, from a phonological point of view, this trait will be inseparable from the absence of a letter for l: in Thebes, l l would represent three different but related sounds (l, l , d ) or the convergence of these three sounds in a single one. In the unpublished inscriptions of Thebes, other rather surprising traits appear, but they must be considered with caution until a satisfactory edition of the whole corpus is edited. According to the drawings

15 This latter use would be visible in the name k≤atÿbr if its equivalence with Janduberiw (attested in Lycia) were accepted (see Chapter 11, s. v.).

the carian alphabet

223

of ”evoro“kin, at least an example of % ã is attested (in E.Th 34),16 and two new letters, until now unknown in Carian, are present: % and s. Both of these letters seem to appear in E.Th 31. The first also seems to be present in E.Th 34. However, in the case of E.Th 31, Schürr decides against giving a reading of the whole inscription, and in E.Th 34, he proposes an alternative reading o (see above p. 103–104). Therefore the existence of both letters seems to be highly doubtful. As for %, it must be pointed out that this letter can be easily mistaken for a more standard letter x. Summing up, the alphabet of Thebes cannot be used in any discussion of the Carian alphabet without the definitive edition of all the Theban graffiti. E.xx 7, the inscription of a bronze lion, shows (together with a typical Egyptian trait, the presence of v w) the use of %, a ‘non-Egyptian’ letter. 4. The Classification of the Alphabets of Caria Proper We have seen that in contrast to the homogeneity of the alphabet used in Egypt, a high degree of variation is found between the different local scripts of Caria proper. Former studies of the alphabets used in Caria proper have attempted to classify them in groups on the basis of the marked differences in the shape of some letters (see ”evoro“kin 1965, followed in Adiego 1993a). These groups coincide roughly with the geographical situation of the local varieties, so that a Northern group (Tralleis, Hyllarima, Eski Çine [South of Alabanda]), a NW group (Euromos, Kindye), a Central group (Stratonikeia), a Western group (Sinuri-Kildara), and a SW group (Kaunos and the inscription of Krya) have been established. I now think that this classification should be revised, not least because our knowledge of the alphabets of Kindye and Eski Çine is so limited that we cannot possibly use them in a serious discussion of alphabetic variants. Even in the case of Tralleis and Euromos, we cannot work with inventories that are sufficiently extensive to give an idea of all the characteristics of these alphabets. Moreover, the new inscription of Mylasa presents a strong argument against such groupings; despite the clear affinities between the alphabet of Mylasa and the Sinuri-Kildara variety, there are also significant 16

Note also its possible (but doubtful) presence in Luxor (E.Lu 5).

chapter five

224

differences, some of which point rather to a connection with some “northern” and “north-western” alphabets (Hyllarima, Euromos). In fact, if we leave aside Kindye from the north-western group and Eski-Çine and Tralleis from the northern group, given the scarcity of the materials, and if we also claim that Mylasa did not have the same alphabet as the nearby sanctuary of Sinuri, we come to a surprising conclusion: with the sole exceptions of Sinuri and Kildara (two places with an identical alphabet), and Krya in Lycia (where a Kaunian alphabet was used), each of the other places where the Carian alphabet is attested seem to have had their own alphabet. For this reason, I believe that a more suitable way of analysing the connections between the different local alphabets of Carian is to focus on the ‘isographs’, i.e. the identical or similar shapes of several letters that are shared by diverse alphabetic varieties. The following table offers a comparative overview of the most representative letters in the main alphabetic varieties of Caria. I leave out the inscriptions of Kindye and Eski Çine for the reasons stated above, and the inscriptions of Iasos and Halikarnassos, given the particular problems mentioned in the preceding pages. The cities are ordered from North to South and from West to East: Tralleis Hyllarima Euromos Mylasa Stratonikeia Sinuri- Kaunos Kildara a y r l

q b t “ ≤ i e z b

a (A) ? R (/A!) ? Q (?) ? t ? z Y ? ? ?

a W R L Q B t S z y e 9 B

a W R (/r?) ? Q B t ? z I e 9 b (?)

a W R Q B t F z I e 9 & (?)

a W R L Q ? t F z Ï e 9 ?

A V R L Q bB t F z Î e 9 ?

a W r 2 q 5 T / Z I 1 4

The first, and most important, contrast can be established between the Kaunos alphabet and the rest of the alphabetic varieties. As we have commented previously, some (but not all!) of the particularities of the

the carian alphabet

225

Kaunian alphabet connect it to the Egyptian alphabet: q q, r r, 1 z. Other singular traits are specific to Kaunos: the rotated form of ≤ and l, the use of T for t (and the subsequent creation of a specific letter for “ ) and the form of b. To these we must also add the absence of a letter for e and the presence of letters not found in the rest of the varieties (8, 1). As for the remaining alphabets from Caria, there is clear evidence of internal affinities that correspond to some extent to the geographical situation of the cities. But, as we have already seen, with the exception of Sinuri and Kildara, whose alphabets show sufficient similarities to speak of a single alphabetic variety, we find different isographs, not always coincident, rather than real groupings of alphabets. In this sense, the different forms of i are particularly striking; whereas the “northern” Alphabets of Tralleis and Hyllarima show forms that are clearly interrelated and differentiated from the rest (y, Y), the forms in the “central” alphabets of the Mylasa-Stratonikeia-Sinuri/Kildara triangle point to a common original form. The coinciding form for y in Mylasa and Sinuri-Kildara is also important; in this case, Stratonikeia does not share this characteristic, so we can limit the extent of V/W to a more restricted area. The distribution of the forms for e offers a somewhat different perspective. If one accepts my interpretation of Euromos and Mylasa e as an e-sign, we can establish an area that includes these two alphabets and that of Hyllarima, in contrast with Sinuri (a letter for e is not documented in Kildara, probably a matter of chance) and Stratonikeia. This distribution of e-signs can be connected with the signs for l. As in the case of e, Sinuri-Kildara and Stratonikeia coincide in the form of the letter, L., while in the “e-zone” the situation is totally different: in Mylasa there is no specific sign for l, l l carrying out its function, and in Hyllarima a special letter L is used, probably a new sign introduced more recently on the basis of Greek L or Carian l. Unfortunately, in the case of Euromos, the only two inscriptions to have been found do not help us to establish whether this connection between the signs for e and l also existed there. The explanation for these ‘isographs’ is not clear: could they be the result of a common origin for a group of alphabets, or rather the consequence of a diffusion? Our knowledge of Carian writing is still too incomplete to give a clear answer. The case of Sinuri-Kildara and Mylasa is particularly puzzling; the corresponding use of a special form for y and the form of i, both features that point to a clear common

226

chapter five

origin, is counterbalanced by the treatment in Mylasa of e and l. Giving priority to certain signs to the detriment of others in order to explain the relationship between both alphabetic variants, would be arbitrary. 5. The Relationship between the Alphabet from Egypt and the Local Alphabets from Caria Proper An initial conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of the alphabet from Egypt with the local alphabets from Caria proper: none of the alphabets of Caria proper identified until now can be considered as the source of the alphabetic variety attested in Egypt. In theory, we can formulate two extremely divergent hypotheses in order to explain this circumstance: (1) the Carian alphabet of Egypt is a sort of ‘Uralphabet’, prior to a differentiation of the original Carian alphabet into different local varieties, or; (2) the Carian alphabet of Egypt is merely another local variety, with the particularity that we are yet to find any Carian inscriptions in the Carian area it comes from, and we are thus unable to establish where this place was. Certain characteristics of the Egyptian alphabet, which could be interpreted as archaic, could be used to support the first hypothesis, in particular the existence of pairs of letters for vowels and semivowels (i/j, u/v, W/w) against the reduction to a single series of vocalic signs in the alphabets of Caria proper. Moreover, in the latter case, the split observed within the local writings, where some use W for /y/ while others resort to a letter that seems to come from w (V/W), could reinforce this hypothesis of a more archaic system in Egypt. The chronology is also favourable to this theory (the inscriptions from Egypt belong to an earlier period) as is the homogeneity of the alphabet used in Egypt set against the clear fragmentation within local varieties in Caria proper. However, this hypothesis encounters some difficulties: not all the variants of the letters found in the local alphabets of Caria proper can be explained by the letters used in Egypt. The most notable case is the letter for i; ‘northern’ variants (y, Y) can hardly come directly from a proto-form identical to the Egyptian shape of the letter (i), but instead seem to indicate a common form that would share the angular form of y, Y, and the horizontal trait visible in i (and also in other variants of the letter: Î, Ï, I). The absence in Egypt of certain letters found throughout the scripts of Caria proper (% and particularly ñ) is further evidence that the Egyptian alphabet cannot be considered simply as the Carian ‘Uralphabet’.

the carian alphabet

227

Therefore, I believe that the second hypothesis must be preferred, although it must be qualified taking into account the possible archaic traits mentioned above. We can base the theory that the Carian alphabet used in Egypt could represent a local variety on the following evidence: 1. There is a very significant gap in our epigraphical documentation of Carian in Caria proper; leaving aside the only possible exception, which I shall address in the following point, there are no inscriptions from most of the Carian coast. Only in Iasos and Kaunos have we obtained epigraphical documentation. The rest of the known local writings come from the inner part of Caria (Tralleis, Hyllarima, Euromos, Mylasa, Stratonikeia, Sinuri, Kildara). It is therefore possible that the Carian mercenaries who arrived in Egypt by sea came from coastal cities where no epigraphical documentation is available. 2. We have already commented on the ‘Egyptian’ features recognizable in a Carian inscription that could possibly come from Halikarnassos. It is true that the Halikarnassean origin of this inscription is not absolutely certain, and that it appears on an object that could easily be moved, thus there is no guarantee that it reflects the alphabetic variety used in the place it was discovered. Yet despite this, a possible origin from Halikarnassos would be consistent with the coastal origin of the Carian alphabet of Egypt. 3. Despite some clear differences, the local writing most closely related to the Egyptian alphabet is that of the coastal city of Kaunos. 4. Also, in one of the inscriptions from Iasos we find important parallels with the Egyptian alphabet (C.Ia 3). Of course, the problem mentioned for C.Ha 1 (that the object could easily have been moved) is again an issue, but in this case at least the place in which it was discovered is certain. Is therefore possible that the Carian alphabet found in Egypt comes from certain western, mostly coastal areas (Myndos, Halikarnassos, Keramos, perhaps also Iasos, and others), where an alphabetic variety still not clearly attested in Caria was used. A further argument can be given, but it must be used with a degree of caution: the strong possibility that in the onomastic formulae of Memphis, some ethnic names appear (see below p. 269–271). If we accept this hypothesis, some forms become very meaningful: ksolb-, from Kasolaba, ≤ugli-, from Suangela

chapter five

228

(both cities near Halikarnassos), yjasi-, from Iasos, and kojol- from Kos.17 The possibility that alos ∞arnos may be the Carian form of the place name Halikarnassos would also have some interesting consequences: alos ∞arnos appears in an inscription from Memphis (E.Me 45), which would support the idea that this place was one of the points of origin of the Carians in Egypt, and also in C.xx 2, one of the inscriptions of unknown origin that contains an alphabet very close to the Egyptian alphabetic variety. However, these examples cannot be considered as conclusive, and must be used with care. 6. The Common Origin of the Carian Alphabetic Varieties The existence of a number of strongly differentiated alphabetic varieties in Caria proper, and the hypothesis that the alphabetic variety used in Egypt is not a sort of ‘Uralphabet’ but rather another local variety, does not preclude the possibility of an original unity behind the divergent Carian local writing systems. There is clear evidence in favour of a common origin for these varieties: all the alphabetic varieties share the same aberrant sound values assigned to the ‘Greek-looking letters’. In other words, it is the unexpected use of the Greek letters that allows us to speak of a common origin for the Carian alphabetic varieties. Had the Greek letters retained the same sound values as in Greek, a polygenesis of the diverse local writings could be conceivable. Conversely, the fact that q Q is q, b B is b, m M is m, and so on, in all the Carian alphabets can only be explained by attributing them a single origin. The (apparently) non-Greek letters also show consistent values in the different local writing systems, which reinforces the hypothesis of a monogenesis of the Carian alphabet. Even the exceptions can in general be easily explained. Note the case of Kaunian t (T): this letter (or others of a similar shape) represents “ in the rest of the Carian alphabets, where t is used for t. But the Kaunian situation is not a chaotic one, and can be explained in the wider context of Carian writing: (1) T and t letters share enough formal similarities to consider a single origin; (2) in Kaunos, / is used for “, a letter that seems to have been created from T by means of a diacritic mark. The reason for the introduction

17

Cf. Adiego (2004:310).

the carian alphabet

229

of this diacritic mark is, obviously, to differentiate this letter from Kaunian T t. This implies that (1) in a earlier period, T or a very similar letter was used for “ in the Kaunian alphabet, and (2) the need for introducing a diacritic mark was caused by a sort of evolution of the letter for t, which led to an excessive similarity between the letters for t (> T) and for “ (already T). The starting point of Kaunian T t is not attested but the abovementioned formal similarities between t and T point to a t, or at least to a form equally similar to both t and T. In conclusion, before Kaunian T and / there seems to have existed a pair of letters that were very close to those present in the rest of the Carian alphabets (t, T/F/f).18 We can now imagine a sort of Carian ‘Uralphabet’ that would include at least all of the letters attested in all, or at least most, of the Carian local varieties. The resulting Carian ‘Uralphabet’ could be the following: Carian ‘Uralphabet’ a dD l ùW rR L2 qQ bB5 mM o tT f F (> /) s H uU

a d l y r l q b m o t “ s (?) u

xX nN p zZ IIYyÎÏ e2 w kK & vÚ 08 199 jT_ c C (O ?) $ ç Ø 4 (ÿ ? & ?)

∞ n p ≤ i e

ÿ

k d w g ? z j t b

In this inventory only four letters, of more limited use, are missing:

18 The evolution that led to Kaunian T and / strongly recalls the process that occurred in Latin regarding P and R: the first letter, originally G, changed to P, and consequently, the original P become R.

chapter five

230 ñ %

ñ ã ?

1 6

(?) ®

Obviously, this ‘Uralphabet’ is only a very hypothetical assumption, and it may possibly be too rigid, insofar as some letters could have been created after the differentiation of the local varieties, and could have arrived to a wide number of alphabets as the result of diffusion. Also, some or all of the four letters excluded from the hypothetical ‘Uralphabet’ could have existed in the original inventory of signs. But irrespective of the exact number of letters present in the original alphabet, the key fact is that the total number of different letters identified to date is 34, and that they never appear all together in a single alphabetic variety. The highest number of different letters documented in a local writing variety is 31 (in Memphis). This means that the Carian alphabet, although it seems highly anomalous from a formal point of view, given the strange phonetic values of a lot of signs, is much more ‘normal’ from a functional perspective: both the possible Carian original alphabet and the different local varieties contain a number of letters that do not differ greatly from either the Greek alphabet or from the non-Hellenic alphabets of Anatolia (Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, even Sidetic). The former image of a writing system characterized by a huge number of letters, which led to speculations about a semi-syllabic character, has now been clearly superseded thanks to our better understanding of the local differences and of the values of the letters. B. The Origin of the Carian Alphabet As has been repeatedly mentioned, the most striking trait of the Carian alphabet following its decipherment is that most of the alleged Greek letters have an aberrant phonetic value in Carian. Strictly speaking, only the letters a o u s show a good correspondence between form and value from a Greek point of view. The rest of the ‘Greek’ letters have unexpected values, and while in some cases these could be explained phonologically (for example, the value /l/ for l), many other forms cannot: t = /t/, n = /n/, m M = /m/, r R = /r/, etc. At first sight, the Carian alphabet seems to have suffered a ‘metakharakterismós’ (to use Gusmani’s expression, Gusmani 1994:120) which clearly contravenes

the carian alphabet

231

the ‘stability principle’ present in the Lycian, Lydian and Phrygian alphabets, according to which the letters for sounds common to both Greek and the language that borrows the Greek alphabet are included in the new alphabet, retaining their respective original forms and phonetic values.19 How, then, do we explain this clear anomaly in the Carian alphabet? The hypothesis of a chaotic, arbitrary assignment of phonetic values to Greek letters cannot be ruled out, given that several parallels exist in the adoption of Western writing systems by illiterate people in modern times. However, this is absolutely the exception in the Anatolian context. In addition, this hypothesis is a very frustrating one: if we acknowledge a free attribution of phonetic values, the Carian alphabet is rendered an inexplicable unicum. Moreover, the ‘chaos hypothesis’ does not explain why some letters did conserve their Greek phonetic value (the abovementioned a o u s), and overlooks other possible points of contact between Greek, Carian and other Anatolian alphabets: for example the letter p for /p/, so closely linked to Lydian beta b, whose value is also /p/. It is precisely these possible points of contact that have led me to develop an alternative hypothesis: that the Carian alphabet was originally also an alphabet of Greek origin, based on the same stability principle as Phrygian, Lydian or Lycian (Adiego 1998b). The main difference is that this first Carian alphabet, or the Greek model on which it was based, underwent a strong process of cursivization that dramatically altered the form of many letters. According to this hypothesis, Carian t (‘qoppa’-sign) would come from a H, m M from a m, n N from a n and so on. My hypothesis requires—and this is perhaps its weakest point—that at a certain moment in the history of the Carian alphabet, the strongly cursivized graphical system underwent a sort of ‘restructuring’ to a system of ‘capital letters’, so to speak, and that to this end Greek capital letters were again used as models, although in this case only from a formal point of view and without consideration of their phonetic values. A qoppa could inspire the new form for the /t/-letter, a ny for the /m/-letter, and so on. This could also explain why the letter H, a very poorly documented letter, and one whose phonetic value is still unknown, has the shape of one of the most common Greek letters.

19

For this ‘stability principle’ (‘principe de stabilité’), see Boisson (1994).

chapter five

232

If we follow to its logical conclusion the hypothesis that the Carian alphabet was originally totally comparable to the Phrygian, Lydian and Lycian alphabets regarding the stability principle, we must assume that, like in Phrygian, Lydian, and Lycian alphabets, the majority of the Carian signs that represent sounds existing in Greek originate from the corresponding Greek letters. This assumption was developed in Adiego (1998b), (2004:315–317). The following table represents, with some corrections and updates, the hypothesis formulated in Adiego (2004) for each Carian letter of the ‘Uralphabet’. Letter

Value

a dD l ùW

a d l y

rR L2

r l

qQ

q

bB5

b

mM o tT f F (> /) s H uU xX

m o t “ s (?) u ∞

nN p zZ

n p ≤

IIYy ÎÏ e2 w

i e ÿ

kK

k

Possible origin Greek. a /a/ Greek lD /d/ Greek B /l/ Originally a non-Greek value Perhaps a modification of r /w/? Greek T /r/ Non-Greek value Note in Hylllarima L, directly from Greek B /l/ plus diacritic mark Greek value? In any case, an origin from Greek t seems likely Greek B (?). Note the archaic forms of beta , in Crete Greek M (more exactly a M form) Greek O Greek T Non-Greek value Greek M ‘san’ or S ‘sigma’ ? (most probably with a non-Greek value) Greek U Non-Greek value Modification of one of the tectal letters K /k/ q q x /kh/? Greek N Greek B (cf. Lydian b /p/) Non-Greek value Related to sampi-letter 3? Greek E /e/, E or EI /ej/ (> closed /e/)? Greek E, H /è/ Non-Greek value A modification of Carian e? Greek K /k/ or rather N /kh/? (continued on next page)

the carian alphabet

233

table (cont.) Letter

Value

&

d

vÚ

w

08 199 jT_

g ?

c C (O ?)

t

$çØ4 (ÿ ? & ?)

b

z j

Possible origin Non-Greek value (at least originally) A ligature of Greek ll /dd/? Non-Greek value (?) A modification of r /w/? Non-Greek value Non-Greek value (?) Non-Greek value Perhaps related to Phrygian letter for /j/, y, Y Non-Greek value Related to sampi-letter 3? Non-Greek value (at least originally) A ligature of Carian bb /bb/? Note in Hyllarima the use of B directly from Greek

It is clear that this hypothesis poses serious problems that make it difficult to accept: it forces us to assign a very high chronology to a cursivized writing system. No examples in favour of this old phase of the Greek or Carian alphabets exist and consequently, the evolutionary processes proposed for each Carian letter, no matter how convincing they may seem, are totally ad hoc.20 However, this is, together with the hypothesis of a purely chaotic imitation of a Greek model, the only solution that I am able to imagine, if one intends to prove that the Carian alphabet comes from the Greek alphabet. Alternative hypotheses would have to accept the intervention of other writing systems that could be responsible for the final form of the Carian alphabet, and such a solution turns out to be an obscurum per obscurius, since these supposed writing systems are unknown.

20

In any case, I consider that the parallel examples in other writing systems, although they are not at all useful as evidence, do offer some support several explanatory hypotheses on the origin of the Carian letters. This is the case of the South-Picenian letters for t or q, see Adiego (1998b:68).

CHAPTER SIX

PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES

A. The Phonological System In the present section, I will try to illustrate the phonological system of Carian. This goal can be achieved only in an approximate way, by interpreting the graphemes of Carian on a twofold basis: from the correspondences between Carian letters and how they are reflected in the adaptation of Carian names in Greek and Egyptian, and from the relationships between graphemes within the Carian graphical system. The degree of precision in describing the Carian phonological system cannot be particularly high. In many cases, we can only attain a very generic characterization of the phonological values of the graphemes. I will try to avoid excessively Byzantine arguments. Firstly, I will attempt to establish a descriptive table of possible Carian phonemes. A further section will explore the Anatolian background of these phonemes. 1. Vowels and Semivowels The inventory of possible graphemes for vowels and semivowels varies in the different sub-corpora of Carian inscriptions. In general terms, we can divide these into three areas: (a) the Egypto-Carian inventory, (b) the Carian (except Kaunos) inventory, and (c) the Kaunos inventory. Despite the differences between these three types, I believe that some interesting generalizations can be traced, so that the resulting systems are coherent and can be easily inter-related. (a) The Egypto-Carian inventory is the most complete. Here we find 9 different graphemes for ‘vocalic’ (in a broad sense, including possible semivowels) phonemes: a e i o u y j w ÿ. (b) In the Carian inventory, the graphemes are reduced to 6: a, e, i, o, u, y (for y, the letter in most of the alphabets is W; in SinuriKildara, V; in Mylasa, W). (c) In the Kaunos alphabet, the inventory is limited to 5 different graphemes: a, i, o, u, y.

phonological features

235

The most remarkable fact is undoubtedly that the Egypto-Carian system displays a higher number of graphemes than the other two systems. How can this discrepancy be explained? During the decipherment process, it became evident that the Egypto-Carian system contains graphic alternations: i alternates with j, u alternates with w, and y alternates with ÿ: i/j

u/w

y/ÿ

∞i/∞j

pnu≤ol/pnw≤ol uksmu/wksmu-≤ upe/wpe u≤ol/w≤ol≤

mdayn/mdaÿn

(psm“kw)neit/(pd)nejt (“ar)kbiom/kbjom-≤ “arnai-≤/“arnaj-s wliat/wljat yiasi/yjas[i-≤]

These alternations certainly cannot be explained as morphological, because they appeared in different positions and in some cases, although not all, no morphological differences between the words implied could be observed. The simplest solution, at least in the case of i/j, u/w has already been suggested in earlier works (see Adiego 1994a:47–48): j and w seemed to be the graphemes for the semivowels corresponding to i and u respectively. It is true that in some cases an interpretation of j and w as semivowels is not absolutely clear, but in such cases, it is plausible that the semivowels were used for their corresponding vowels on occasions. The advantage of this hypothesis is that it allows us to explain the relationship between the Egypto-Carian and Carian systems in a straightforward way; given that the Egypto-Carian system is chronologically older than the actual Carian inventories, a graphemic reduction process could take place, so that the use of specific graphemes for the semivowels /j/ and /w/ was abandoned, and the simple vocalic letters /i/, /u/ were used in their place. This could be used to explain a form such as u≤ol≤ in Hyllarima vs. w≤ol≤ in Egypt. The situation is not so clear in the case of y vs. ÿ; while for i/j and u/w, an opposition vowel (i, u)/semivowel ( j, w) can be established, both from their distribution properties and from the survival of i, u in the reduced systems of Caria itself, neither of these criteria is valid in establishing the difference between y and ÿ. The number of appearances is very similar, but the only clear example of alternation is not sufficient to attribute to one or the other letter a vowel vs. semivowel value, and in the case of the alphabets of Caria itself, while W continues

236

chapter six

as a vocalic sign in many alphabets (including Kaunos), the letters V/W of Kildara-Sinuri-Mylasa seems to be closer to w than to W. In any case, I believe that the hypothesis of a vowel/semivowel opposition for explaining both the existence of two graphemes in the Egypto-Carian system and the reduction to one grapheme in the Carian proper and the Kaunos systems is also the simplest solution for y/ÿ. The sole unresolved problem would be to ascertain which of the letters represents the vowel sound, and which the semivowel. In the transcription system adopted here, preference is given to W, transcribed y, but this must be taken as a purely conventional solution. According to this hypothesis, systems (a) and (b) coincide in that they both consist of six different vocalic sounds, a, e, i, o, u, y, to which three graphemes for the semivowels corresponding to the closest vocalic sounds (i, u, y) are added in (a) ( j, w, ÿ). In the Kaunos system, where there are no specific graphemes for semivowels, the most notable characteristic is the absence of an e vowel. As for the phonological value attributed to each vocalic letter, the transcription system adopted here aims to offer a broad reflection of the quality of the vowels: a is used to adapt Greek a in Lusikrãthw = lysikrata-, `Ekata›ow = ktai -. Conversely, a corresponds systematically to a sound transcribed in Greek as : ada = Ada; kilara = Kildara; par(a)- (in para-eym, par-yri∞) = Para- (in Para-ussvllow, Par-ussvldow, Para-udigow; “aru≤ol = Sarusvllow. e is used for Greek h in the name OÈliãdhw (Carian uliade). In Greek, Carian e is adapted systematically by means of : mane = Manhw; pleq-≤ = Peldhkow; qtblem-≤ = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw; somne-≤ = Svmnhw. i is used to adapt Greek i: Lusikl∞w = lysikla-; Lusikrãthw = lysikrata; Nikokl∞w = nik[—]la-; OÈliãdhw = uliade. Note also ‘Ipposy°nhw = i[—–]ini. This latter example also demonstrates the use of Carian i to reflect Greek e, but one must note that the example comes from Kaunos, where no specific letter for e-sounds (Greek e, h) existed.1 Conversely, Carian i/j is transcribed in Greek as i: ari“ = Ar(r)issiw; arli“ = Arlissiw; ibarsi-≤/ibrsi-≤ = Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw; (“ar)kbiom/kbjom-≤ = Kebivmow; pikre/pikra = Pigrhw. 1 The adaptation in Kaunos of Greek e by means of Car. i vs. that of Greek h by means of Car. a seems therefore an attempt to reflect the different sound qualities of (close) e and (open) h.

phonological features

237

o is represented by Greek v: (“ar)kbiom/kbjom-≤ = Kebivmow; ksolb-≤ = cf. Kasvlãba; ktmno, ∞tmño = Ekatomnvw; msnord-≤ = cf. Masanvrãda; plqo = Pel(l)ekvw; somne-≤ = Svmnhw; u≤ol (and compounds) = Ussvllow (and compounds); yrqso-≤ = Urgosvw. is used to reflect Greek ou in OÈliãdhw = uliade. Conversely, Carian /<w> corresponds to Greek , , : quq, dquq = Gugow, Idagugow; pun-w≤ol-≤ = Pon-usvllow; tñu-≤ = Tonnouw; wljat/wliat = Oliatow/Uliatow; u≤ol/w≤ol≤ = Ussvllow. For the phonological value of y/ÿ, the Greek-Carian bilingual inscription of Kaunos C.Ka 5 clearly supports the argument for a /y/ (semivowel /w/) sound; in this inscription, W y is used in the Carian adaptation of the Greek names Lusikl∞w and Lusikrãthw (lysiklas[, lysikratas[ ). This is consistent with the systematic use of Greek u for the transcription of y/ÿ in the Carian names: “ayriq (E.Me 25) = Saurigow, yrqso (C.My 1) = Urgosvw, etc. Unlike u, no examples of Greek ou, o for Carian y, ÿ are documented in Carian personal names of Greek sources. Therefore, it seems that the best explanation for the apparent proliferation of “uletters” in Egypto-Carian (a puzzling aspect of earlier works, see Adiego 1993a:273–275) is to assume that in Carian there were two [+ high], [+ rounded] vowels, /u/ and /y/, differentiated by their back vs. front articulation, respectively, and that in Egypto-Carian each one of these sounds had a specific grapheme for the corresponding semivocalic glides (/w/, /w/). In Kaunian the vocalic system is reduced to five vowels: /i, a, o, u, y/. There is no e, and this absence is apparent in the adaptation of Greek names, where a is used for h: both Lusikl∞w and Lusikrãthw appear as a-stems in lysikla-, lysikrata-. More obscure is the case of the ethnic otonosn (accusative) for ‘Athenian’. The presence of o for Greek h (’Ay∞nai, ’Ayhna›ow) seems inseparable from the apparent vocalic metaphony that has converted the three vowels of the Carian form into o. The trigger for this metaphony could be the final vowel: the Greek à-stem would have been adapted as an o-stem, and this o would have caused the metaphony (atano- > otono-, see below p. 259). It is irrelevant if the original form for Athens in Kaunian was in fact a Doric form with a long a instead of h or not, because both à and è would be adapted as a in Kaunian, as shown above by the personal names.2 2 Blümel (1998b:172–173) has argued convincingly against a Doric model for the Carian word, pointing out, among other things, that Kaunian Greeks did not speak Doric.

238

chapter six

The Defective Notation of Vowels One of the most difficult problems posed by Carian vocalism is the apparently defective notation of vowels. This phenomenon can be detected above all in the comparison of the Carian nouns with their adaptation in Greek (1), but also in alternations within Carian documentation (2), and by comparing several Lycian (and Milyan) parallel forms (3): (1) artmon—’Art°mvn dquq—Idagugow kbjom≤—Kebivmow ksolb≤—(place name) Kasvlaba ktais—‘Ekata›ow ktmno, ∞tmño≤—Ekatomnvw msnord≤—(place name) Masanvrada ntro—cf. Neter-bimow, Lyc. Natr-bbij˜emi parÿd∞≤—Paraudigow plqo—Pel(l)ekvw pleq≤—Peldhkow pñmnn≤ñ—Ponmoonnow qlali≤—Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw qtblem≤—Kutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow qÿblsi≤—(ethnic) Kubliss//ow// ≤ugli≤—(place name) Souaggela tñu≤—Tonnouw ylarm-it—(place name) Ullarima (2) brsi—ibrsi≤—ibarsi≤ dw≤ol≤—idu≤ol≤ kbidn/kbdyn“ ∞yrpai—∞yrapai≤ mdayn, mdaÿn—mwdon≤ pikrm≤—pikarm≤ pnu≤ol—punw≤ol≤ (Ponussvllow) psm“k(wneit)—psma≤k—pisma“k/pisma≤k sdi(sas)—sidi “r(quq)—“ar(kbiom, etc.) (Greek Sar-)

phonological features

239

trqd-—trqude cf. Lycian Trqqñtttbazi—ttubazi urm≤—urom≤ (3) sb—cf. Mil. sebe ÿbt—cf. Lyc. ubete To these examples we may add a number of forms that display chains of consonants without vowels: adymd≤, a∞tmsk“, ankbu[, (idrayri)dsemd?bq, pda∞m≤uñ, snn, sñaidlo, tbridbd≤, etc. Some of these examples could be interpreted as the result of syllabic liquids and nasals that in Greek must be represented with the aid of a vowel. This explanation is valid for forms such as tñu-≤ vs. Tonnouw or ñ vs. on in pñmnn-≤ñ vs. Ponmoonnow. Moreover, several internal alternations such as pikrm-≤/pikarm-≤ or “r-/“ar- point to a syllabic liquid, which develops an intrusive vowel in Carian (see below p. 262). But this explanation does not account for many other forms in which the interpretation of liquids or nasals as syllabic nuclei is less plausible; in the case of msnord-≤ vs. Masanvrada, an interpretation as /μ.s–.o.ºd/ seems very unlikely. Also in examples like ntro, ntokris, it seems unlikely that n can be a syllabic nasal in direct contact with t: a sequence -ntseems to have evolved into -nd- and is systematically noted by means of a specific letter, d (trqd, trqud, cf. CLuw. Tar¢unt-). In other cases, there are no liquids or nasals involved at all: sb vs. Lyc. sebe, ktº vs Ekatº etc. Yet conversely, if in several cases the inclusion of intrusive vowels in Greek adaptations could be seen as an attempt to resolve the difficulties of pronouncing some consonant groups in Greek (for example ºdqº → ºdagº in dquq → Idagugow), this explanation is unfeasible when applied to cases such as qlali- → Ko/ulaldiw, where kl was phonotactically available in Greek. This explanation also fails to account for internal alternations within Carian ( pnº/punº, dº/idº). Therefore, at least in a considerable number of cases, we must accept the actual existence in Carian of vowels that are not reflected graphically. The question of how to explain this defective notation of vowels is indeed a very difficult one. Can one assume that Carian writing shows the vestiges of a graphical system wherein vowels were not noted? This hypothesis would have fascinating implications for the origin of the Carian alphabet, since it could imply that Carian writing was borrowing from a graphical

240

chapter six

system very close to the Semitic model of the Greek alphabet, that is to say from a purely consonantal system. But this hypothesis, attractive as it may seem at first sight, runs into serious obstacles. The use of vowel signs is generally very consistent; no forms such as **u≤l or even **≤l besides u≤ol or **kbjm besides kbjom are found, forms which one would expect to find if the defective notation of vowels was a purely graphical question. Moreover, in general, at least one vowel sign is found in each independent Carian word, a particularity that warrants an explanation.3 Given that these consistencies are more important than occasional alternations like dw≤ol-≤/idu≤ol-≤, a linguistic basis for the defective notation of vowels seems more likely. The possibility that the omitted vowels is a sort of schwa-sound can explain some cases, particularly those in which a vowel a or e is found in the Greek adaptations. Note particularly an alternation like Ussaldvmow/Usseldvmow. Even in some examples of Greek o/u vs. Ø in Carian, the back character of the schwavowel could be attributed to a secondary backing caused by the preceding consonant; in all of these cases, the sound preceding the unrecorded back vowel is q, a possible uvular sound (see below p. 244). However, this explanation would make it difficult to explain i in dw≤ol-≤ vs. idu≤ol≤. Perhaps then we are dealing not with schwa-like vowels, but simply with non-stressed, short vowels (*a, *e, *i, *o/u) vs. stressed and/or long vowels. Finally, another factor that could account for the presence of vowels in Greek and their absence in Carian has been conveniently noted by Tremblay (1998:119); it is possible that some Carian names were borrowed by Greek before certain processes of vowel weakening or loss took place in Carian. Tremblay (ibid.) put forward an important argument in favour of this hypothesis, suggesting that some indirect Greek forms seem to be more archaic than the direct Carian equivalents (note for instance the absence of original medial i in the ethnic ylarmit vs. Greek Ullarima, if it continues the cuneiform place name Wallarima).4

3 Exceptions like sb are undoubtedly connected to the fact that this type of word always appears attached to the following word (sb=polo, sb=ada, etc.), which would suggest a proclitic nature. In other cases such as snn, the presence of syllabic nasals could explain the absence of vowels. 4 Other examples given by Tremblay (ibid.) seem to me less compelling. Also the attempt of elaborating a relative chronology (Tremblay 1998:117–118) is in my opinion premature.

phonological features

241

The tendency to omit unstressed vowels (whether schwa-like vowels or simply short vowels, without discarding an actual vowel loss) would be a satisfactory explanation for the above statement that at least one vowel per word is noted in Carian writing. It could also explain the apparently morphological alternation found in the place name kbid-n vs. the ethnic form in pl. acc. kbdyn-“, where stress movement would be responsible for the i/Ø alternation: /’kbi.dn/→ /kb(i).’dy.n(V)“/. In cases like ibrsi/brsi, trqude/trqd-, sidi/sdi, the notation vs. absence of notation of the vowels seems inseparable from the type of consonant that immediately follows the relevant vowel: b and d are at least originally *mb, *nd respectively (see below). The presence vs. absence of a full vowel is consistent therefore with an alternation between a syllabic nasal μ, – and a Vm, Vn sequence (or a nasalized vowel) (/imbrsi/, /˜ıbrsi/ ~ //μbrsi/, /trqund-/, /trq˜ud-/ ~ /trq–d-/, /sindi/, /s˜ıdi/ ~ /s–di/). When w, j appear as a seemingly syllabic nucleus, there is some doubt about their real value. Are they simply used instead of the purely vocalic letters (i, u, respectively) or must they be interpreted as true semivowels, omitting the vowel that accompanies them? Many examples are ambiguous, and point to either one interpretation or the other. We must first of all note that in the case of j, the instances of an (apparent) syllabic use are extremely scarce: generally, j appears with a clear semivocalic function, immediately preceding and/or following a vowel (wljat(≤), arjom≤, pdnejt, pjabrm, kbjom≤, kojol). In the entire Saqqâra sub-corpus, only a single example of j in a syllabic position can be found: ∞j in E.Me 36, which seems to be merely an uncommon use of j instead of i (cf. the systematic spelling ∞i of this frequently used word in the rest of the inscriptions of the sub-corpus). In the other Carian inscriptions, I have found only two unclear examples in Thebes, an equally complicated form in Silsilis, and the words pjdl in C.xx1 and jzpemdane in C.xx2. All of these forms are ambiguous. The situation of w is markedly different; the examples of this letter in a syllabic position are far more frequent. Ultimately a single, comprehensive solution for all cases is simply impossible to find. Cases such as wpe (E.Me 36, E.Me 41) seem to point to a simple graphical alternation with u (cf. the more spread form upe for this word). Conversely, the systematic use of w in the spelling of the (possibly) ethnic word mwdon≤ (mwton≤ 1x), widely documented in Saqqâra, supports its interpretation as a true semivowel followed (or preceded) by an un-notated vowel.

chapter six

242

The behaviour of the names of the u≤ol-family in the Saqqâra subcorpus also substantiates the use of w for w(V); in this case, the name u≤ol, both in its solitary and compounded forms, appears with u when in nominative case, but with w when in genitive: pnu≤ol (E.Me 19), tdu≤ol (E.Me 24), “aru≤ol (E.Me 30) vs. w≤ol≤ (E.Me 12), punw≤ol≤ (E.Me 13), dw≤ol≤ (E.Me 35).5 A compelling explanation for this situation could be that there was a stress displacement, with /’u≤ol/ vs. /w(V).’≤ol≤/. In the genitives, the unstressed vowel would not be notated graphically, and w would represent a true semivowel preceding it. This hypothesis has a counter-example: in Thebes a nominative pnw≤ol is found. However, in the Saqqâra sub-corpus the rule functions well and the examples seem to go some way towards supporting this explanation. It is also corroborated by the likely connection of u≤ol with the family of nouns ending in -uassiw (Aktauassiw, Panuassiw, Saruassiw, cf. also Oa3a3iw), where a *wa≤- basis could be reconstructed. Also in the case of the names wljat, wliat, “arwljat-≤ and “r-wli≤, the etymological connections proposed (see Chapter 11, s. v. wliat) point to original *waliat-, *wali- forms. 2. Consonants Voiceless Stops The following five voiceless stops can be recognized in Carian: p p

t/T t

xX ∞

kK k

q/Q q

Labial p, dental t and velar k do not pose any particular problems. The phonological value of the corresponding letters has been firmly established in previous works and it should be sufficient here to provide a few relevant examples: p is used to adapt Egyptian p and Greek p in proper nouns: pisma“k (and variants) = Psmtk, pdnejt = P3djNjt, pidaru = P¤ndarow. Conversely, Egyptian p and Greek p reflect Carian p in Carian personal names: paraeym = Prjm, pnu≤ol = Ponussvllow, pikre = Pigrhw, etc. If the explanation of nproº (in nprosn≤) as a Carian version of the Egyptian name Nfr-˙r (Nefervw) is accepted (Schürr 1996a:68, n. 18,

5

Adiego (1993a:273).

phonological features

243

Vittmann 2001:42), it could serve as a good example of an Egyptian f adapted to p in Carian. See Chapter 11, s. v. t is used for Egyptian t and for Greek t, and also y (/th/): pdnejt = P3djNjt, ntokris = Nj.t-jqr (Nitvkriw), lysikrata-s = Lusikrãthw, otono-sn = ÉAyhna-. This latter example confirms the absence of voiceless aspirate stops in Carian, the corresponding Greek ones being adapted by means of the simple voiceless stop. For the use of Greek t for Carian t in personal names, cf. wljat (and variants) = Uliatow, Oliatow, tñu≤ = Tonnouw, etc. k is used for Egyptian k in the abovementioned personal names pisma“k (and variants), ntokris, and for Greek k in the names lysiklas[ and lysikratas[ = Lusikl∞w, Lusikrãthw. k is used for k in the adaptation of Carian nouns: kbjom≤ = Kebivmow, kilara- = Kildara/Killara, ksolb≤ cf. Kasvlaba. Note also the equivalence of Carian kbidn ‘Kaunos’ = Lycian Xbide ‘id.’ (with Lycian <x> = /k/) The exact values of ∞ and q are less clear. That ∞ represents a tectal sound is easily deducible from the use of Egyptian k in the transcription of the Carian name urs∞le≤, 3rskr. For this letter, a palatal value (palatal stop [c] or palatalized velar stop [kj ]) can be envisaged, although the argument is based only on comparative evidence: its use in the (originally) relative pronoun ∞i, whose Anatolial proto-form is *kwis (Hitt., CLuw. kui“ ). It is plausible to imagine that Carian has undergone a process similar to Milyan: the labiovelar stop has first been delabialized (*k wis > *ki, with loss of the final s) and then palatalized before i (*ki > /kji/ or /ci/, Milyan ki [ci]). In Lycian, /ci/ has eventually become /ti/, completing the fronting process.6 The palatal character of ∞ is also recognizable in the striking alternation ∞/k, shown by the name ktmno (Thebas) vs. ∞tmño≤ (Sinuri). Here, if k and t were in contact, t could have caused the fronting of k to ∞. Certainly, the Greek form of the name, Ekatomnvw, with a between k and t, seems contradict the existence of a contact between the two stops, but it is possible that the Greek form has undergone the analogical influence of the goddess’ name Hekate, so that the a vowel would be absent in the original Carian name.7 An alternative view, following on from Tremblay (see above) could be to assume that the

This explanation was formulated for the first time in Adiego (1995:29–31). It is interesting to recall that Ekatomnvw can plausibly be seen as a pure Greek name, as Neumann has repeatedly pointed out, see Neumann (1994:17). 6 7

244

chapter six

Greek form reflects a more archaic stage than Carian, and that in this latter language a syncope would have taken place, permitting a contact between k and t. In any case, it seems more than a mere coincidence that the same name appears in Lycian spelled as katamla, with k [c], not x [k]. Apart from urs∞le≤ and ∞tmño-≤, there are no more clear examples of onomastic identifications where ∞ would be included: the connection of alos(d) ∞arnos(d) with the place name Halikarnassos remains very doubtful. In any case, it would only be useful for confirming the tectal value of the sound. As for p∞simt≤, although its connection with the wellknown Egyptian name Potasimto (P3-dj-Ór-sm3-t3wy, shorter form P3dj-sm3-t3wy, Greek Potasimto) suggested by Schürr (apud Ray 1994:205) is a compelling theory, the phonetic details of the Carian adaptation of the name remain obscure to me. The tectal character of q is also beyond question; in the Greek adaptation of Carian names it is systematically represented by k or g: qtblem≤ = Kutbelhmiw, qlali≤, qlalis = Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw, quq = Gugow etc. In the bilingual inscription E.Sa 2, the Carian name qyri≤ is adapted in Egyptian as K3rr, with the use of the biliteral sign for ku ~ qÿº (Vittmann 1996). It is also used in the possible Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Ny-k3w, Nek«w, niqau≤. This letter appears in several of examples followed by o, u (triqo, plqo, quq, trqude, etc.), and o, u are also the vowels used in Greek after k when this latter corresponds to a q in contexts of defective vowel notation (qlali≤, qlali≤ = Kolaldiw, qtblem≤ = Kutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow, perhaps also qtblo = Kotobalvw, and this would seem to point to a back articulation of q (uvular /q/?) Occasionally, both k and q (there are no examples available for ∞ ) are rendered in Greek through a voiced velar stop: pikre = Pigrhw, yrqso≤ = Urgosvw, quq = Gugow, dquq = Idagugow. The two first examples can be easily categorized as allophonic; k, q would tend to become voiced in contact with the sonorant r (note the alternative spelling Pikrhw for the second name, which confirms the rather spontaneous and irregular voicing phenomenon). More delicate is the case of (Ida)-gugow, wherein the spelling of the two voiced stops is systematic, making possible the existence of true tectal voiced sounds, not noted graphically in Carian. An alternation ∞/q can be identified in the family of names in yriq/yri∞ (= Greek -urigow), note “ayriq vs. idyri∞-≤, paryri∞(-≤), and perhaps also in ÿdiq/ÿd∞ (“aÿdiq-≤ vs. parÿd∞-≤ ) (for the possible common origin of yriqand ÿdiq- stems, see below pp. 262–263). It would be difficult to offer

phonological features

245

a clear explanation of this alternation if the rather distant sound values argued here (∞ palatal vs. q uvular) are accepted. Voiced Obstruents(?) bB5 b /b/ [ b]?

dD d /d/ [ ä]?

&

The Greek rendering of Carian names, along with additional evidence from Egyptian and Lycian, confirms the point of articulation and the voiced character of these two letters: b is rendered by b: kbjom≤ = Kebivmow, ksolb≤, cf. (place name) Kasvlaba, k≤atÿbr—Janduberiw, qtblem≤ = Kutbelhmiw, Kotbelhmow, qÿblsi≤ , cf. the ethnic Kublisse›w, etc. In addition to this evidence, we must also consider the use of Carian b for Egyptian b in some personal names of Egyptian origin: ttbazi, ttubazi = T3-dj(.t)-b3st.t (Tetobastiw), pdubez = P3-dj-b3st.t, Petobastiw, Petoubestiw. The comparison with Lycian and Milyan reinforces this phonological value; as well as the correspondence between the Carian and the Lycian name of Kaunos, Car. kbid-, Lyc. Xbide, the lexical equivalences Car. sb ‘and’ = Mil. sebe, Car. ÿbt = Lyc. ubete ‘offered’ are also very significant. d is adapted as d in Greek: ada = Ada, dquq = Idagugow, dw≤ol≤, idu≤ol≤ = Idussvllow, msnord≤ cf. place name Masanvrada, ardybyr≤ = Arduberow. Conversely, Carian d reflects Greek d in the name uliade = OÈliãdhw. Carian d is used to render Egyptian d: pdnejt = P3djNjt. A good example of the correspondence Carian d: Lycian d is the word ted associated with Lycian tedi ‘father’. It seems that there is no letter for /g/ [ g ]. See above for Greek g corresponding to , in Carian. It is possible that b, d were articulated as fricatives in intervocalic position, as is the case in Lycian, but there is no direct evidence for this type of articulation. Our suspicions are based mostly on the existence of the letters & d and Ø/4/B/ b: they represented, at least originally, clusters of nasal + voiced stop (*/nd/, */mb/), precisely the context typical for the articulation of voiced obstruents as stops vs. the fricative realisation of these sounds in most other contexts (cf. the similar situation in Lycian). But the doubts concerning the real sound value of and in Carian (see below) are sufficient to cast doubt on the fricative character of b, d.

chapter six

246

It is also possible that in an initial position, the original /b/ and /d/ have become voiceless, as in Lycian. However, the Carian documentation is not as clear as the Lycian evidence. Although examples of b and d are scarce, and some of them can be interpreted as the result of a lack of notation of the initial vowel (for instance, dquq = Idagugow), there is not enough evidence to support the assertion that all the examples of initial b and d must be interpreted in this way. As for the indirect documentation, the number of forms with initial b and d is also minimal, and in a considerable part of these a contact with a sonorant r, l, n could be responsible for an allophonic voicing of a voiceless stop: Bruajiw/Bruassiw, Brvlow (personal names), Br¤oula, Bridaw (place names), and perhaps also Beryaw, Berrablviow, Dandvmow, Daru..ow, Dersvmanhw, Dersvw, Dersv . . . tiw (personal names), Bãrgasa/Bãrgaza, BargÊlia, Bolli.evn (place names). A good argument in favour of this explanation is the alternation P-/B- attested by the name Bãrgasã/Pãrgasa. The remaining examples of B- and D- would thus become very scarce (personal names: Boivmow, Deibow, place names: Babein, Bvnitv, BubassÒw and variants, Bvrand//a//, D°dmasa, Didassai, D¤duma—although this is doubtful, as it could have been influenced by Greek—and DÊndason). An alternative explanation for some of these words, to my knowledge not proposed until now, would be to assume that the Greek initials B- and D- are in fact a reflection of Carian (< *(V)mb) and (< *(V)nd ). This explanation is plausible at least in the case of the name Dersvw, which could be compared simultaneously with Andarsvw/Androsvw and with dar“ (if a PN). Also Brvlow, if from *(V)mbrol-, could be connected to the family of names in (i)br- (cf. particularly para-ibrel-). The absence of an initial vowel in the Greek adaptation would correspond precisely to the situation in Carian, where we find vis-à-vis forms both with an initial vowel (vgr. ibrsi-) and without it (vgr. brsi-). Arguing in favour of a devoicing process of b in an initial position, we should finally mention a good indication found directly in Carian: the internal alternation seen in Carian between piks- and dbiks, pik(a)rm and dbikrm, where b is clearly etymological (bik- < PIE *bh èh2-).

Ø, 4, (Hyllarima) B, (Mylasa) b

/mb/ or /b/?

&

Voiced Stops or Nasal + Voiced Stops & d

/nd/ or /d/?

phonological features

247

As Schürr has demonstrated, practically all the interpretable examples of the letters b and d find their origin in (respectively) *-mb- *-nd- groups and are reflected systematically in Greek by -mb-, -nd-: (i)brsi, ibarsi = Imbrassiw, Imbarsiw, trqd, trqude = CLuw. Tar¢unt-, lycian trqqñt (, <ñt> = /nd/). We are left with the problem of ascertaining what these letters actually represent in Carian. Three main hypotheses are plausible: (1) b and d denote true consonantal groups -mb-, -nd-, respectively. (2) b and d denote pre-nasalized consonants (/mb/, /nd/), a type of stop that exists in different world languages.8 (3) b and d denote only the oral voiced stops /b/ and /d/; like in many other languages (from Lycian to Modern Greek or Spanish), /b/ and /d/ would appear as stops only in certain contexts, particularly after nasals. In the remaining contexts, their articulation would be fricative and denoted by b [b] and d [ä] (see above). The graphemes and would therefore be used only to represent these stops, and the nasal that precedes them would not be noted graphically. With our current knowledge of Carian, it is impossible to choose between these hypotheses. Preference could be given to (3) if we were to find examples wherein b or d were used for a voiced stop not arising from a nasal + stop sequence. Unfortunately, no concrete examples of this kind have been found; the only form for which this explanation has been suggested is pdaº in pda∞m≤uñ, compared in Adiego (2000:145) with Lycian pdd˜e ‘place’, from PIE *pedom. According to this interpretation, d would represent a stop articulation of the dental in direct contact with the stop p, as in Lycian (where a gemination has also taken place). However, this connection is not conclusive enough to be used as the basis of a definitive argument in favour of d = [d], and not [nd] or [nd]. Liquids rR r /r/

8

l l /l/

Cf. Boisson (1994:219).

6 ® /rj/?

L2L l

/l.l/?

248

chapter six

Four letters have been identified as representing liquids and nasals in Carian. r corresponds to Greek r and Egyptian r in the adaptation of personal names in Carian: lysikratas[ = Lusikrãthw, ntokris = Nj.t-jqr (Nitvkriw). Conversely, both Greek r and Egyptian r reflect Carian r in Carian names: kilara = Kildara/Killara, arli“(≤) = Arlissiw, arliom≤ = Arlivmow, pikre≤ = Pigrhw, etc. paraeym = Prjm, arli“(≤) = Jr“3, “arkbiom = ”3rkbym, urs∞le≤ = 3rskr. l renders Greek l in lysiklas[, lysikratas[ = Lusikl∞w, Lusikrãthw, uliade = OÈliãdhw, and l is used in Greek for Carian l: arli“ = Arlissiw, arliom≤ = Arlivmow, lÿ∞se, lÿ∞si≤ = Lujhw, qlali≤, qlalis = Kolaldiw etc. In Egyptian, where the graphical reflection of l was always problematic (see Loprieno 1995: 31, 33), we find r for Carian l in 3rskr = urs∞le≤, whereas the sequence ºrlº in arli“, arliom≤ is noted by means of a single r ( Jr“3, Jrym). Although more precise conclusions about their exact articulation (was r flapped or trilled, and was l more or less dental?) cannot be established, it is clear that the letters r and l represent the two basic liquids of the Carian phonological system. The status of the two remaining liquid letters is less clear, and it is significant that these signs are not found in all the Carian alphabets: l is absent from the Thebes and Mylasa inventories, and ® is even less widespread, having only been found in Egypt. The use of ® is limited to the following words: ar®i“, me®≤, qdar®ou≤ and t®∞at(a)r≤. Both ar®i“ = Arrissiw and t®∞at(a)r≤ maintain the theory of ® as a palatalized r /r j/, as a result of the contact with a palatal sound (i, ∞).9 This explanation is less convincing in the case of qdar®ou≤, whilst me®≤ does not offer any evidence either for or against this hypothesis. In arri“, an assimilation process could be behind r® if we assume that there is a connection with the more widespread name arli“. This explanation would also be feasible for qdar®ou≤ if the word is related to CLuw. ¢utarlà- ‘slave’, as suggested in Adiego (1995:24–25). l is the letter used in Carian for the sound(s) transcribed in Greek adaptations as ll and ld. Boisson (1994:216–217) offers a detailed analysis of earlier proposals for interpreting this letter, and formulates some possible values. While I believe that one cannot rule out the

9 It is worth noting that the new text of Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a) offers for the name Arrissiw the form ari“, without any special sign for the (possibly peculiar) sound rendered in Greek as -rr-.

phonological features

249

possibility that l represents a peculiar unitary sound, for which the oscillating Greek spelling ll/ld would be a rough translation, it seems to me preferable to interpret l as the simple notation of a geminate sound, whose articulation was more dental than that of the Greek ll; indeed this could explain the alternative spelling ld. That the sound was very close to Carian l is demonstrated by the systematic use of l in those alphabets (namely Thebes and Mylasa) that do not have a specific letter for this geminate. Also, the use in Hyllarima of a diacritised Greek lambda for the sound (L) is a clear indication of an l sound. The geminate nature of l (originally, at least) is supported by its distribution: l never appears in an initial position, which probably implies that it needed at least a vowel preceding it (/Vl.l/). Nasals m M n Nñ m n ñ /m/ /n/ ? m and n represent the labial and dental nasal stops typical for many phonological inventories of world languages. m is used to adapt Egyptian m: pisma“k (and variants) = Psmtk. Conversely, Carian m is reflected in Egyptian by m, and in Greek by m: paraeym = Prjm, “arkbiom = ”3rkbym, kbjom≤ = Kebivmow, msnord≤ cf. Masanvrada, etc. n reflects Egyptian n and Greek n: -nejt, -neit = -Njt, ntokri≤ = Nj.t-jqr (Nitvkriw), niqau≤ = Ny-k3w (Nexvw), nik[ ]la- = Nikokl∞w; and Greek n transcribes Carian n: somne≤ = Svmnhw, pnu≤ol, punw≤ol≤ = Ponussvllow, msnord≤ cf. Masanvrada, etc. Schürr correctly established that ñ ñ, a letter absent from the Carian alphabet of Egypt, also represents a kind of n, on the basis of the onomastic identifications ∞tmño-≤ (2×) = Ekatomnvw and pñmnn-≤ñ = Ponmoonnow in the Sinuri bilingual text (E.Si 2), and this has since been confirmed by the new inscription of Hyllarima, where tñu≤ is found side by side with Tonnouw. Note also the alternation ñ/n in ∞tmño≤ vs. (Thebes) ktmno. Its absence from the Egyptian inventory is a little surprising, especially considering its wide distribution in most of the Carian alphabets of Caria itself—it appears in such distant places as Hyllarima and Kaunos—and the tendency of Egypto-Carian writing to contain letters that the alphabets of Caria have lost (j j, v w, for example). Perhaps the formal resemblance of ñ to z ≤ played a part in its disappearance.

chapter six

250

Its exact phonetic value is difficult to determine. In most cases, it can be attributed the value of a syllabic nasal (like Lycian ñ): pñmnn≤ñ, ñmailomda, yri∞ñ, tñu≤ (note the Greek adaptation Tonnouw that could be a reflection of /tn.nu/-), but its use in pda∞m≤uñ weakens the validity of this interpretation. In any case, a functional difference between ñ and n seems more probable than an articulatory difference: none of the examples seems to support the interpretation of ñ as a nasal articulated as palatal, velar, or the like. Fricatives s fF/ zZ s “ ≤ /s/ /“/ /ç/? The exact value of the three fricative sibilants of Carian, and also their origin (see below) is undoubtedly the phonological particularity of Carian that has yielded most discussion.10 In this case, Greek adaptation of Carian names proves to be largely useless, due to the existence in this language of a single sibilant s /s/. The three Carian sibilants are systematically transcribed as s- /-s(s)-: “aru≤ol = Sarussvllow, arli“ = Arlissiw, msnord-“ = Masanvrada, (i)brsi, ibarsi = Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw etc. In the other direction, Greek s is adapted to s in Carian (lysiklas, lysikratas). More interesting, however, is the contribution of Egyptian, in which Carian s is adapted to s and Carian “ to “: urs∞le-≤ = 3rskr, “arkbiom = ”3rkbym. As for the adaptation of Egyptian names, it is particularly noticeable that ≤ and “ alternate in rendering the sound t /t“/ of the Egyptian name Psmtk ( pisma“k, pisma≤k, etc.), in contrast with the use of Carian t for the same Egyptian sound in tamou (see below). A possible use of Carian s for Egyptian s could be seen in p∞simt if the connection of this form with Egyptian Potasimto (P3-dj-Ór-sm3-t3wy, P3-dj-sm3-t3wy, Potasimto) were accepted. From all this information, certain conclusions can be drawn: (1) Carian s most probably represents the basic voiceless dental sibilant in the phonological systems of the world, as shown by its use for transcribing Greek s in the two Greek names quoted above; (2) “ is probably a palato-alveolar voiceless fricative, which can be concluded from the use

10

See Hajnal (1998), Schürr (2001b), Melchert (2002).

phonological features

251

of Egyptian “ in ”3rkbym = “arkbiom; (3) As for ≤, its use in pisma≤k allows two possible interpretations: it could be either a sound very close to Carian “ (perhaps a palatal /ç/, like German ch in ich), given the alternation pisma“k/pisma“k, or an affricate sound different from /t“/ (for which the letter t already exists), corresponding roughly to the Egyptian affricate t. If the latter were true, /ts/ would be a logical solution. In any case, the interpretation as (palatal) fricative seems preferable; if ≤ were to represent /ts/, we would expect to come across an occasional use of Greek z in the transcription of the u≤ol-family of names, but in fact, ss is systematically found. Affricates cC 1 9 z /t“/ /ts/ and/or /st/? t

The attribution of the phonological value of t is based exclusively on its use in the bilingual inscription E.Me 7, where it is used in the Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name T3j-jm = w [‘amòu] (Tamvw, Yamvw, Samauw, Samv#w). Further examples of this letter are extremely scarce, and no satisfactory onomastic interpretations have been proposed for the possible personal names in which it appears. The value of z was established by Schürr on the basis of Carian names that appear to contain the name of the Egyptian goddess Bastet (B3st.t): tt(u)bazi, piub[a]zi (see Chapter 11, ss. vv.). Doubt remains as to whether z represents a consonantal heterosyllabic sequence s + t (or s + d or similar), or rather a phonetic result of this sequence (most probably an affricate /ts/ or /dz/). No clear evidence can be found in the other forms that contain this letter. In the new inscription of Mylasa some possible onomastic identifications have been suggested (see Adiego 2005) that point to both /st/ and to /ts/ as possible values of z: qzali = Kostvlliw vs. myze cf. Mouzhaw. However, both identifications are rather tenuous. 3. Letters of Uncertain Value 0 and its possible Kaunian form 8 can represent a nasal + voiced tectal stop, but this assumption is based practically on a single piece of evidence: the likely connection of ≤u0li≤ with the place name Souaggela. This tectal value is also suggested by the sequence qrds8rdso[- in the

252

chapter six

first line of C.Ka 2, in which a sort of figura etymologica formed from the word qrds (cf. qrds, C.Ki 1, and qrdsol“ in the same inscription C.Ka 2) seems to exist. The rather conventional transcription g is adopted here for these letters. As for %, a letter absent from all the Egypto-Carian alphabets with the sole exception of Thebes (and also E.xx 7 if the inscription really comes from Egypt), we can draw on two rather weak sources: firstly pr%idas in E.xx 7, for which Schürr has proposed a connection with Bragxidai, the name of the priests of Apollon in Didyma (near Milet), and secondly ]oml% in C.K 2, which may be related to C.K 5 uiomln. The first case would seem to point to a nasal + tectal value, as for 0, but if the second connection is reliable, perhaps % would in fact be rather a type of nasal. Both contexts would then favour a nasal with a tectal mode of articulation (for example, a velar nasal /fl/. Other examples are not so clear, but some of them indicate a nasal rather than a nasal + stop: the third line of C.Ka 2 shows a construction [-]∞arlano% sb z≤arios% where % seems to be a morphological ending. If a (tectal) nasal value is accepted, the forms could be interpreted as singular accusatives in n (cf. lusikla-n in C.Ka 5) spelled with a tectal nasal, for reasons we are unaware of. In any case, the possibility of a /nasal + tectal/ value cannot be ruled out. In such a case, the difference between 0 and % would come from the point of articulation of the tectal, in other words, both letters would be the correlate of one of the three voiceless tectal stops that exist in Carian (∞, k, q). I provisionally and conventionally adopt the transliteration <fl> for %, although this is not to say that I consider that attribution of a velar nasal value to this letter certain, or indeed even preferable. The letter O appears exclusively in the alphabetic variant of Kaunos. Adiego (2002) proposed that it represents the letter c C t /t“/ of other alphabetic variants. This proposal was based principally on the distributive properties of the sign, which appears in a final sequence -oO, at least in the word punoO (C.Ka 2; the segmentation is guaranteed thanks to the following word, otr“, equally segmentable in C.Ka 5). This sequence can be compared to the endings in -ot from Hyllarima C.Hy 1, ºpususot, msot, to which we can now add muot, from the new fragment of the inscription recently discovered. An alternative approach, adopted by ”evoro“kin and tentatively supported in recent times by Schürr and Melchert, is to view O as a sort of glide /w/, given its appearance between two o in most examples. This explanation is complicated by the fact that in Kaunos there are

phonological features

253

three clear examples of ouo sequences, where it is difficult to interpret u as anything other than a /w/ (ºouorº 2×, ºorouoº). For this sign a transcription t2 is adopted. 4. Letters of Unknown Value Strictly speaking, there remain only two letters for which no possible phonological value can be suggested at the present: H and 1. Of these two letters, the first is undoubtedly the most important, as it appears in Egypto-Carian alphabets (Saqqâra 2×, Abydos 2×) as well as in in Sinuri-Kildara (4×), in Stratonikeia (2×), and in Kaunos (7×). No explanation has been found for any of the forms where H is used, not even the two clear personal names from Saqqâra (E.Me 28 psHÿm[-]≤, E.Me 31 mHm≤ ). Most likely is that it had a consonantal value, given its intervocalic context in forms such as ºaHuq[ (C.Ki 1), sb uHbit (C.Ka 2); this explanation is consistent with its use in mHm≤, if a typical defective vowel notation (ºm(V)H(V)º) is used. As was noted in the chapter devoted to the Carian alphabet, the apparently complementary distribution of H and c in the alphabets of Caria itself is curious: where c appears, there is no H (as in Hyllarima) and vice-versa (Sinuri-Kildara, Stratonikeia, Kaunos). One would be tempted to interpret H as a local variant of c, a hypothesis also supported by the formal proximity of the two signs, but the existence of both letters side by side in the Egypto-Carian alphabet, and the possibility that the Kaunian counterpart of c may in fact be O (see above), make it difficult to argue the case further. The situation of 1 is very different: it is only present in the Kaunian alphabet, and only 9 examples (7 in C.Ka 2, 2 in C.Ka 4) can be found. Purely for the sake of hypothesis, one could assume that it is a particular Kaunian form for a letter existing in other alphabetic variants, in which case, the only remaining possibility would be to equate it to Egypto-Carian 6 ®. However, this cannot be confirmed by any of the instances in which 1 is used, and the possibility therefore remains that the letter has a phonological value specific to Kaunian. According to the drawings of ”evoro“kin, the still unedited graffiti of Thebes seems to show two new signs: 0 0 and Z. Since I do not possess a definitive and accurate epigraphical edition of this new corpus, I shall simply draw attention to this possible existence (see pp. 103–104). Finally, very little (indeed almost nothing) can be said about the strange ‘diamond-like’ sign (K, t ) that appears on two occasions (E.Th

254

chapter six

28, E.Si 4), in both cases preceding the same word (bebint). Note that the other two examples of the word are not accompanied by this sign (E.Th 30, E.AS 7), making it highly unlikely that the sign was actually a letter. 5. Phonotactics The defective notation of vowels makes it very difficult to draw an accurate picture of Carian phonotactics, since the task of distinguishing whether a sequence of consonants actually represents a consonantal group, or whether in fact one vowel is graphically missing, is extremely complicated. Accuracy is also compromised when resorting to the indirect evidence in the Greek adaptation of Carian names, as there is a risk of identifying certain characteristics as Carian when they in fact belong to Greek adaptations of Carian onomastics. The only solution, although far from perfect, is to combine both sources, but the results are then incomplete and many gaps and uncertainties remain. Therefore, in the following points, I shall limit myself to pointing out certain traits that in principle can be definitively attributed to Carian. 1. Carian seems to share with other Anatolian languages the absence of initial r-: there is no example of R- in Greek adaptations of Carian personal and place names, and the only definite example of initial r in Carian is found the name rtim, in the new inscription of Hyllarima (to which rtmi of Tralleis can be added if a segmentation sdia rtmi is preferred to sdi artmi). In this case, a defective vowel notation (rtmi for /artmi/) or a syllabic r produced by aphaeresis could be the cause /ºtmi/ (for this latter possibility, cf. the similar explanation given by Lycian rMmazata in Melchert 1994:297). In any case, it seems certain that the possibilty of rV- at the beginning of a word does not exist in Carian. 2. As stated above, there is no definite example of the letter l in an initial position (Adiego 1993a:276). This restriction is consistent with the geminate origin of the sound represented by l. 3. A similar tendency can be observed when considering d, as evidence of (possible) initial d is very scarce. Our glossary only contains three forms: dar“qemorms[, den, drual. We should also note that for two examples a connection with two etymologically related function words has been suggested (den as preposition comparable to Hitt. andan; drual, segmented in d = rual, where d would be a preposition comparable to Lycian ñte, see Chapter 11 ss. vv. for details). Also in this case—like l—

phonological features

255

the origin of d from a consonant cluster -nd- is a good explanation for this restriction: in general, this cluster is preceded by a vocalic sound (-Vnd-), which limits the appearance of d < -nd- in absolute initial position, which is then only possible if the vowel disappears secondarily or is not noted graphically. A similar situation can be envisaged for b. The (also scarce) examples of an initial b, when etymologically clear, point to a preceding Vmb- sequence: brsi < ibrsi (also attested) < *imbrsi-. 4. Note the following clusters in internal positions, documented both in Carian and in Greek sources: -bl- = -bl-: qÿblsi- = Kublisse›w -b- = -mb-: ib(a)rsi = Imbarsiw, Imbrassiw -kr- = -gr-/-kr- = pikre/pikra- = Pigrhw, Pikrhw -∞s- = -j-: ly∞se/ly∞si- = Lujhw -ks- = j: uksmu, wksmu-≤ = Omajamoaw -mn-/mñ- = -mn-: ktmno-, ∞tmño = Ekatomnvw, somne = Svmnhw -ñm- = -nm- = pñmnn- = Ponmoonnow -rd- = -rd-: ardybyr- = Arduberow -rl- = -rl-: arli“ = Arlissiw -rm- = -rm-: armo- cf. Ermapiw -rn- = -rn-? alos ∞arnos, cf. Alikarnassow? -rq- = -rg-/-rk- : yrqso- = Urgosvw; trqude = Tarkonda[ -rt- = -rt-: artay- = Artaow, Arthumow -rs- = ibarsi = Imbarsiw -tb- = -tb-: qtblem- = Kotbelhmow, Kutbelhmiw -d- = -nd-db- = -ndu-? kidbsi- cf. Kinduh? Other internal clusters seems also to have existed: for instance -rk- in “arkbiom, or -dr- (note idrayridsemd?bq, uodrou, uodryia[ in Carian and ÉIdrieÈw in Greek sources). 5. For initial consonant clusters, the evidence is less certain: unlike interior clusters, there are no clear examples appearing simultaneously in both direct and indirect sources, with the exception of k≤atÿbr = Lyc. Janduberiw (Zgusta KPN § 1061), which points to an initial k≤- (cf. also Jermedurow as an example of initial k + sibilant cluster). Some evidence does exist of an initial cluster such as kb- (Carian kbidn = Lycian Xbide), and—although very limited—for clusters of the type s + stop (skdubrotoz≤, sqla, sqlumidun besides sp-, sk-: Skoaranow, Spareudigow). Greek sources also contain several cases of stop + liquid beginnings

256

chapter six

(br-, gl-, kr-, pl-, pr-, tr-),11 but there are no definitive examples in Carian, in the sense that practically all the examples can be alternatively interpreted as sequences of stop plus syllabic liquid (note for example prflidas, prpwri∞, trqude) or as cases of defective vowel notation (qlali- = Greek Kolaldiw, etc.). B. Overview of the Historical Phonology of Carian The content of the following pages must be considered purely provisional. Our present knowledge of Carian is such that we must be cautious when attempting to sketch an overview of this kind. It must be noted that most of the information that can be obtained from Carian sources comes from Carian proper names, and onomastics is not always a good tool for comparative research: firstly, because the etymological interpretation of proper names can only be based on formal criteria, since they lack an actual meaning; secondly, because we cannot be sure that all the personal names correspond to the actual language, as some of them could come from nearby languages, and others could betray the conservation of old traits, modifications caused by analogical processes, and other such characteristics. In any case, both problems can be avoided to a certain extent when the volume of evidence and internal consistencies makes it logical to interpret them as a true reflection of Carian language. But I deem it necessary to issue this warning when one comes to evaluating the information that follows. I adopt the reconstruction of Proto-Anatolian (PA) as it appears in the fundamental work of Melchert (Melchert 1994), which currently represents the most useful tool for comparison. It is impossible to give a complete account of the outcome of PA sounds in Carian, with particular difficulties being found in the vocalism. Evidence is extremely limited in many cases, due to the defective vowel notation, and the complexity of the treatments of vocalic sounds from PIE to PA and from PA to the particular Anatolian dialects. In other cases, the evidence is simply nonexistent. Here I shall merely indicate the more relevant aspects that can be identified from our current knowledge of Carian. 11

There are, however, few examples.

phonological features

257

1. Vocalism (1) One of the few traits that can be established is of great relevance to the position of Carian, since it supports the theory that Carian belongs to the group of “Luwic” dialects of Anatolian (Luwian, Lycian and Milyan). This is the change of PA *è to /i(:)/. This is demonstrated above all by the root pik-/-bik- < PA */be:H/- < PIE *bhè h2- ‘to shine’, present in different Carian names (dbiks, pik(a)rm, pikre . . .). (2) A unique characteristic of Carian is the emergence of a rounded front vowel y, ÿ /y/ and its semivocalic counterpart /w/. This is a conditioned change, but it is impossible to identify all the precise contexts in which it takes place. However, at least a trigger for the fronting seems clear: the immediate contact of original /u(:)/, /w/ with /i/, /j/. We come across examples such as yiasi, yi≤∞ ?biks∞i, [—]ryin, uodryia[, yjas[i≤], “ÿin≤ (2×), and ∞diye≤, siyklo≤, iÿkr≤ that point to */wi/ > /wi/, */uj/ > */yj/, */iw/ > /iw/, */ju/ > /jy/. Particularly striking is the Kaunian alternation yomln (C.Ka 4) / uiomln (C.Ka 5). It is very likely that both spellings are attempts at representing /wi( j)o/-. The absence of a specific grapheme for the semivowel /w/ in the alphabet of Kaunos would explain the graphical oscillation. Note that ui is only attested in Carian in this word, and that there are no examples of wi, uj in the entire Carian documentation. It is also likely that other examples of y, ÿ before a vowel other than i should be explained in a similar fashion, as yomln: idyes≤, ∞aye, terÿez≤, ÿasd≤. Note particularly the last example: it is tempting to bring it closer to yiasi, yjas[i≤] and to reconstruct a protoform */wijas(V)nd/-. For the remaining examples of y, ÿ, the case is not so clear, but the influence of a near i, j can be envisaged: in the family of names in ydiq/yriq (see below pp. 262–263), a sort of metaphony caused by the i in the following syllable could be suggested. Even in ylarmit, one could imagine a more distant assimilation, triggered by the final i, or rather by the (un-notated) i present in the Greek form of the place name, Ullãrima (*/ularim/º > /ylar(i)m/º. In the case of ethnics formed with the Luwic suffix CLuw. -wanni, Mil. -wñni, kbdyn“, mdayn/mdaÿn, the connection with [—]ryin cannot be overlooked, but the exact interpretation of y/ÿ in these forms remains unclear: is y/ÿ here used for /wi/, like in yomln? Or rather has /wi/ coalesced into a single vocalic sound /y/? A third possibility would be to ascribe the fronting process to metaphony, by postulating a *-uni- > -yn(i) evolution.

258

chapter six

(3) Another vowel that seems to have appeared secondarily in Carian (at least for some words) is o. It appears to come from */a:/ and also from */a/ in accented syllable (where */a/ would become a long vowel, a change that is typical in Anatolian languages. Forms such as armo- (in armotrqdosq, E.Hy 1a) < *armà-12 would also suggest this process. A similar explanation could be given for ntro < *n(e?)trà (cf. perhaps for the formation Lyc. kbatra < ºtr + à). In general, Carian names with -o could be explained as original stems in - à: note particularly plqo and ksbo, where -o is clearly accented. The latter form can be etymologically related to the Lycian xahba, ‘grandchild’, also an à-stem. Finally, Kaunian otr“, ‘themselves’, as well as Lyc. atra-, HLuw. atra/i- also point to an accented a > o, although the etymological origin of these words remains unclear. This leads to an interesting explanation of -ol (Greek -vllow, -vldow) names: Assuming Melchert’s explanation that Luwian -alla- forms come from*-élo- with ’op’s law (*-élo > *-álla-), in Carian a lengthening of á and subsequent change to o could have taken place *-élo- > *-állV- > *-àllV- > *-o÷ll(V), spelled -ol (with l for, or the result of, geminated l, see above p. 249). The forms with -el ( para-ibrel≤, ionel≤ ) ought to be explained then as the result of a suffix with i-motion followed by metaphony caused by i (see below): *-éli- > *-álli- > *-é(:)ll(i)- > *el. In the case of -on in mwdon≤, a monophthongization process had been suggested (see Adiego 1994:94) *mwdawn≤ > mwdon≤, but I now prefer to look for another solution, given the form mdaÿn/mdayn, where the monophtongization process has not taken place. Perhaps o here also represents *à, which in this case comes from the contraction *ºa-wan- > * ºa-an- (with loss of w) > *ºàn- > ºon-. In mdayn/mdaÿn, the lack of contraction can be attributed to a different vocalism of the suffix (*ºa-wen-), whether original or originated by metaphony (*ºa-wen-i- vs. *ºa-wanas- in mwdon≤ ?). The other examples of possible monophthongization cited in Adiego (1994:49) (arliom≤ < *arliya-uma, etc.) are by no means conclusive. It could also be argued that they come directly from *à (> o).

12 That arma was an a-stem in PA seems the most likely explanation, although the evidence is not certain: note Lyc. N304, 5 arMma, wherein the isolated context of the form does not allow us to confirm that in Lycian it was also an a-stem (Melchert, DLL s. v.).

phonological features

259

(4) The vocalism of the words en, ‘mother’, and ted, ‘father’, is a clear indication of an umlaut process a > e / _.Ci similar to that of Lycian:13 PA sg. nom. *anna-s (cf. Hittte anna-“ ) > Luwic *anni-s (with i-motion, cf. CLuw. anni-“ ) > carian en, like Lycian ˜e ni; PA *dáda-s > Luwic *tádis (with i-motion, cf. CLuw. tàti-“ ) > Carian ted, like Lycian tedi. Cf. the similar explanation above for -el. (5) The form otonosn shows a strange ‘vocalic harmony’ in o. At least the second and third vowels can be explained with *à > o (*ÉAyhn*a- > *atànà-,14 cf. Lycian atãnaze/i ) > *atono-), but the first seems to be caused by metaphony (*atono- > otono-). 2. Consonants (1) The PA labial and dental voiceless stops remain unaltered in Carian: PA */p/ > Carian p /p/: para(eym), para(ibrel≤), Para- < *PA prò/prò: cf. Hittite parà ‘forth’. Cf. pun-/pn- in punw≤ol≤, pnu≤ol, perhaps also in punot2, < Luwic puna- ‘all’ (Lyc. punãma- ‘totality’, CLuw pùna- ‘all’). */t/ > Carian t /t/: trqud-e, trqd-os < PA *TºH–t- ‘Storm-god’ (CLuw Tar¢unt-, Lyc. Trqqñt-). -t < -te or -ti < PA pret. 3rd sg. *-to or pres. 3rd sg. *-ti in ÿbt < *ubete ‘offered’ or < *ubeti ‘offers’, cf. Lyc. ubete. (2) Like the other Luwic dialects, Carian presents a ‘satem-like’ treatment of PIE, PA *∞, as can be seen in the demonstrative pronoun sa/sn- ‘this’ in sa, san, snn < PA *∞o- (Hitt. ka-, Luw. za-). Perhaps also sidi, sdi ‘tomb’, if it can be connected with PIE *∞ei- ‘to lie’ (Lyc. sije-). (3) Luwic also deals with *· > Ø in *·emro- ‘steppe’ > *imr- >*imbr- > ibr-/br-: (i)br-si < *imbrV- < *·emr-, (para) -ibrel-≤ < *·emréli-. (4) The only clear example of the treatment *kw is the (original) relative pronoun ∞i < PIE, PA *k wis (Hitt., CLuw. kui“, Lyc. ti, Mil. ki [ci]). in this case Carian displays a process similar to Milyan: delabialization and fronting before i. (5) Forms like tedi < PA *dáda/i- or pik- (in pikre-≤, pikarm-≤, etc.) in addition to dbiks and dbikrm point to an ‘unvoicing’ of voiced stops in initial position, a process that has also taken place in parallel to this in other Anatolian languages (cf. Lycian tedi, Lydian taadas).

13

Melchert (1994:296). For the probable non-Doric origin of the form (according to Blümel), see above p. 237. The non-existence of e in Kaunian is sufficient to explain the adaptation of Greek h to a. 14

260

chapter six

(6) In the sequences of Nasal + voiceless stop, this latter example has become, as in Lycian (and probably in the rest of the Anatolian languages), a voiced stop. The evidence is clear for dentals: *TºH–t- > trq(u)d-, with *-nd- > d, see above. (7) Traits (5) and (6) clearly indicate that the situation for Carian is very similar to that of Lycian: voiced stops merge with voiceless stops in initial position, become fricative in intervocalic position, and remain as voiced stops only after a nasal, where voiceless stops merge with them. (8) Carian liquids l, r and nasals m, n come from the respective liquid and nasal sounds in PA and/or in Luwic: r < *r: para(eym), para(ibrel≤), Para- < *PA prò/prò: cf. Hitt. parà ‘forth’, armo < PA *armà- ‘moon’, “ar-, “r- ‘upper’ (in “ar-u≤ol, “r-wli-≤, etc.), cf. Hitt. “èr, CLuw. “arri, Lyc. hr-i, Mil. zril < *l: wljat. Cf. Hitt. walliwalli- ‘strong, powerful’ m < *m: msn-ord≤. *msn- ‘god’: Cf. in the rest of Luwic languages: CLuw. mà““an(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa-, Sidetic ma≤ara (pl. dat.) ‘gods’; *mu- (in uksmu-) = CLuw., muwa- Mil. muwa- ‘might, power’. n < *msn-ord≤ < msn- ‘god’, see immediately above; -n acc. sg. ending: lysikla-n, ork-n, etc. < PA *-n < PIE *-m; -yn- suffix for ethnic names (kbd-yn-“ ‘Kaunians’) = CLuw. -wanni-, Lyc. -ñni-, Mil. -wñni-. As for ®, l, ñ, see the remarks in pp. 248–250 above. l seems to point to a geminate *-ll- (*-élo > *-állV- > -ol, see above). ® can be a palatalized r, which in some cases could come from l (qdar®ou≤, cf. CLuw ¢utarlà- ‘slave’?). ñ comes from n at least in the ending -ñ of pñmnn-≤ñ (acc. sg of a possessive adjective). (9) PA ‘Laryngeal’ *H (PIE < *h2) appears as a tectal voiceless stop k, q in Carian. The process is therefore parallel to that of Lycian (<x> /k/ / ). Examples: for *H > k: kdou- (< *Hntawº-, cf. Lyc. xñtawat(i), from PIE *h2ent-), pikre-, piks- (both containing PIE *bhèh2- > Luwic *piH-); for *H > q: trqude, trqd- < Luwic *TºH–t- (CLuw. Tar¢unt- Lycian, Milyan trqqñt-). If the word quq comes from PA *HuHo- ‘grandfather’ (> Lycian xuga), the lenition process seen in Lycian ( xuga = /kuga/) is absent, at least graphically, in Carian. But the Greek form Gugow points to a voiced articulation (the initial G- remains unclear). (10) The existence of at least three fricative sibilants in Carian (s, “, ≤ ) poses a puzzling situation regarding their respective origins. It seems that (at least some) results of the three sibilants come ultimately from the single fricative voiceless dental fricative PA *s. Recent work by Melchert (see Melchert 2002) has significantly clarified the matter, and new evidence from the Hyllarima inscription seems to corroborate his views.

phonological features

261

Concerning Carian s, Melchert (2002) has stated that it reflects a prehistoric simple *s in forms such as i[—]inis (C.Ka 5), ntros, “arnais, etc., in which he claims to have identified genitive-dative forms coming from PIE *-e/oso (Melchert 2002:309). This hypothesis has essentially been confirmed by the new inscription of Hyllarima, wherein an analysis of the ending -os in armotrqdos would suggest that it originates from a genitive ending *-Vso, or from an adjective suffix *-Vso-.15 Another possible new example of Carian s from *s is the name ksbo in C.My 1, if it is related to Lycian xahba ‘grandchild’ < PIE *h2onsu secondarily converted to an à-stem. As for “, the clearest examples for a conditioned origin are “(a)r- and acc. pl. -“´(in otr“, kbdyn“, sarni“ ). The first example could be interpreted as the result of a palatalisation process caused by direct contact with r (cf. perhaps also zri-, not sri- in Milyan). One must therefore start from *sri- (cf. Mil. zri-, Lyc. hri-, CLuw. “arri ) and to postulate *sri- > *sº - > “º - (palatalisation) > “ar- (samprasàra»a):16 the second example is the outcome of Luwic accusative plural *-ns (> -“ ). The parallelisms with the use of z in Milyan are striking: there we find *sri- > zri- (zrigali, zriqali) and nom.-ac. pl. -z < *-ns (masaiz, Xbadiz, xuwasaz, etc.) vs. Lycian hri, (pl. acc.) -s. Other instances of “ are not so clear (mol“, k“ow“ ). Finally, in the case of “, Melchert proposes that Carian possessivegenitive -“ continues the PIE possessive suffix *-asso- in its form -assì, i.e. with i-mutation (Melchert 2002:311). From a phonological point of view, the supposition is extremely compelling, given the likely palatal character of ≤ /ç/ (see above), although some doubts do remain.17 3. Some Secondary Changes In this brief section I offer a succinct analysis of several cases of secondary changes observable in the Carian documentation. Once again, the material and results are far from conclusive, and must therefore be viewed with a certain amount of caution.

15 The exact analysis of -s and its actual value in Carian is not relevant here, see pp. 314–317 for the problems posed by the Carian s- ending. 16 I consider this interpretation of “ in “(a)r- as preferable to Melchert’s use of Lydian serli-/selli- (note that Lydian <s> = /“/!) for explaining the palatalization. The development of a secondary support vowel in contact with syllabic r is also visible in pikarm≤ vs. pikrm-≤ (from pikrº, cf. pikre-≤ ) and the Milyan testimony seems then more compelling than the need for postulating that Carian “ar- comes directly from *ser-. 17 No explanation has yet been found for the form ib(a)rsi- if it comes from an -assì-

262

chapter six

1. The family of names brsi/ib(a)rsi, (para-)ibrel, Greek Imbras(s)iw, Imbarsiw, Imbarhldow, if the etymology from PA*·emro- is accepted, would indicate a sound change *-mr- > -mbr- (
), a kind of epenthetic development well known in other languages (cf. Greek êmbrotow < *amrotos < PIE *–-mºto-s, Spanish hombro [ombro] from Vulgar Lat. *umru(m) < Lat. umerum). Perhaps a similar process can be identified in the names Andarsvw, Androssvw (cf. also dar“ ?): it is tempting to start from *narasà- (to be related to Narasow, epithet of Zeus in Panamara, Caria)18 > *–rasò- > *–drasò > * –dºsò > Andarsvw, Androssvw. 2. The examples mentioned above (1) point to a secondary character of a in ibarsi- (Greek Imbarsiw), given that epenthetic b could only appear in direct contact with the following r. Cf. also Andarsvw, dar“ if the explanation proposed here is accepted. It seems that in Carian a kind of samprasàra»a could have taken place when r became syllabic, and the entire process could therefore be the following: *imrasi- >* imbrasi - > *imbºsi- > /imbarsi/º (ibarsi-). The same rule can be applied to alternations such as pikrm-/pikarm-, and “ar-/“r- (cf. above for the effect of this explanation on the merging of palatal “ in these latter forms). 3. It is plausible to imagine a common origin for the collection of stems ÿdiq/ÿd∞-/yriq-/yri∞-/wri∞- if one accepts a progressive dissimilation process. The following are all the forms that have been identified thus far (E = in Egypt; C = in Caria):

(perhaps re-derived by -*iye in *-assiye-) suffix, because the phonological context is very similar to that assumed for the origin of -≤. The possibility that these forms contain a different suffix (*-∞o- or *-tyo-, see Melchert 2002:310 n.13) cannot be ruled out, but it is a more ad hoc solution. 18 For this form a connection with CLuw. annara/i- ‘strong’ can be envisaged (Neumann 1994:22; see here p. 333).

phonological features -dGreek

ÿdiq-

Paraudigow

263 -r-

ÿd∞-

Greek

yriq-

parÿd∞-≤ E

“aÿdiq-≤ E

yri∞- (wri∞-?) yri∞-ñ (?) C idyri∞-≤ C paryri∞(-≤) C

Saurigow “ayriq E Senurigow

prpwri∞? E rather prpÿri∞?

Spareudigow Semeuritow?

It is possible that the original form of the stem was *yriq-/yri∞-,19 as the non-compound form yri∞-ñ suggests. The forms with d are limited to par(a)-, “a- and Spare-compounds, and for the two first, the corresponding forms with r are also attested. If one assumes that “a-/Sa- is a variant of the well-known adverbial stem “ar-/“r-, originating from a loss of r in intervocalic position (*“ar-yriq > “a-yriq, cf. perhaps Saussvllow besides Sarusvllow), the resulting forms in d in compounds with par(a)-, “a(r)could be explained as a dissimilation r-r > r-d: par-yri∞- > *par-ydi∞ ( parÿd∞-)-, *“a(r)-yriq (cf. “a-yriq) > *“a(r)-ydiq (“aÿdiq-). 4. Schürr has argued in favour of a change p > Ø from some alleged examples of alternation (Schürr 1992:141). Perhaps the most compelling example of this possible alternation would be the words for ‘stela’ (or similar) in Memphis: upe/ue, although it is also possible that we are in fact dealing with two different words. Less convincing is the name paraeym vs. parpeym, where a different second element (ºeym/ºpeym) could also be suggested.20 No other clear examples are known of, either in Carian direct sources or in Greek ones. 5. Other examples of vowel and consonantal alternations, in Carian direct sources or in Greek indirect sources, are far more occasional, and not easy to explain. Note for example a/e in pikra/pikre, upa/upe, which could be a morphological rather than a phonological alternation. For changes detectable in Greek sources, see Neumann (1994:18–19).

19 The alternation q/∞ remains unexplained (cf. supra pp. 244–245). As for y/ÿ, see above pp. 235–236. 20 A further example, qarpsi- vs. qarsi-, offers a totally different context, and cannot be compared to the two cases mentioned above, where p would be lost between vowels.

CHAPTER SEVEN

ANALYZING CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS

Contrary to the customary order in grammars, where morphology, together with phonology, precedes syntax, in the case of Carian it seems methodologically more accurate to begin with the analysis of Carian texts; our knowledge of Carian morphology depends on the way in which the texts can be interpreted syntactically, and such an interpretation remains in most cases controversial, to say the least. In the following pages I will try to analyze Carian texts from the ‘easiest’ to the ‘most difficult’, beginning with those that contain only very basic onomastic formulae. The following step will be to analyze the inscriptions of the Memphis sub-corpus, where we find more complex onomastic formulae, but no recognizable verbal forms are attested. This analysis will also allow us to identify some common nouns used in the formulae of these funerary texts. The third section will offer an analysis of some brief inscriptions (mainly on objects) that seem to contain forms other than onomastic formulae. Finally, a few aspects of the interpretation of the longer inscriptions, where there are serious difficulties of analysis, will be briefly addressed.

A. Basic Onomastic Formulae 1. Inscriptions Consisting of Only an Individual Name The briefest Carian inscriptions consist of a single word, which in the great majority of cases can be confidently interpreted as an individual name. As one can easily imagine, these types of texts are found among the graffiti and also on some objects. In the graffiti, the name appears without an ending, in a case that we can consider the ‘nominative’, a logical explanation given that the inscription can be interpreted merely as a type of signature: pisiri (E.Ab 1), piew (E.Ab 38), pla?t (E.Th 3), wljat (E.Th 7), psma≤k (E.Si 7, E.Bu 5) etc. Only occasionally does the

analyzing carian inscriptions

265

name appear with the -≤ ending, commonly interpreted as a ‘genitive’: E.Ab 32 ∞arr≤, E.Ab 37 “arur≤.1 Also, in the so-called ‘pharaonic objects’ (excepting funerary stelae) published in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) we come across inscriptions consisting of only an individual name, in nominative or in genitive: wliat (E.xx 2) pduba (E.xx 4,) vs. ionel≤ (E.xx 3). The only possible examples of a form in another case—leaving aside forms with no clear interpretation—are provided by the two identical inscriptions on bracelets that contain the word kdu≤ol“, where the final -“ could represent a different case ending. 2. Inscriptions Consisting of Only a Twofold Onomastic Formula Despite the above examples, the most typical Carian onomastic formula, as in other ancient Indo-European languages, seems to have been a twofold one: individual name + father’s name. This latter is systematically expressed in Carian by the genitive ending ≤.2 This formula can explain a number of Carian inscriptions consisting of two words, as well as others in which a particle ∞i appears together with the two names. We can attempt a typological classification of twofold formulae on the basis of the case of the first member and the presence or absence of ∞i: Nominative + Genitive panejt iarja≤ E.Ab 2 ptn“e | ibarsi≤ E.Ab 3 “amow ltari≤ E.Ab 4, 5 plat | pals≤ E.Ab 7, 8, 9 piubez qurbo≤ E.Ab 10 untri | uantrpu≤ E.Ab 13 pdubez or≤ E.Ab 15 tamosi | inut≤ E.Ab 18 tamosi utnu≤ E.Ab 19 ninut | tamosi≤ E.Ab 20 ttubazi kattÿri≤ E.Ab 25 ialli | q∞blio≤ E.Ab 40 1 The interpretation of the ending -z (-≤ ) as a genitive was first made by Sayce (1887[92] = 1893:141–142). 2 For the use of an ending -s- in C.Ka 5, see below p. 316.

chapter seven

266 ttbazi kt?tri≤ E.Ab 41 dÿbr | t®∞atr≤ E.Th 5 psma≤k ibrsi≤ E.Bu 4

Nominative + Genitive ∞i pdnejt qÿri≤ ∞i E.Sa 1 pnu≤ol zmu≤ ∞i E.Me 19 (a) “enurt (b) p∞simt≤ ∞i E.Me 50 platt slaÿ≤ ∞i E.AS 5 s–ending (?) + Genitive ∞i ap[---]ws a[rb]ikarm≤ ∞i E.Me 23 idmns | myre≤ ∞i E.Me 33b, cf. E.Me 33a

As the examples show, the twofold formula is typically used in graffiti, particularly those from Abydos. In practically all of the quoted examples of graffiti, with the sole exception of E.AS 5, the formula consists of the individual name in nominative followed by the father’s name in genitive. E.AS 5 is the only one that contains the genitive accompanied by a postclitic ∞i. In this and the other cases where the structure N-Ø N-≤- ∞i appears (E.Sa 1, E.Me 19, E.Me 50), there is no visible semantic difference when compared to the structures without ∞i. The role of ∞i in all of these cases seems to be merely to connect the nominal complement in genitive to the name it refers to. The most likely explanation, as Hajnal (1997a) suggests, is that this construction presupposes and/or comes from an elliptical word for ‘son’: pdnejt qÿri≤ ∞i ‘Pdnejt, the (son) of Qÿri- = ‘that of Qÿri-’.3 Given that from an etymological point of view, an origin of ∞i from a Proto-Anatolian relative pronoun *kwis (< PIE *kwis) is a convincing interpretation, it is easy to assume that behind pdnejt qÿri≤ ∞i and similar constructions, there was an original meaning ‘Pdnejt, who (is the son) of Qÿri’. As we can see, twofold formulae are very scarce among the funerary stelae of Memphis, but the examples are very interesting in that they show another pattern of the formula; as well as N-Ø N-≤ (3 examples), we can identify two instances with possible ‘s-endings’ (N-s N-≤, both with the genitive followed by ∞i), but we should bear in mind the possibility that we are in fact dealing with nominatives of s-stems (on this problem, see pp. 314–317). This twofold formula ‘individual name + father’s name in genitive’ is easily recognizable in longer inscriptions, which we will address below: 3

We can conclude that the second name represents the father’s name from the Egyptian text that accompanies the Carian one, where P3-dj-Njt is mentioned as the son of K3rr = qÿri-.

analyzing carian inscriptions

267

in votive texts such as the inscription on a bronze lion (E.xx 7 uksi wrm≤ ), or the inscription on a phiale (C.xx 1 “rquq qtblem≤), in the list of names from Mylasa (C.My 1), and even in the mention of the two satraps Idrieus and Ada ([--]ryin ∞tmño≤ sb ada ∞tmno≤ ‘[--]ryin of Hekatomnos and Ada of Hekatomnos’). B. The Structure of the Stelae from Memphis The onomastic formulae limited to the two basic constructions mentioned above (‘Individual name’ or ‘Individual name + father’s name’) are extremely scarce in the Memphis sub-corpus: to the examples mentioned above (four, and only for twofold formulae), we can add only one other in which the individual name in the genitive is accompanied by the father’s name and one of the formula words in Memphis, ue, used to designate the object (‘stela’; on this word see Chapter 11, s. v.). arli“≤ | psikro≤ ue E.Me 51

In general, the stelae from Memphis, insofar as they are integrally (or almost integrally) preserved, show more complex onomastic formulae. It is common to find threefold formulae, as well as another type of formulae that includes more proper names. 1. Threefold Formulae To the ‘individual name + father’s name’ formula, a third word in genitive can be added. The simplest interpretation of these threefold formulae would be to take the third name as the grandfather’s name (papponym). As we will see below, this interpretation is certain in cases such as the threefold onomastics formulae of the new inscription of Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a), but in the Memphis sub-corpus, where this type of formula is very frequent, (in fact, it can be considered the typical onomastic formula of the funerary stelae) the situation is not so clear. In Memphis we find the following three types of threefold structures: N-Ø N-≤ N-≤, N-≤ N-≤ N-≤ and N-s N-≤ N-≤ (with or without ∞i after the second and/or the third name). When the individual name is in genitive, a word for ‘stela’ (ue, upe,4 wpe, upa) can appear (cf. above the 4 In one case (E.Me 26) accompanied by a demonstrative pronoun: upe sa ‘this stela’ (on sa, see Chapter 11, s. v.).

268

chapter seven

example of E.Me 51), so that the use of the genitive simply indicates that the stela belongs to the individual it mentions. The inscriptions consisting of only these kinds of threefold formulae— I leave aside for now the inscriptions of a more complex structure— are the following:5 Nominative + Genitive + Genitive uksmu | lkor≤ | mrsi≤ E.Me 2 tamou tanai≤ qarsio[-?] ? E.Me 7 irow | pikarm≤ | mwdon≤ E.Me 14 u≤ol | mi∞≤≤ kdûsi≤ E.Ab 35 Nominative + Genitive ∞i + Genitive “aru≤ol pleq≤ ∞i : ≤ugli≤ E.Me 30 qorb | isor≤ ∞i | ≤ugli≤ E.xx 1 Nominative + Genitive ∞i + Genitive ∞i uqsi | “rwli≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 20 plqo | pikrm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 40 Genitive + Genitive + Genitive ttbazi[≤] | piub[a]zi≤ | aor[≤] E.Me 1 pikre≤ ue “arwljat≤ msnord≤ E.Me 3 arli“≤ urs∞le≤ kidbsi≤ E.Me 15 [. . .]u≤ | upe sa | triel≤ | mrsi≤ E.Me 26 s[--]et≤ | [--] | ynemori≤ | mwdon≤ E.Me 29 me®≤ | somne≤ | t®∞ata[r]≤ E.Me 34 | or≤ | wpe | qdar®ou≤ | t®∞atar≤ E.Me 41 Genitive + Genitive ∞i + Genitive arli“≤ : upe : arlio[m≤] ∞i : yjas[i≤] E.Me 9 wksmu≤ | wpe | lkor≤ ∞j qarpsi≤ E.Me 36 [--]j[-]≤ [-]owt≤ ∞i : msnord≤ E.Me 48 Genitive + Genitive + Genitive ∞i punw≤ol≤ : somne≤ qÿblsi≤ ∞i E.Me 21 (a) ÿasd≤ | yi≤∞?biks∞i≤ (b) mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 46 Genitive + Genitive ∞i + Genitive ∞i “dtat≤ | upa | w | wet≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 13 sanuq≤ | ue | pntmun≤ ∞i mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 28 s–Ending + Genitive + Genitive ∞i ntokris | dw≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 35

5 I add to this list an example from Abydos (E.Ab 35), and also the inscription of unknown origin (but clearly close to the Memphis stelae) E.xx 1, which is consistent with this type of threefold formula.

analyzing carian inscriptions

269

The possibility that the third word is not a papponym can be deduced from at least three factors: firstly, the very large number of examples of the word mwdon≤ in that position, a word for which there are no parallels among the Carian personal names in Greek sources; secondly, the iteration of some words in that very position (≤ugli≤, msnord≤, mrsi≤ ); thirdly, the fact that these words never appear as a first name in any onomastic formula, and even their appearance as a second name or patronym is limited to the word t®∞atar≤, which appears in E.The 5 as a clear patronym (dÿbr t®∞atr≤ ). These distributive properties do not favour the interpretation of most of these forms as simple personal names functioning as papponyms. An alternative interpretation that was envisaged some years ago is to classify them as ethnic names.6 This possibility is very clear in the case of mwdon≤; there are few doubts that mwdon≤ is the genitive corresponding to the nominative mdayn, mdaÿn also found in the Memphis sub-corpus, and following the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual inscription, -yn/-ÿn has been confirmed as a suffix for the formation of ethnic names (kbd-yn-“ ‘Kaunians’).7 The exact meaning of mwdon≤ is a different question, for which I refer to the Glossary (Chapter 11), where a discussion of the various proposals of interpretation is offered. For now it is sufficient to state that it could simply mean ‘foreigner’ or, if it refers to a concrete place, that this must be the main point of origin for Carian mercenaries in Egypt, given the high number of occurrences. For some other third-position words, the possible connections with well-known place names have not gone unnoticed (see Janda 1994: 174–176; Melchert apud Adiego 1995:20; Adiego 2004:310): ≤ugli≤ < Souaggela, kidbsi≤ and/or kd!usi≤ < Kinduh, yjasi[≤] < Iasow, msnord≤ < Maosanvrada, ksolb≤ < Kasvlaba, qÿblsi≤ < Kubliss/ow/. There is also the interesting possibility of recognizing certain suffixal formations: -siin kidbsi≤, kd!usi≤, and also probably in mrsi≤, qarpsi≤; -i- in yjasi[≤] and

6 In Adiego (1993:212), the hypothesis formulated by Meriggi (1980) of interpreting mwdon- as an ethnic name, was already taken into consideration, but the first author to propose that a number of third names in onomastic formulae could be interpreted as ethnic names was in fact Janda, see Janda (1994:174–176). The idea was also taken up by Melchert (apud Adiego 1995:20) and further developed in Adiego (2004:309–310). That I did not mention Janda’s work in this latter paper is a regrettable oversight, for which I ask forgiveness. 7 For mwdon“ as an ethnic name, see Adiego (1993:212). For integration of mdayn/ mdaÿn—mwdon“ into the same paradigm and for the identification of the Luwic ethnic suffix, see Melchert (1993:82–83).

270

chapter seven

qÿblsi≤. For -si-, a connection with Lycian -zi- is likely. For -i-, cf. Lyc. -i( je)- (in Tr◊mmili( je)- ‘Lycian’), and above all the Carian form ylarmit, which seems to contain an -i- suffix attached to the place name *ylar(i)m(a)= Hyllarima in order to express the meaning ‘Hyllarimean’. In the case of msnord≤, ksolb≤, no suffixation can be recognized, perhaps due to the defective vowel notation. It is rather puzzling that none of these forms, leaving aside mwdon≤, show the typical -yn-/-on- ethnical suffix, but this could be due to chance (cf. the great variety of ethnical suffixes also present in Lycian). A new argument can be added to this evidence for ethnic names: there are three inscriptions in which a N-Ø N-≤ N-Ø formula is found, which means that the third name can hardly be a papponym, since it agrees in nominative case with the first name. Moreover, in two of the three cases, the third word can be interpreted as an ethnic name: “ayriq | parpeym≤ ∞i yiasi E.Me 25 idmns | myre≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i E.Me 33a triqo : parma≤≤ ∞i klorul ∞i E.Me 6

In the first example, read thus,8 we find the word yiasi, which cannot be anything other than the nominative form, referred directly to the individual name “ayriq, of the word that appears in E.Me 9 as yjas[i≤ ], and which we have just connected to the place name Iasow. E.Me 33a is equally clear: here, the third position in nominative is occupied by mdayn, which has also already been interpreted as an ethnic name (corresponding to genitive mwdon≤). In this same inscription, the onomastic formula appears iterated, but for the second time (E.Me 33b) without the ethnic name (idmns myre≤ ).9 In the case of klorul, a similar explanation can be envisaged, although it is necessary to admit that there are no parallels in the place names of Greek sources for a place name *k(V)loru- or similar.10 A further example of a possible ethnic name in nominative is offered by E.Me 44: (a) apmen “rquq≤ kojol ∞i (b) mwton≤ ∞i

8

On this reading, see p. 54. For the problem of idmns (s-stem nominative or rather a stem with s-ending?), see below pp. 314–317. 10 An alternative analysis would be to think of a type of title referring to triqo. 9

analyzing carian inscriptions

271

Leaving aside the particle ∞i, the structure of E.Me 44a is identical to E.Me 25, E.Me 6 and (with the caveat of -s in idmns) E.Me 33a. The last form therefore also appears in nominative. A good connection can be established here with the name of the island of Cos. The exact parallelism with the name of the inhabitants of this island in Greek sources, K≈Ûoi, is astonishing. For -l, note also a possible similar suffix in kloru-l. As for (b), the genitive mwton≤ must be related to the father’s name “rqurq≤. This specification has been added outside of the basic formula, but connected with it by means of the agreement.11 To sum up, there seems to be good evidence for interpreting a great number of third words in three-fold formulae as ethnic names. However, cases like t®∞atar≤ prevent us from extending this interpretation to all the examples of three-fold formulae. As the examples from Hyllarima show, a threefold structure consisting of name + patronym + papponym also existed in Carian, and some examples from Egypt could correspond to this kind of structure. A more complicated question is which part the ethnic name must be attributed to: in the inscriptions with the structures N-Ø N-≤ N-Ø (ethnic name), N-Ø N-≤ N-≤ (ethnic name), or N-s N-≤ N-≤ (ethnic name), there is no ambiguity: in the first case, the ethnic name refers to the deceased, in the second and third, to the father of the deceased. But in N-≤ N-≤ N-≤ (ethnic), the structure is ambiguous, as the last genitive could refer to the first one or to the second one. The existence of both possibilities, as demonstrated by the unambiguous formulae above, does not help to resolve the problem. It is possible that the different uses of ∞i also mark differences in the structure, but it is generally difficult to tell which functions this particle is bearing when it is used. 2. Stelae for Women At least in two cases, the illustration in the stela makes it clear that the deceased was a woman: in E.Me 12 and in E.Me 13: pjabrm | u≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i kbjom≤ | m[no≤] E.(Me 12) “dtat≤ | upa | w | wet≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i (E.Me 13) 11 Note, however, that this overall analysis of E.Me 44 raises questions that are still unclear: the individual to which kojol is referred bears an Egyptian name (apmen), which is rather strange (we must accept, then, that this individual, coming from Kos, adopted a new, Egyptian, name). Moreover, this intepretation implies that while apmen came from Kos, his father was a mwdon-.

272

chapter seven

E.Me 13 does not show any special characteristics. We have already included it in the list of Genitive—Genitive—Genitive inscriptions above. Like other inscriptions of the same kind, the role of mwdon≤ is ambiguous, and could complement either the first or the second name: wet≤ could be the father’s name, but it is also possible that it represents the husband’s name (see below). The w after upa is unusual: is it a mistake, as Masson suggests, or does it represent a word, either complete or abbreviated? E.Me 12 offers a more interesting structure. It presents a four-fold onomastic formula, pjabrm- u≤ol≤- mwdon≤- kbjom≤ and a last, incomplete word, whose integration as m[no≤] seems suitable using the example of another four-fold inscription, E.Me 16, which we will come to immediately after. The meaning ‘son’ for mno≤ has been already proposed on several occasions (see Chapter 11 s. v. for further details), and seems to be the simplest and most logical solution, especially in the light of certain funerary inscriptions of Caria (see below p. 289 and ss.). There seems to be some connection between the fact that the deceased is a woman and the presence of an atypical four-fold formula. A good solution would therefore be to interpret u≤ol≤ mwdon≤ kbjom≤ m[no≤ ] “of U≤ol, the mwdon, the son of Kbjom” as the name of the husband. A comparable analysis can be proposed for E.Me 16, which presents a structure very similar to E.Me 12, as has been mentioned above: irow | pikra≤ ∞i semw≤ | mno≤ mwdon≤ ∞i (E.Me 16)

irow is a name of Egyptian origin, where it appears documented as both masculine and as feminine (see Chapter 11 s. v.). If we choose to interpret it as feminine, the structure and analysis of the text is identical to E.Me 12, the sole difference being the position of mwdon≤ ∞i, which in E.Me 12 precedes the filiation formula with mno≤. Therefore, here we can translate it thus: “Irou (f ), (husband) of Pikra, the son of Semw, the mwdon-.” It is impossible to decide whether the different placing of mwdon≤ ∞i is due to the fact that here, unlike in E.Me 12, mwdon≤ refers to the father’s name, semw≤, and not to the husband’s name, pikra≤: the accumulation of genitives renders the overall structure ambiguous. The following inscription also contains the co-occurrence of the name irow and the word mno≤: irow≤ : psHÿm[-]≤ pttu≤ : mno≤ (E.Me 27)

analyzing carian inscriptions

273

In this case, it is a threefold formula, and a superficial approach would suggest that it be grouped with the other Genitive-Genitive-Genitive formulae. But the presence of mno≤ after the third name seems to challenge this simple interpretation. If: psHÿm[-]≤ pttu≤ was a sequence of patronym and papponym of irow–, we would instead expect the word for ‘son’ to follow psHÿm[-]≤ , not pttu≤. But if in this case irow≤ is a female name followed by the onomastic formula of the husband, the placing of mno≤ makes sense: ‘Of Irow (f.), (the husband) of PsHÿm[-], son of Pttu’. 3. Inscriptions with ted and en Hajnal and Schürr independently proposed that the Carian words for ‘father’ and ‘mother’ could be recognised in the forms ted (E.Me 38) and en (E.Me 32) respectively. The correspondences with Lycian and Luwian are striking (CLuw. tàti“, Lyc. tedi; CLuw. anni“, Lyc. e˜ni, see Chapter 11, ss. vv.) and the contexts in which they appear favour this analysis as kinship terms: “ÿin≤ | upe | arie?≤ ∞i ted (E.Me 38) iturow≤ | kbjom≤ | ∞i en | mw[d]on≤ ∞i (E.Me 32)

The structures of both inscriptions are very similar, and the differences easy to explain. In both cases, the name of the deceased appears in genitive; in E.Me 38 it depends on the word for ‘stela’ (here upe), whereas in E.Me 32, as in many other cases, the word for ‘stela’ is elliptical. The construction of the kinship noun with ∞i is identical in both texts: N-≤ ∞i ted, N-≤ ∞i en, and the interpretation, clearly parallel: ‘who (is) the father of N’, ‘who (is) the mother of N’. The construction with the particle ∞i presents very interesting characteristics. First of all, the interpunction in E.Me 32 seems to be more than a mere coincidence; unlike the most widespread type of construction with ∞i, characterized by the postclitical position of this particle (it appears systematically attached to the preceding word), in this case, ∞i ‘hangs’ on the following word en. This prosodic discrepancy seems to correspond to a deeper, syntactic, difference. It must be noted that in both examples, ted and en must be analysed as nominatives, which implies that the construction with proclitic ∞i constitutes a true relative clause, despite the absence of an express verb, with ∞i and ted/en in nominative (as the syntax of the relative clause demands) vs. the respective antecedents in genitive. This differs from the postclitic

274

chapter seven

uses of ∞i: in an inscription like the above-mentioned E.Me 16, repeated here: irow | pikra≤ ∞i semw≤ | mno≤ mwdon≤ ∞i

Here, mwdon≤ is an ethnic name referring to semw≤. If the construction of postclitic ∞i were similar to that of proclitic ∞i, we would expect *semw≤ mdayn ∞i, i.e. both ∞i and mwdon≤ in nominative. Instead, mwdon≤ agrees with the antecedent of ∞i, semw≤. As Hajnal (1997a) has convincingly demonstrated, this construction is a further evolution of constructions of the proclitic type; from the use of elliptical constructions N1-(≤) N2-≤ ∞i (*mno) ‘(Of ) N1, who (is the son) of N2, the position of N2-≤ was extended to receive predicates and appositions syntactically attracted by the antecedent. The existence of two uses of ∞i—as proclitic, introducing what can still be considered a relative clause, and as postclitic, with a function closer to a simple article—allows us to interpret the structure of E.Me 17 with a certain precision: “arnai≤ upe | quq≤ bem≤ ∞i mdaÿn (E.Me 17)

Regardless of whether “arnai- is in this case a female name—if so, quqcould be interpreted as the husband’s name, as in E.Me 16, 32 and 38—or a masculine one—which would imply that we are dealing with an individual name + patronym + papponym formula—the most relevant fact is that bem-≤ (gen.) ∞i mdaÿn (nom.) is exactly parallel to “ÿin-≤ . . . ∞i ted and iturow-≤ . . . ∞i = en, in contrast to the abundant examples of postclitic constructions (mwdon“ = ∞i (irow pikra≤ = ∞i semw≤ mno≤ mwdon“ = ∞i E.Me 16, etc.). This analysis of ∞i mdayn/mdaÿn vs. mwdon“ = ∞i encounters some problems in the interpretation of two inscriptions containing mdayn = ∞i: (a) ta“ubt≤ / kuari≤b/ar | ≤en / niqau≤ / ptnupi (b) idmuon≤ / ∞i | mdayn ∞i (E.Me 18) (a) idmns | myre≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i (b) idmns | myre≤ ∞i (E.Me 33)

The difficulties posed by E.Me 33 are not so serious: we can assume that idmns is an s-stem nominative form, and that mdayn depends directly on idmns. The case of E.Me 18 is more difficult, but in this inscription it is the overall sense of the text that remains unclear. In any case, idmuon≤ ∞i mdayn ∞i, added by a different hand, must refer to a name in part (a), as shown by the presence of ∞i after the two words. The

analyzing carian inscriptions

275

closest name is ptnupi, in nominative form, which allows us to interpret mdayn ∞i as an ethnic name referring directly to ptnupi, in which case the construction of the postclitic ∞i would be regular (mdayn is also a nominative, like ptnupi ). It must be noted that the hypothesis envisaged here about the existence of two different uses of ∞i—a postclitic one introducing not only genitive but also attributive and appositional words, and with attraction to the case of the antecedent, and a proclitic one in a construction closer to the original structure of relative clauses—is based on evidence that remains scarce, and must therefore be considered as merely provisional. 4. Other More Complex Funerary Inscriptions Leaving aside those already analysed (E.Me 12, E.Me 16 and E.Me 44), and the very difficult stela E.Me 18, mentioned above, there are only three other inscriptions from Memphis that include complex formulae with more than three names: arjom≤ : ue : mwsat≤ : ∞i : mwdon≤ : ∞i tbridbd≤ : ∞i (E.Me 42) (a) lÿ∞si≤ | upe | “rquq≤ ∞i | ksolb≤ (b) arliom≤ | mno≤ ∞i (E.Me 43) [--]qarm≤ : q[---]≤ ∞i : pdubi≤ mno≤ [mw]don≤ ∞[i ---]w≤ord≤ ∞i (E.Me 10)

E.Me 42 can be compared to other typical inscriptions that present the structure N-Ø N-≤ N-mwdon≤ (E.Me 13, 28, 31), the sole difference being the addition of a fourth name. The simplest interpretation is to view this as the papponym, but expressed formally as a “patronym of the patronym”: ‘Of Arjom the stela, who (is the son) of Mwsat, the mwdon-, the (son) of Tbridbd-.” E.Me 43 is perhaps less complex than it appears, as one can in fact speak of two different formulae. In E.Me 43a, we find a typical threefold formula N-≤, N-≤ ∞i N-≤, where the third name seems to be an ethnic, as already seen: ‘Of Lÿ∞si- the stela, the (son) of ”rquqKasolabean” (with the ambiguity of the exact referent of the ethnic name: ”rquq or Lÿ∞si?). E.Me 43b, arliom≤ mno≤ ∞i, literally translated as ‘of Arliom, who (is) the son’ makes complete sense when considered as a further addition to E.Me 43a. Therefore, the stela would be dedicated to both Lÿ∞si and his son Arliom. An satisfactory overall translation would be, “Of lÿ∞si- the stela, the (son) of ”rquq- Kasolabean. (And) of Arliom, the son”.

chapter seven

276

As for E.Me 10, the lacunary character of the text makes it difficult to understand. The most remarkable fact is that this inscription apparently contains a five-fold formula, which represents an exceptionally long structure. This unusual characteristic, and the presence of mno≤ after the third name, leads us to the possible conclusion that we are once again dealing with a stela for a woman; aside from the last name, the structure is very similar to E.Me 16, the only difference being the genitive vs. nominative case for the first name, although this is largely irrelevant: [--]qarm≤ q[---]≤ ∞i: irow pikra≤ ∞i

pdubi≤ mno≤ semw≤ mno≤

[mw]don≤ ∞[i] ]w≤ord≤ ∞i (E.Me 10) mwdon“ ∞i Ø (E.Me 16)

In this example, a woman, [--]qarm, would therefore be mentioned as the wife of Q[---], the son of Pdubi≤, the mwdon-. As in the case of the irow inscription, the function of mwdon- is ambiguous, insofar as it could refer either to pdubis or to q[---] (see above for E.Me 16). If this interpretation is correct, the last name [---]w≤ord≤ must be either the name of the father of pdubi- (i.e., the papponym of q[---]) or, less likely, the ethnic name of pdubi- if [mw]don- refers to q[---]. 5. The Rest of the Inscriptions from the Memphis Corpus The formulae and structures analyzed in the preceding pages account for most of the inscriptions from the Saqqâra corpus. Only a few inscriptions have not yet been cited and/or analyzed. Several of these are so fragmentary that they cannot be included in any of the structures already mentioned (E.Me 22, E.Me 37, E.Me 39, E.Me 52–E.Me 66). The remaining examples will be commented on briefly in the following paragraphs. terÿez≤ | upe | nuol∞[---]sarmrol∞yt (E.Me 4)

Although the beginning of the inscription points to a typical N-≤ upe . . . formula, no parallels can be found for the final part. Unfortunately, the gap in the middle of the text complicates the interpretation still further. The final -ol in ?]sarmrol would be consistent with an individual name in -ol (= -vllow) or with a possible ethnic name, like kojol. This interpretation would leave the last three letters as an independent word ∞yt. Could this be a verb? The final -t recalls the possible third singular ending -t in ÿbt (see p. 281–282). This would mean

analyzing carian inscriptions

277

that a typical formula ‘Stela of Terÿez . . .’ would be followed by the name of the dedicant, ‘?]sarmol made/dedicated’. This is, however, a very hypothetical solution.12 psm“kwneit≤ | ue | naria≤ | ≤ugliq | sarl? (E.Me 5)

The characteristics of E.Me 5 are to some extent comparable to those of E.Me 4. The inscription begins in a strictly ordinary way (N-≤ ue N-≤ ‘Stela of Psm“kwneit, (son) of Naria-’), but the following two words move away from the usual formulae; ≤ugli- has already been already mentioned, appearing in two other inscriptions as third name, and this interpretation as a possible ethnic form is corroborated by its resemblance to the place name Souaggela. But the most surprising feature of the present inscription is that we would expect to see a form in genitive ≤ugli≤, according to the typical formula N-≤ N-≤ N-≤. With this in mind, is ≤ugliq merely a mistaken form intended to be ≤ugli≤ (id est, q q erroneously used for z ≤ ), or is the final -q linked in some way to the presence of the final word sarl?, a hapax? The existence of the particle -q, perhaps of connective nature, is now confirmed thanks to the new inscription of Hyllarima (armotrqdos=q), but its function in this latter text unfortunately remains unclear. The difficult reading of the last letter (sarl? is a proposal made by Schürr; an alternative reading is sara) makes an analysis of the inscription even more complicated. (a) war[---]t[------]i[---]≤ | mdaÿn (b) [--15--]a[-]i≤ | mdaÿn (E.Me 11) The only reason for citing such a fragmentary, largely illegible inscription is the repeated presence of mdaÿn. As the illustration on p. 43 shows, this stela represents a male-female couple, and each line of the inscription, situated behind each member of the couple, seems to correspond to the individuals drawn on the stone. We can imagine that the structure of both onomastic formulae was identical: N-Ø N-≤ . . . mdaÿn, i.e. individual name in nominative + father’s name (and also grandfather’s name?) in genitive + ethnic name mdaÿn in nominative. These are the only examples in which mdaÿn appears without ∞i.

12 Schürr (1992:155) tries to connect the peculiar content of this inscription to the fact that the stela in which it appears is a ‘stèle de donation’, representing the Pharaoh Apries making an offering to the god Ptah.

278

chapter seven

tdu≤ol / kbos | “amsqi[. . .? (E.Me 24) The inscription, and consequently the formula, is almost complete: only a few signs can be missing in the final part of the last word. The most notable feature of this inscription is that the individual name in nominative is followed by another name ending in -s. Interpreting kbo-s as a dative of dedication, which would be a good argument for -s as a true dative ending, seems unlikely, not only because of the resulting exceptional structure (“Tdu≤ol to Kbo”), but also because of the particular disposition of the text in the stela; tdu≤ol, situated at the very top of the stela, and inscribed in longer letters, must be the name of the deceased. The simplest solution is to consider kbos an attribute or apposition in nominative to tdu≤ol. It could certainly be a title accompanying the name of the deceased, but an interesting connection also arises if we interpret it as an ethnic name: the coin legend kbo, which Konuk has convincingly classified as a place name, identifying it with Keramos (Konuk 2000b). It is true that kbo may only be the initial letters of the place name, unknown in Greek sources, but the possibility that kbo is a complete form cannot be discarded: kbo-s could therefore be an ethnic name corresponding to that place name. The suffixation can be compared directly to (accusative) -s-n in otono-s-n ‘Athenian’, from *otono- ‘Athens’. As for samsqi[, it could be the patronym (samsqi[?. . .-≤]. wnuti≤ | kwar≤ mHm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ [∞]i (E.Me 31)

The analysis of this inscription is hampered by the problematic sequence kwar≤mHm≤, where it is not clear if we are dealing with a single name or rather with two different names, both in genitive. The latter solution has been adopted here (p. 59), but the resulting structure is somewhat strange: it would apparently be a four-fold structure, where mwdon≤ appears as a fourth name, and not as third name, which it is more typical. Vittmann (2001:48–49) has offered a plausible solution to this problem and at the same time a very convincing interpretation of the first word, wnuti≤. He suggests that wnuti- could be the adaptation of Egyptian wnwtj, ‘hour-observer, astronomer’ (see Chapter 11 s. v. wnuti≤ ), so that wnuti- would be a title referring to kwar-≤, the name of the deceased. Thus the structure of the onomastic formula becomes an ordinary threefold one: ‘Of the astronomer Kwar-, who (is the son) of MHm-, who (is the) mwdon-’ (once again with the ambiguity about the exact referent for mwdon-).

analyzing carian inscriptions

279

[q?]lalis / [?]iam≤ ∞i / alos ∞arnos (E.Me 45)

In the two initial words we can easily identify a formula, Nominative or “s-ending” + Genitive. As in other cases, it is difficult to decide whether the name is an s-stem in nominative or an s-ending, in which case the formula would have to be compared to the ntokri-s type (E.Me 35). The pair of words alos ∞arnos is far more difficult to analyse. The resemblance to the well-known place name Halikarnassos, first suggested in Adiego (1990), continues to be an attractive—if problematic— possibility. The word reappears in another inscription (C.xx 2, under the form alosd ∞arnosd ), and I refer to the analysis of that inscription (below p. 284). In this case, we cannot rule out the possibility of interpreting it as an ethnic name or even a place name. tqtes | paraibrel≤ ∞i | mn[o-?] (E.Me 47)

The initial name could again be a nominative of an s-stem or an s-ending form, tqte-s. The following sequence, paraibrel≤ ∞i mn[o-?], where we find N-≤ ∞i mn[o-?] ‘son’, recalls the structures arie?≤ ∞i ted (E.Me 38), kbjom≤ ∞i en (E.Me 32) mentioned above, and leads to an interpretation ‘tqte(s). who (is) the son of Paraibrel’. In this case, it is very likely that the word ‘son’ appeared in nominative (*mno), a form that is still undocumented. loubaw | siral | pnld≤wl (E.Me 49)

This inscription is perhaps the most unusual example found in the Carian corpus of Saqqara. Apparently a threefold formula, the second and third names end in -l, which would be a morphological ending without clear parallels. Moreover, no parallel can be found in the Carian onomastics for any of the three alleged names. In any case, we must bear in mind that the overall reading of the text remains very uncertain (see p. 71 for remarks). 6. A First Summary The previous pages have allowed us to familiarize ourselves with the onomastic formulae, from the most basic to the more complex. Our main sources of information were the funerary stelae of Saqqâra, where it is common to find more complex structures than simply the individual name, or of the individual name + father’s name. We have seen

280

chapter seven

the high frequency of threefold formulae, which contain a third name, possibly an ethnic name, but also in some cases the name of the grandfather. Even more complex structures can also be found, and in some remarkable cases the increased complexity seems linked to the fact that the deceased is a woman; in such cases, the onomastic formula that accompanies the female individual name seems to refer to the husband and his genealogy. In two exceptional cases, the deceased is mentioned as the father or mother of another person (E.Me 38, E.Me 32). Also typical in the Memphis funerary stelae is the absence of verb forms. Only in the case of E.Me 5 could this possibility be envisaged, but the fragmentary nature of the text prevents reaching a definitive conclusion. The rest of the Saqqâra epitaphs are characterised by the direct reference to the deceased in nominative or in an s-ending form, or to the stele in an expressed or elliptical form, in which case the name of the deceased appears in genitive, indicating possession. None of these cases require the use of a verb form. Indeed, not even in the constructions with ∞i is a verb used. The absence of verb forms is counterbalanced by the presence of certain nouns that belong to the Carian common lexicon: mno- ‘son’, ted ‘father’, en ‘mother’, upe (and variants), ue ‘stela’, to which two pronominal forms can be added: the abovementioned relative ∞i and the demonstrative sa (in upe sa). As for the use of ∞i, we have identified two different constructions: the first, closer to a use as relative, where the nominal predicate introduced by ∞i is in the nominative while the antecedent is in the genitive (type arie?≤ ∞i ted ), whilst the second is more comparable to an article or connecting particle, where the complement introduced by ∞i is attracted by the antecedent (type semw≤ . . . mwdon“ ∞i ). Although the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions, we have been able to observe a clear correspondence between the position of ∞i and each of these two functions: it seems to be proclitic when used as ‘relative’, and postclitic when used as ‘article’.

C. Analyzing Brief Inscriptions In this section, I shall analyze a selection of brief Carian inscriptions other that those mentioned in the preceding sections. I leave out those graffiti containing more than simply onomastic formulae, given the difficulties of reading present in most cases, which have not been adequately edited (Thebes, Silsilis, Abydos). Speculating about the struc-

analyzing carian inscriptions

281

ture and meaning of inscriptions for which we do not possess a reliable reading would be a very risky practice. In my view it is preferable to limit the research to those inscriptions we can be confident of reading correctly. 1. Inscriptions on Objects Two ‘Pharaonic Objects’ (E.Me 8, E.xx 6) and the Use of sb ‘and’ We begin with two very brief inscriptions on so-called ‘pharaonic objects’, which serve to illustrate the use of the coordinative conjunction sb E.Me 8, a bilingual inscription on the base of a statuette of Apis, consists of two parts. The text that appears in the first part, paraeym: armon ∞i, is now interpreted without difficulties as ‘Paraeym the interpreter’, in direct correspondence to an identical formula that appears elsewhere in Egyptian (see p. 41 and Chapter 11 s. v. armon). In this case ∞i introduces an apposition to the personal name in nominative. In the second part, two personal names in nominative are united by sb, which has been unanimously interpreted as a coordinative conjunction (‘and’), above all since the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual, where it appears repeatedly with this function. E.Me 8b paraeym sb polo can therefore be interpreted as ‘Paraeym and Polo’. A construction similar to E.Me 8b, but in ‘s-ending’ case, is visible in the inscription E.xx 6 on the basis of a statuette of Isis: “arnajs sb taqbos ‘For/of ”arnaj and Taqbo’. It is probable, but impossible to demonstrate, that these formulae of EMe 8b and E.xx 6, consisting of a pair of names, represent the names of a husband and wife. Three Inscriptions on bowls (C.xx 1, C.Ha 1, C.xx 2) Three inscriptions on bowls constitute a type of small sub-corpus of particular interest. In a very influential and decisive article, Melchert (1993) offered an interpretation of one of these texts (C.xx 1), which in my opinion remains essentially valid. We will begin thus with this inscription, adopting in general terms the views expressed by Melchert: “rquq | qtblem≤ | ÿbt | snn | orkn | ntro | pjdl? C.xx 1

In this inscription, an onomastic formula had already been identified: “rquq qtblem≤ ‘”rquq (son) of Qtblem’. Melchert’s interpretation of the remainder of the text is based on two fundamental and compelling hypotheses: firstly, that ÿbt is a verb comparable both formally and

282

chapter seven

semantically to Lycian ubete, ‘offered’, and secondly that snn orkn is the direct object of this verb, formed by a demonstrative snn (which would belong to the same paradigm as san in the Athens bilingual inscription) and a common noun referring to the phiale, orkn. Both elements appear in the accusative singular, morphologically reflected by the ending -n (sn-n ork-n). Melchert’s elegant interpretation of the five first words of C.xx 1 is now supported by the discovery of the bilingual inscription from Kaunos, which has confirmed the existence in Carian of an accusative sg. ending -n and has dispelled the doubts about the value of y/ÿ (close to u), thus assuring the equivalence ÿbt = Lyc. ubete. The last two words remain problematic. Melchert has recently revised his initial views on these forms. In his 1993 article he intepreted ntro as a dative of the Carian name for Apollo. For pjdl, he proposed the analysis as an apposition to snn orkn with the meaning ‘gift’, etymologically related to Hitt. pài-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije- ‘to give’: -dl would represent a suffix*-dhlo-). However, Melchert (2002:309–310) denies the existence of Carian datives ending in a vowel and, following a suggestion by Schürr, prefers to interpret of ntro as referring to “rquq, with the meaning ‘priest of Apollo’: ‘”rquq (son) of Qtblem dedicated this bowl—the priest of Apollo as a gift’. Leaving aside for now the discussion about the alleged “datives” in -s, the internal syntactic reasons that Melchert adduces in refusing the interpretation of ntro as dative are not particularly convincing: he states that pjdl cannot be an apposition to the direct object if ntro is a dative, due to the separation that this latter word introduces between snn orkn and pjdl. For this reason, he classifies both ntro and pjdl as two ‘epexegetic, add on phrase[s]’ defining, respectively, the subject and the direct object, as his translation offered above tries to reflect. However, following this logic, I see no reason why we should not consider only the word pjdl as an ‘epexegetic phrase’ (= ‘”rquq (son) of Qtblem dedicated this bowl to Apollo— as a gift’). A further complication arises if we take ntro to be not the Carian name for Apollo, but rather a derivative of it: it obliges us to recognize the same derivative in E.xx 7, where an s-ending form appears (ntro-s), which Melchert interprets as a dative. We must also assume therefore that this latter inscription is dedicated not directly to Apollo Branchid but to an unmentioned priest of Apollo Branchid, perhaps a less satisfactory solution (see below p. 317). In any case, despite these difficulties that depend to a great extent on the crux about datives in Carian—on which see pp. 314–317 for

analyzing carian inscriptions

283

further remarks—Melchert’s interpretation of the overall meaning and the first part of the syntactic structure of C.xx 1 remains one of the most brilliant contributions to the understanding of a Carian text, and the consequences of the etymological connections it highlights are very important. The connection of C.xx 1 with another inscription on a bowl (C.Ha 1) has not gone unnoticed: smdÿbrs | psnlo | md orkn tÿn | snn (C.Ha 1)

Melchert (1993:81) correctly notes the presence of snn and orkn, the same nominal phrase that appears as a direct object in C.xx 1. Given that both inscriptions are engraved on similar objects, this parallelism is consistent with the interpretation of snn orkn as ‘this bowl (acc.)’. But the correspondence between the two inscriptions ends here, and it would be very difficult to interpret the structure of C.Ha 1 using the example of C.xx 1. The only clear form (apart from snn orkn) is smdÿbrs, which is undoubtedly a personal name, although this is ambiguous due to the final -s, which could be either an inflection mark (‘s-ending’) or simply the final consonant of an s-stem. Forms such as k≤tÿbr, ardybyr-≤, dtÿbr, Arduberow could point to the first solution, but the new personal name ybrs-≤ from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1a), a true s-stem that seems to contain the same root ybr-/ÿbr-, allows us to classify smdÿbrs as a pure nominative form. The presence of orkn . . . snn leads to the assumption that a transitive verb must be also present in the inscription. Without entirely discarding the possibility of omitting the verb, suggested by Melchert (1993:81), it is advisable from a methodological point of view to pay careful consideration to whether any of the three remaining words ( psnlo, md, tÿn) could represent the verb of the inscription. If we look at each of the three possibilities in turn, we will see that the choice here is not easy. It seems almost certain that tÿn is a word in agreement with orkn snn, given that it is situated between these two words; a different explanation would imply that the noun of the recipient and the demonstrative that accompanies it form a discontinuous noun phrase, a hyperbaton that is not altogether impossible, but certainly quite unlikely.13 In the case of md, we must not overlook its resemblance to the forms mda,

However, the interpunction that separates md orkn tÿn from snn suggests that this possibility should not be ruled out altogether. 13

284

chapter seven

mdane, which have been interpreted as verbs in various studies (see for instance Melchert 2002:308, n. 7). However, in my view, the forms mda and mdane forms cannot be verbs, as we will see later (p. 324). This leaves psnlo as the form most likely to be a verb. As evidence to support this hypothesis we could consider the resemblance of psnlo | md to pisñoimda in the Hekatomnids’ decree from Sinuri (C.Si 2). In Adiego (2000:141–143), this latter form was connected with the Anatolian verb for ‘to give’ (Hitt. pài-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije-, etc.), see p. 304. An alternative analysis of psnlo would be to take it as a personal name; this possibility would lead us to accept Melchert’s hypothesis on the absence of an express verb, or to attribute this function to md or tÿn, the difficulties of which have already been mentioned. If pnslo is a personal name, the resulting sequence smdÿbrs psnlo would create an embarrassing dilemma: is smdÿbrs the indirect object and psnlo the subject, or vice versa? The dilemma is inseparable from the problem of the Carian dative (see pp. 314–317). Shown below is the third inscription on a bowl: ÿ≤biks not : alosd ∞arnosd : jzpe mdane (C.xx 2)

Adiego (2000:153–155) offered an interpretation of this inscription. This interpretation hangs on two fundamental hypotheses: that ÿ≤biksnot must be segmented ÿ≤biks not and interpreted as a sequence Individual Name14 + Verb (where not would be morphologically comparable to ÿbt in C.xx 1, see above), and that the well-known word mdane is not a verb, but rather a sequence of particles and clitic pronouns. For no-t, a connection to Hitt. nà(i)-, CLuw. (reduplicated stem) nana- < * PIE *neyH– ‘to bring’ was cautiously put forward. Regarding mdane, an analysis already proposed in former works was reintroduced: in -ne, a clitic accusative pronoun -n- + a clitic dative pronoun -e attached to a base md-, for which no explanation was given. The form jzpe was considered a proper name dative (‘to/for jzpe’). Finally, alos-d ∞arnos-d was interpreted as an ablative instrumental (with -d = Luw. -ti, Lyc. -di ) of the word (in fact a noun phrase) alos ∞arnos, also present in E.Me 45 and tentatively identified (in Adiego 1990a) as the Carian place name Halikarnassos. This yielded a possible translation as ‘Ÿ≤biks brought it to Jzpe from Halikarnassos’. Obviously, this proposal was based only

14

For ÿsbiks as PN, cf. yi≤{∞}bik≤ (E.Me 46a).

analyzing carian inscriptions

285

on a set of hypotheses, and as such is far from conclusive. But the core of the discussion must be retained here: not and mdane are the most obvious choices for constituting the verb of the sentence, and either choice has important repercussions for the interpretation of the other inscriptions containing mda, mdane. The inscription on a bronze lion (E.xx 7) Another very interesting short inscription is found on the base of a bronze statue representing a lion (E.xx 7): ntros : prãidas / or“a / nu mdane : uksi wrm≤

ntro-s prãida-s shows an inflected form of ntro, the same word that appears in C.xx 1, where it was interpreted as a god name (the Carian Apollo; cf. however the alternative explanation as a derivative, ‘priest of Apollo’). ntro-s is accompanied by prãida-s, whose final s seems to indicate an agreement with ntro-s. Schürr proposed that this could be identified as a Carian form connected to Greek Bragx¤dai, ‘the Branchids’—the name of the family of priests consecrated to the cult of Apollo in the sanctuary of Didyma near Milet (Schürr 1998:158)—but as attractive as this theory is, it is dependent on the rather ad hoc assumption of a phonological value close to ºgxº for the infrequent and obscure Carian letter %. Lacking further evidence, I have chosen to adopt this assumption here in purely conventional fashion (which explains the use of <ã> for transliterating %, see p. 20). In any case, there is a general consensus that prãidas constitutes an attribute or an apposition to ntros, with which it would agree. Melchert’s interpretation of the whole inscription (see Melchert 2002:308) is as follows: “Uksi, (son) of Ur(o)m, has now given it, the or“a, to the priest of Apollo, the Branchid”. There are no particular problems posed by analyzing uksi wrm≤ as a typical onomastic formula, individual name + father’s name in genitive, and uksi as a nominative and consequently, the name of the donor. The rest of Melchert’s interpretation is more controversial: he claims that mdane is the verb, nu is an adverb,15 or“a is the name of the object and finally ntros prãidas must then be the indirect object in dative case. We have already seen (above

15 No comments are made about this word in Melchert (2002), but it is self-evident that he assumes an etymological connection with PIE *nu- ‘now’ (Hitt. nu-, Lat. nunc, Gr. nËn, etc.)

286

chapter seven

p. 282) that in this paper, Melchert abandons his earlier interpretation of ntro/ntros as a god name in favour of the meaning ‘priest of Apollo’. This change is a consequence both of his refusal to analyze ntro as dative and of his assumption that the s-ending is a dative mark. The result of this new analysis is in my opinion rather unsatisfactory: E.xx.7 becomes an inscription dedicated to an anonymous priest of Apollo, whereas in C.xx 1 the verb ÿbt, ‘offered’, is not accompanied by the name of the being to whom the object is offered. In my opinion it would be simpler to interpret ntro/ntros as the god name (‘Apollo’), ntro as dative and to search for an alternative explanation for the s-ending in ntros pr%idas, but I leave the discussion of the forms with s-ending until the following chapter. The interpretation of mdane as a verb is also unconfirmed, and this word will be analysed in the following chapter. In any case, if it is not classified as a verb, the verbal form ought to be looked for in the preceding sequence of words: either nu, or“a, or less probably or“anu (without discarding further segmentations). Of all these possibilities, nu seems the most likely: final -u immediately preceding mdane reminds us of ew mlane (/ ew lane 1×), a sequence that appears in some inscriptions of Thebes, where it could also be a verb. The ‘Tarhunt-inscription’ of Iasos (C.Ia 3) The inscription of Iasos C.Ia 3 offers some very interesting forms but unfortunately the overall structure and meaning remain unclear: ?] are“ | “anne mlne | siyklo≤ | “ann | trqude | ∞lmud [?

There is no question that the most significant word is trqude, interpreted as a god name (Tarhunt, the Anatolian Storm God) in Blümel-Adiego (1993), which has now been confirmed by the form armotrqdosq in Hyllarima (C.Hy 1), where a dvandva Arma-Tarhunt (the moon-god plus the storm-god) is easy to recognize. Given that the inscription appears on a cratera, we can assume that this object is offered to the god Tarhunt, which would imply that trqude should be considered an indirect object in dative. However, the rest of the text does not allow us to confirm this syntactic analysis; the only other form that can be analyzed with any confidence is siyklo≤, a genitive, probably of a personal name, which implies that it depends on another personal name, as part of an onomastic formula. The most suitable candidate is ?]are“, the word that apparently begins the inscription, but the discontinuity of the onomastic formula would then be

analyzing carian inscriptions

287

somewhat surprising. Also unclear are the formal connection between “anne and “ann and the resemblance of mlne to the sequence ºmln in C.Ka 4 yomln C.Ka 5 uiomln, two forms which should probably be interpreted as verbs (see below pp. 298–299, 301). Finally, the analysis of ∞lmud[? is hampered by the uncertainty about the final part of the word. Gusmani’s proposed complete form, ∞lmud[e], would give a possible epithet for trqude. The inscription of ”arkbiom (E.Sa 1) The text of E.Sa 1, inscribed on the base of a reliquary for three mummified reptiles, is the following: “arkbiom : zidks mdane : ÿn[-?]/mo | den : tumn

The text is even more impenetrable than those of the inscriptions on recipients analyzed above. It clearly begins with a personal name in nominative (“arkbiom, also cited in the Egyptian part of this bilingual text). This name seems to appear here as a complete onomastic formula, with no mention of the father’s name. The inscription again contains the verb or particle sequence mdane, a word ending in -o whose complete reading is not possible ( ÿn[-?]mo), and a very obscure form with no parallels, zidks. For the two last words, a tentative analysis was made in Adiego (1995:21–23): given that the Egyptian text contains a formula, ‘that Atum the great god may give life and health to ”úrkbym’, I suggested that the Egyptian god name Atum could be reflected in the form tumn at the end of the Carian text. This latter form would therefore be an accusative in -n of a stem tum-. The somewhat unusual presence of an accusative instead of a more typical dedication dative was explained by analysing den as a type of preposition, etymologically related to Hitt. anda, andan, Lyc. ñte. Irrespective of this latter interpretation, the overall structure and meaning of the inscription remain unclear. If we retain the hypothesis that mdane is a particle sequence, the search for verbs can be limited to the words zidks and ÿn[-?]mo, for which no parallels can be given. 2. Funerary Inscriptions of Caria and Athens A brief sub-corpus of funerary inscriptions other than those from Egypt can be identified. It consists of eight inscriptions, seven for different Carian places (C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2, C.Al 1, C.Eu 1, C.Ka 1, C.Ka 3, C.Kr 1) and the bilingual inscription of Athens (G.1). The funerary character of

chapter seven

288

other inscriptions (C.Eu 2, C.Si 1) cannot be ruled out, particularly in the first case, but they do not display the requisite lexical elements that would allow us to include them in this typological classification. These lexical elements are the words s(i)di, present in C.Tr, CTr 2, C.Al 1, C.Ka 1, C.Te 1, and ≤( j)as in C.Eu 1, G.1. Although neither of these appears in C.Ka 3, the context of the inscription, engraved on the facade of a typical Kaunian rock tomb, is undoubtedly funerary. The only bilingual text is found in the inscription from Athens. In Adiego (1992a:32–33; 1993a:165–170) an interpretation was attempted, based on the hypothesis that the single Carian line corresponds exactly to the first line of the Greek text: s∞ma tÒde Tur[ ≤jas : san tur[

According to this inscription, Carian ≤jas would be equivalent to Greek s∞ma, whereas san would be a demonstrative pronoun corresponding to Greek tÒde. This latter equivalence indicates a very interesting etymological connection: san could be related to Luw. za-, Hitt. ka- ‘this’ < PIE *∞o-, and would also be evidence of the ‘satem’ treatment of PIE palatals in Carian, as in the rest of Luwic languages (cf. Adiego 1995:12). Melchert (1993:79–80) refined this comparison, explaining the Carian final n of san by comparing with the Hitt. adverb kàn(i) ‘look here, lo!’, eni ‘this, the aforementioned’, and combining san and snn from the bowl inscriptions in a single paradigm. The interpretation of ≤jas as a word for ‘tomb’, ‘funerary monument’ or similar is reinforced by its presence in C.Eu 1, where it appears— in the slightly different form ≤as—accompanying a standard twofold onomastic formula: “as : ktais idyri∞≤ : mn[o-?]

Both ktais and idyri∞≤ admit good onomastic identifications: ktais recalls ÑEkata›ow, a Greek name commonly attested in Caria, perhaps because of its resemblance to the indigenous name ktmno (adapted in Greek as

16

In former works, I suggested that ktais, analyzed as nominative, could contain an s-stem created from the Greek nominative, on which the Carian inflection of the loanword could have been formed (cf. Lyc. zeus- in dat. zeus-i, from Greek ZeÊw). But for the reasons explained above, I believe that the use of nominative can be excluded in this case.

analyzing carian inscriptions

289

ÑEkatÒmnvw). As for idyri∞≤, it belongs to the same family of names as Saurigow, Senurigow (on this family, see pp. 262–263). Once again, the

final -s in ktais can seem ambiguous (s-stem16 or case ending), but in this case the simplest solution is to interpret it as a inflectional mark, given the presence of a word referring to the monument, which rules out the possibility of expressing the name of the deceased directly in nominative. ktai-s must therefore be an ‘s-ending’ form, and, as in many other cases, it can be translated as true dative = indirect object (‘tomb for Ktai’) as well as possessive or genitive (‘tomb of Ktai’). idyri∞≤ does not pose any problems: it is the name of the father of ktai, expressed in the usual genitive in -≤. As for mn[o-], it is regrettable that the final part of the inscription is broken. An integration mn[os] seems the most likely solution, because this word must agree with ktais. The complete text can thus be translated: ‘Funerary monument for/of Ktai, son of Idyri∞’, without ruling out, however, the possibility that mn[os] could actually be a juxtaposed word to ktais, which would give the following meaning: ‘Funerary monument for/of Ktai (son) of Idyri∞ (and his) son. Interpreting the inscriptions with s(i)di is more problematic, since their structure is more ambiguous and the segmentation of the words in the contexts where s(i)di appears is not always certain. We can begin with C.Tr 2, a complete and brief inscription with virtually no problems of segmentation:17 an sidi a-/rtmi pau≤ / parãaq?

However, the interpretation of this text is seriously impeded by the difficulties of reading posed by the last sign of the last word. As noted in p. 131, all the existing drawings of this lost inscription seem to point to Q, but the well-known problem of distinguishing between z, Q and also o make it unwise to automatically accept a reading as Q. Therefore, we must also consider the possibility of an alternative reading with z ( parãa≤?),18 a theory that has been vehemently defended by Schürr. The main advantage of the reading parãa≤ is that it results in a clear threefold onomastic formula, N-Ø N-≤ N-≤: rtmi pau-≤ parãa-. Although

17 Only the segmentation sidi artmi could be contested, because one could theoretically separate sidia rtmi (for this latter, cf. rtim C.Hy 1a), but this alternative segmentation does not affect most of the possible interpretations that will be considered here. 18 The third possibility—reading o, hence parãao?—seems to be excluded, given that a final sequence ao in this position has no parallels and does not lead to any satisfactory analysis.

290

chapter seven

there are no clear parallels for a name parãa-, the typical onomastic element par(a)- can be easily recognized. Even a connection to prãidas could be considered: if prãida-s corresponds to the name of the priest family of Didyma Branchidai, parãa- could be the Carian name corresponding to Greek Brãgxow. However, the problem is to syntactically connect the onomastic formula rtmi pau-≤ parãa-≤ with the initial formula an sidi. This latter seems to consist of a noun that would denote the funerary monument, sidi, preceded by what is probably a demonstrative pronoun an (cf. san in G.1): therefore, an sidi would mean ‘this tomb’, or ‘this (is) the tomb’, or similar. The presence of this formula seems little consistent with an N-Ø (nominative) rendering of the name of the deceased. This sentence could only make sense if we interpret an sidi as an accusative, and assuming an elliptical verb (‘made’). An attractive alternative is to suppose that artmi is not an accusative, but rather a dative, which would mean that the overall sentence must be interpreted as ‘This tomb/this (is) the tomb for A., (son) of P., (grandson) of P.’ Developing this hypothesis further, one might wonder if -i could be a true dative ending for a stem artm-. This possibility would allow us to integrate artm-i and the name (in nominative) rtim from C.Hy 1a in a single paradigm (nominative (a)rtim-Ø / dative art(V)m-i ). However, the existence in Minor Asian onomastics of a large number of names formed on the basis of the onomastic element art(e/i)m-, but with different derivations, makes this paradigmatic connection of artmi and rtim a very fragile theory.19 Consequently, it is currently impossible to decide whether artmi is a nominative or a dative, since there are significant difficulties encountered by either solution. The reading parãaq would give a new perspective. If parãa- is a personal name stem, -q could recall ≤ugli-q in E.Me 5, but this is an obscurum per obscurius solution, given that the interpretation of ≤ugli-q in the context of E.Me 5 is also very problematic (see above). A very different way of analyzing parãaq was suggested in Adiego (1993a:263) and developed further by Hajnal (1995[97]:20). Taking as a starting point my proposal of connecting parãaq with the Lycian verb prñnawa- ‘to build’, very common in Lycian funerary inscriptions (eb˜eñne xupa prñnawat˜e X, . . . ‘X has built this tomb . . .’ and variants), Hajnal tries to connect final -q with the 1st singular active preterite ending in Luwic languages:

19

See Zgusta (KPN § 108) and here Chapter 11 s. v. artmi.

analyzing carian inscriptions

291

CLuw. -¢a, Lyc. -xa, -ga. The advantage of this hypothesis is that it convincingly resolves the structural problems posed by the text; an sidi would be therefore the accusative of a verb meaning ‘to make’ (or, with a more specialized meaning, ‘to build’), and the problem of an onomastic formula with an individual name in nominative would no longer be relevant, as the text would read, ‘This tomb (acc.) Artmi, (son) of Pau, I made’. This is undoubtedly a very attractive hypothesis, but it is seriously weakened by the doubts surrounding the exact phonological value of % <ã>. sñis : sdisa-/s : psu≤ol≤ / mal≤ : mno≤ C.Ka 1

The main difficulty of analysing of C.Ka 1 lies in how to interpret the initial formula sñis sdisas, where a word sdi, undoubtedly a variant form of sidi with defective vowel notation, can be identified. In psu≤ol-≤ mal≤ mno≤, it is not difficult to recognize a twofold formula, with both personal names in genitive ( psu≤ol-≤, mal≤ ). The well-known Carian word for ‘son’, mno-≤, also in genitive, could agree with the name of the deceased and govern the other genitive, mal-≤ (‘of Psu≤ol, the son of Mal’), but, as in C.Eu 1, an asyndetic construction must not be ruled out: ‘of Psu≤ol (son) of Mal, (and) of (his) son.’ As for the initial words, sñis sdisas, I believe it very unlikely that sñis can be a personal name, although not impossible. The hypothesis that will be considered here argues instead that it is part of the reference to the tomb. The main problem is how to reconcile sdisas with the form an sidi in C.Eu 1. One could attempt the segmentation sdi sas and recognize here the different pronominal stem sa-/san-/snn-, but the final s would then remain unexplained. Without dismissing this possibility, I wish to propose an alternative: if we intend to find here the same pronominal stem of an, the only possible procedure is to use the segmentation sdis as. This gives a sequence sñi-s sdi-s a-s, which seems to contain a common ending -s for all three words. Could this ending be a plural mark? If this were the case, sñis could be interpreted as a plural form of the pronominal stem san-/sn- (sñ-is), and the overall sense of sñis sdisas could be ‘These (are) the burials . . .’ or ‘These burials are those . . .’, completed by the genitives that follow (‘. . . of Psu≤ol (son) of Mal (and) the son’. If I must be honest, this latter translation is somewhat forced, as it assumes an asyndetic construction, which is a possible, but not the only, interpretation of the whole sequence (see above). However, the link between the presence of sdisas and a collective

chapter seven

292

tomb is much clearer in the other inscription in which this form appears (C.Kr 1): qot2omu sdisas?n≤ “odubr≤ sb mno≤ knor noril?ams

or rather: mn≤ “odubr≤? or rather: norimams?

In this inscription, the existence of more than one burial can be deduced not only from the clearest part of the inscription, “odubr-≤ sb mno-≤, which can be translated ‘of ”odubr and the son’, but also from the fact that the tomb clearly contained three burial chambers, as pointed out by Olivier Henry (pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the overall structure of the inscription remains very unclear. It is possible that qot2omu could be a personal name, which would allow us to recognize the reference to three individuals (qot2omu, “odubr-≤ and one son, mno-≤), but the syntactical connection of qot2omu with the rest of the inscription, and the sequence n≤ that appears after isolating sdis-as, remain unexplained. Note also that the reading of the final s in sdisas and the subsequent segmentation are far from conclusive. If we accept (with some reservations) the reading sdisas, we could tentatively envisage that qot2omu is not a nominative functioning as subject, but rather a nominative of appellation, designating the owner of the tomb. In this case, n≤ could be a resumptive pronoun referring to Qot2omu: ‘Qot2omu. These tombs (are) of him, of ”odubr, and of the son . . .’ Needless to say, this interpretation is more a desideratum than a fact based on solid evidence. As for knor norilams (or knor norimams), practically nothing can be said.20 The two remaining inscriptions that contain sdi- are too fragmentary to attempt an interpretation. In C.Tr 1, two personal names, one in nominative (artmon) and the other in genitive ( pau≤ ) can be identified, but sidi appears followed by an unclear and incomplete sequence, amt[. The case of E.Al is worse still, where only sdi a[-]mob[ is legible. The last funerary inscription of this sub-corpus, although complete and without reading problems, thanks to the recent autopsy made by Diether Schürr, is very brief and contains no specific word to designate the tomb: “oru≤ / ann ibrs≤ C.Ka 3

20 Only as a purely assonant connection can we resort to Lyc. nere/i-, a term of relationship whose exact meaning is unknown (Therefore sb mno≤ k-nor noril?ams ‘and of the son and(?) the nor nori- relatives’?).

analyzing carian inscriptions

293

The segmentation proposed here (already suggested in Adiego 1996) seems to me the most plausible, although other possibilities exist.21 According to this segmentation, we can identify two names in genitive (“oru≤, ibrs≤) and the word ann, probably a demonstrative pronoun that can be related to an (see above). The meaning of the inscription would therefore be ‘This (tomb is) of ”oru, (son) of Ibrs’ or, simply, ‘That (is) of ”oru, (son) of Ibrs’. In conclusion, the study of this sub-corpus of funerary inscriptions is seriously limited by the scarcity of materials, and the divergent formulae employed—despite the coincidence of several formulaic words (s(i)di, ≤(j)as, and some demonstrative pronouns—cannot be reduced to a single, stereotyped model of expression. 3. The Longest Graffito from Abu Simbel (E.AS 7) While a great number of the Carian graffiti from Egypt contain only onomastic formulae (usually N-Ø or N-Ø N-≤), some graffiti are more extended and probably also include common lexicon. However, this material cannot realistically be analyzed; for some important sub-corpora there are no updated and reliable editions, and in the case of the Abu-Simbel and Buhen graffiti, for which we are lucky enough to have Olivier Masson’s reliable editions, the reading difficulties are such that in most cases they cannot be used with any degree of confidence. For that reason, I will limit my analysis to a long graffito with certain particularities that have attracted the interest of scholars. naz ∞i∞ | bÿ≤ | esak?dow“ | mÿqudem | pisma≤k | bebint | mo | ne | psÿ“[|?] ai[-]iqom

The most striking feature of this inscription, engraved by a Carian soldier during the Nubian campaign in 593/592 BC, is the suspicion that the personal name pisma≤k alludes directly to the Pharaoh Psammetichus II, under whose supreme command the military campaign was undertaken; this would closely link the graffito to the well-known Greek inscription, also from Abu Simbel, in which the same Pharaoh is mentioned.22 It is true that pisma≤k (and variants) is well documented as a For instance, to isolate only two personal names, “oru≤ and annibrs≤. Also theoretically possible is the segmentation anni brs≤. 22 Bernand-Masson (1957), inscription nº 1: basil°ow §lyÒntow §w ÉElefant¤nan Camat¤xo, / taËta ¶gracan to‹ sÁn Cammat¤xoi tÇoi YeoklÇow / ¶pleon, ∑lyon d¢ K°rkiow katÊperye, uÂw ı potamÚw / én¤h: éloglÒsow dÉ ∑xe Potasimto, Afigupt¤ow d¢ ÖAmasiw: 21

294

chapter seven

name often used by the Carians in Egypt, but the appearance of the word esak?dow“ in the graffito is favourable to this hypothesis: kdowº /kndowº/ (or its phonetic result) has been convincingly compared to Lycian xñtawa- ‘to rule’ (cf. also xñtawat(i)- ‘ruler, king’ = CLuw ¢andawat(i)‘supreme authority, king’).23 Therefore, in esak?dow“ . . . pisma≤k, we could attempt to find a meaning ‘king Psammetichus’ or similar. Both the initial sequence esa- and the precise function of final -“ are problematic, and different possibilities can be envisaged: ese- could be compared with the Lycian preverb ese-, for which a meaning ‘with’ has been proposed (see Melchert DLL s. v.). Perhaps in this instance it may have a reinforcing function. As for -“, two hypotheses can be considered: it could be a suffix attached to the verbal stem kdow- ‘to rule’ in order to create a noun (cf. Lycian -za?), or it could be a nominative plural ending. This latter theory is less consistent with an interpretation of pisma≤k as the name of the Pharaoh, since he would appear at the same level as the other alleged commanders. Moreover, in the rest of the Carian graffiti there is no form that can be likened to the names of military officials cited in the corresponding Greek inscription. Ultimately, these doubts cannot be resolved, as the rest of the inscription remains unclear. It is possible that both the identification of pisma≤k with Psammetichus and the equation of kdowº = Lycian xñtawa- are correct, but the overall interpretation of both words as ‘king Psammetichus’ may still be erroneous.

D. The Longer Inscriptions Some of the Carian inscriptions found in Caria proper are more extended than the rest. We may assume that their content can be broadly defined as legal: honorary decrees, regulation of cults, lists of priests, and so on. As the study of fragmentary languages shows, the longer texts are the most difficult to analyze. A good example is our meagre knowledge of Milyan vis-à-vis Lycian: having at our disposal a text as long

/ ¶grafe dÉ èm¢ ÖArxon ÉAmoib¤xo ka‹ P°leqow OÍdãmo. “When the king Psammetichus came to Elephantina, this was written by those who sailed together with Psammetichus, (son) of Theokles and who came beyond Kerkis, as far as the river permitted. Those speaking foreign tongues were leaded by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis. We have been written by Arkhon (son) of Amoibikhos, and Pelekos, son of Eudamos”. 23 Adiego (1995:19–20).

analyzing carian inscriptions

295

as the Milyan inscription in the Xanthos stela does not necessarily guarantee an understanding of the grammar and lexicon of this language, but in fact implies quite the opposite. It is preferable to work with a sizeable corpus of relatively brief texts—as is the case with Lycian— than to be restricted to a single, very long, and generally impenetrable text. This is also the situation with Carian. Texts such as the Kildara inscription are currently impossible to analyse. We can identify some isolated words, but we know nothing about the context in which they appear. The only way of ‘getting inside’ such a text is through the existence of a translation. Of the entire Carian sub-corpus of longer inscriptions, the only inscription that is accompanied by even a minimally legible text, and whose content corresponds undoubtedly to the Carian text, is the bilingual inscription of Kaunos. But even in this case, the results that we are able to obtain are very limited. Our analysis of longer inscriptions will begin therefore with this example. A problem that seriously impedes the interpretation of this type of inscription is our current inability to identify verbal forms. Without knowing which words represent verbs it is practically impossible to devise any approach to analysing the structure of the text and the function of the common nouns that it contains. Even in the bilingual of Kaunos, where the existence of the Greek inscription ought to help identify verbal forms, no agreement has been reached on which of the words must be identified as verbs. As we have already seen, the problem of identifying verbs also affects shorter inscriptions, and only with a substantial increase in the Carian documentation available will we be able to resolve this great problem. 1. The Kaunos Bilingual Inscription We will begin with the only text that can be read alongside a parallel Greek text. The possibility of comparing the two texts explains the special attention that this inscription has received since its discovery. Even the editors of the inscription, Frei and Marek, did not limit themselves to a simple epigraphical edition, but offered in addition a first attempt to establish the parallel passages in both texts, paving the way for further research.24 Following this initial study, other scholars have 24

See Frei-Marek (1997), (1998).

chapter seven

296

drawn up essays of interpretation for the overall text or for concrete sections.25 In the present work, I follow in general terms the views adopted in Adiego (1998a), completing the discussion by referring to the works cited above. No real developments have appeared since then, and the initial enthusiasm inevitably generated by the discovery of such a unique document has clearly diminished, since the results that have been obtained are relatively modest. Of the 18 lines of the Carian inscription, the current possible interpretations are in fact limited to the first 10, essentially for three reasons: (1) these 10 lines correspond roughly to the conserved part of Greek inscription, the rest of which has been lost; (2) lines 11–12 of the Carian text is unfortunately very difficult to read because of the crack in the stone, which creates a lacune that makes it very difficult to continue the analysis of the text; (3) the last lines of the Carian text are practically impossible to interpret, since most of the forms are hapax legomena and display no external characteristics that could help their understanding. The segmentation of words in these final lines is also a very difficult task. The identification of proper names that appear in both texts has proved fundamental to an analysis of the comparable parts of the inscriptions. The correct interpretation of sb as a coordinative conjunction is also relevant, as it thus becomes an important tool for establishing the phrases and sentences of the Carian text. A third decisive factor, already noted by the editors, is the existence of textual parallelisms with the other large text from Kaunos (C.Ka 2). Kaunos bilingual (lines 1–10)

Greek version

kbidn uiomln i[---] inis drual nik[--] lan lysiklas[-?] otonosn sb lys[ikl] an lysikratas[-?] otonosn sarni[“] mdot2 un sb undo[--] tl“ kbdyn“ sb b2o[--] ol“ otr“ sb a∞t [ms]kmt absims sb [---]

¶doje Kaun[¤]oiw §p¤ dhmio[u]rgoË ÑIpposy°nouw: Nikokl°a Lusikl°ouw ÉAyhna›o[n] ka‹ Lusikl°a Lusikrãt[ouw] [ÉA]yhna›on proj°nouw e[‰nai k-] a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n auto-] Áw ka‹ §kgÒnouw ka‹ [-----] n auto›w §[. . .

25

See among others Hajnal (1997b), Melchert (1998), Neumann (1998).

analyzing carian inscriptions

297

A quick look is sufficient to identify the correspondence of all the proper names that appear in both texts. Even in the only case where the words are not formally related—the reference to the Kaunians, reflected in Carian by means of kbidn, kbdyn“—Lycian evidence (Xbide is the Lycian form for Kaunos) dispels any doubt. All these correspondences have been underlined in the table above. The onomastic formulae appear clearly in accusative case (marked with the ending -n: nik[--]lan, lys[ik]lan), which allowed the first editors to correctly identify the words ending in -“ as plural accusatives. This means that the words that present this ending (including sarni[“ ]) could represent the Carian equivalent of the Greek accusative plural formula proj°nouw . . . [k]a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n auto]Áw ka‹ §kgÒnouw. The fact that the Carian formula contains more words that the corresponding formula in Greek made it difficult to establish the precise connection between the two texts, and the attempt the first editors led to mistaken assumptions. The identification of the word otr“ with Lycian atra-/etli-, ‘person, self ’, made independently by various authors, has clarified the situation decisively; it implies that the Carian passage corresponding to the Greek formula proj°nouw e[‰nai k]a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n], which immediately precedes [auto]Áw, must be identified in the more extended construction, sarni[“ ] mdot2 un sb undo[--]tl“ kbdyn“ sb b2o[--]ol“, which in turn precedes otr“. The possible explanation for this extended formula in comparison to the Greek version will be dealt with later. Before addressing this problem, we must focus our attention on what is undoubtedly the main obstacle to interpreting these first lines of the Kaunos bilingual: the identification of the possible verbal forms. The need to first locate the verbs in the bilingual is clearly justified by the fact that some of the forms appearing in the sequence sarni[“] . . .b2o[--]ol“ have entered into the discussion about possible verbal forms. The Greek construction of the sentence is clear: an impersonal verb, ‘it seemed good’, constructed with dative (‘to the Kaunians’) and an infinitive clause as the subject of the impersonal verb (‘that Nikokles (. . .) and Lysikles (. . .) were public guests and benefactors of the Kaunians’). As Greek syntax demands, the subject and nominal predicate of the infinitive clause are in the accusative case. Much discussion has arisen as to whether the Carian text contains, or indeed can contain, a construction of this kind, or whether the formula of the proxeny decree is instead expressed in Carian in a very different way. The only clear indication that the Carian text offers is the fact, mentioned

298

chapter seven

above, that the personal names of the honoured Athenian citizens are in accusative. This implies at least a verb that either directly or indirectly governs these accusatives, and all the proposals formulated to date attempt to find verbs among the words of these first lines. Scholars have adopted two differing approaches to the question; while some of them have assumed that there is only a verb in personal form, without the actual presence of an infinitive, others have claimed to recognize an infinitive form, which would indicate the further existence of a main verb or equivalent construction. The options suggested as possible infinite or finite verbal forms are uiomln, mdot2un, and un (2×; from segmenting mdot2 un and un do[--]tl“ ). Although the verbal character of rual has also been considered, in theory there is a certain consensus to interpret it rather as a noun, within a formula equivalent to Greek §p‹ dhmio[u]rgoË ÑIpposy°nouw. The first editors adopted the approach of postulating a finite verb construction. In fact, they claimed to have identified two finite verbs, uiomln and mdot1un (interpreting O t2 as a glide sound between o and u). Both would be third person plural preterite verbs with the respective meanings ‘to decide’ and ‘to make, to invest as, to establish as’ (Frei-Marek 1997:29–30), and the accusatives would be dependent on this latter verb. Melchert (1998) suggested that the accusatives are directly constructed with a finite verb. But unlike Frei-Marek’s proposal, he prefers to classify uiomln as a noun with the meaning ‘decree’ (kbidn uiomln ‘decree of Kaunos’, with kbidn as plural genitive of the place name),26 and although he agrees with the first editors in considering mdot1un (also interpreted as mdo/w/un, with O t2 as a glide) to be a finite verb governing the accusatives, he analyzes it as a first person plural preterite, ‘we have established, we have install (as)’. A weak point of Melchert’s interpretation is that the analysis of this word as a first person verb depends on the assumption that O represents a /w/ sound, as he compares an alleged ending -/wun/ with Hittite preterite first plural ending -wen and with the corresponding Lydian ending -wn. The proposal in Adiego (1998a) is very different. Here, the suggested segmentation is mdot1 un (although without considerations about the phonological value of O t2, which was studied in a subsequent paper,

26

For a place name kbid- as plurale tantum, Melchert reminds us of the similar interpretation for the Lycian name of Kaunos, Xbide (Melchert 1998:37).

analyzing carian inscriptions

299

Adiego 2002), and both this un and the un segmentable in undo[--]tl“ are taken as infinitives depending on the finitive verb uiomln, for which Frei-Marek’s interpretation as ‘they decided’ is accepted. As for un as infinitive, it is compared with the Luwian infinitive ending -una (aduna ‘to eat’) and the whole form is considered as the infinitive of a verb ‘to make’, by comparing Lycian a(i)-, Cuneiform Luwian à-/àya- ‘to make’. The remaining word mdot2 is then interpreted as a complement of sarni[“ ] that would therefore constitute a locution equivalent to Greek proj°nouw. This hypothesis was refined in Adiego (2002), where arguments were given in favour of O as the Kaunian form of the letter c t, and for the interpretation of endings in -ot, -ot2 as plural genitives. These hypotheses do not cover every theoretically possible interpretation of each of the words involved, and it is impossible with our current knowledge of Carian to choose one above the rest, or to simply deem them all incorrect. In any case, all these analyses coincide in seeing sarni[“ ] (or sarni[“ ] mdot2) and undo[--]tl“ (or do[--]tl“) kbdyn“ as the Carian equivalent to Greek proj°nouw [k]a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n]. This interpretation seems to be one of the scarce certainties—leaving aside the onomastic forms—that currently exist about the structure and meaning of the Carian text. However, it does pose a serious problem, insofar as between kbdyn“ and otr“ = aÈtoÊw we are left with sb b2o[--]ol“, which has no recognizable correspondence in the Greek part. It must be remembered that this sequence led the first editors to make mistakes, because they assume that sb b2o[--]ol“ is the Carian equivalent of Greek ka‹ §kgÒnouw ‘and the descendents’, and otr“ was therefore interpreted as a possessive (‘of them. their’). This intepretation was undoubtedly caused by the fact that b2o[--]ol“ is linked to the former text by sb, which made it difficult to find an equivalent to aÈtoÊw, since it could hardly be preceded by a coordinative conjunction. The Lycian etymology for otr“ mentioned above showed that this interpretation was mistaken, since otr“ must be the Carian word translated into Greek as aÈtoÊw. But this explanation, based on a very convincing etymological approach, fails to account in any way for sb b2o[--]ol“. A provisional solution was suggested in Adiego (1998:23): b2o[--]ol“ could be another ethnic name coordinated with kbdyn“, referring to ÖImbrow, the fortress near Kaunos27 that Bean (1953:22) identified with

27

Strabo XIV, 651.

300

chapter seven

the archeological remains on the summit of Ölemez Da<, the mountain north of Kaunos. This hypothesis would fit well with the initial b2 of b2o[--]ol“, but the fact that the Carian word is incomplete makes it less certain. Moreover, it is not unthinkable that sb is in fact coordinating b2o[--]ol“ not with kbdyn“, but directly with sarni[“ ] and undo[-]tl“ / do[--]tl“, so that the Carian equivalent to the Greek twofold formula proj°nouw [k]a‹ eÈerg°taw would be a threefold one, (sarni“ . . . (un)do[--]tl“ . . . b2o[--]ol“ ). The identification otr“ = aÈtoÊw makes it likely that the following sequence, sb a∞t[ms]kmtabsims sb [, corresponds to Greek ka‹ §kgÒnouw ka‹ [.28 In Adiego (1998a) an etymological connection for a∞t[ms]km(t?) was proposed, based on the identification of mskmº with the Luwian stem mas¢a- recognizable in ma“¢à¢it- ‘growth, prosperity’, and the suggestion that a∞t- could be compared with Hittite katta, kattan ‘down’. a∞t[ms]km(t? ) could therefore be a compound noun formally and semantically comparable to ‘off-spring’, German ‘Nach-kommenschaft’ and Spanish ‘de-scendencia’. As for the remaining ºtabsims or ºabsims, it was suggested in the same study (Adiego 1998a:25) that this could be a possessive, comparable to Lycian ehbi( je) < *ebesi( je)-. All these connections are phonologically sound, but they fail to explain ºt º (if it does not belong to the word a∞t[ms]km) and the final -ms. From absims sb on, the possibilities of interpreting the Carian text decrease dramatically: both the sudden interruption of the Greek part, and the lacuna of almost an entire line (l. 12) make it impossible to continue with the analysis. We can identify further possible instances of the conjunction sb ‘and’, but it is impossible to identify which type of syntactic elements it is coordinating. Among the words of this final section of the inscription, special attention should be paid to the sequence orouo, which recalls Lycian arawa- ‘freedom’, a term that is consistent with the sort of privileges conferred on the proxenoi in these types of decrees. However, the segmentation is far from certain, as it leaves an isolated letter H between sb and orouo. Also of interest here are the possible presence of the word mno- ‘son’ under the form mnos, and the final sequence aitusi, where we could identify a possible imperative aitu or preterite ait of a verb corresponding to Lycian a(i)- ‘to do, to make’ (cf. Lycian ait˜e ‘they made’). 28

The integration [ms] is based in the parallel sequence a∞tmsk[ in C.Ka 1.

analyzing carian inscriptions

301

2. The Kaunos Inscription C.Ka 2 [-(?)-ui?]omlã qrdsgrdso[-]i[ [-?-]r sb a∞mnnartnyr obsmns[ [-?-]∞arlanoã sb z“ariosã i∞[ [-?-]nudrma ∞yrpai sarni“ sb u[ [-?-]aH punot2 otr“bi sb a∞tmsk[m [-?-]dbi _1aitk ouor gdb“laã1_i[-] [-?-] sarni“ sb 1orsol“ sb uHbit [-?-]bi qrdsol“ ait _1mali H∞it [-?-]intnor ∞yrapai≤ umot2 oba [-?-]_iurt obsmsmñ1ñ ouor mt1_yr [-?-][-]abrun∞ur[-]“yn“Hynn sb vacat [-?-----------------]tbsms _1mali[ [-?------------------]maH 1sb an[ [-?----------------------]ba vacat

C.Ka 2, the most extensive Carian inscription, remains a virtually impenetrable text. The discovery of the Kaunos bilingual has allowed us to establish some connections between the two texts, and it is certainly very significant that the word sarni“, which in the new bilingual seems to represent either totally or partially the Carian expression for ‘proxenoi’, is also present in C.Ka 2. Other important correspondences are the word otr“ = aÈtoÊw, the possible word for ‘descendence’, a∞tmskm(t?), and the noun or verb that appears apparently to indicate that the inscription is a decree (uiomln, [--]mln in C.Ka 2). All of these elements seem to suggest that the content of C.Ka 2 and C.Ka 5 has a similar purpose, but these correspondences are not corroborated by a comparable overall structure. In this respect, the absence of clear onomastic formulae, which we would expect to find if dealing with the concesion of proxeny to more than one individual (note the plural sarni“ ), is very puzzling. In the first line, after ]mln, a word qrds can be segmented, recalling a similar sequence in Kildara (C.Ki 1). In this case it seems to be followed by another word etymologically related to it, grdso[, which points to a possible figura etymologica. Another derivative of qrds appears in line 8, followed by a word ait: qrdsol“ ait. The final -“ points to an animate accusative (and perhaps also nominative) plural, and ait recalls, as Melchert (1998:35) has pointed out, Lycian ait˜e ‘they made’, so that an interpretation as ‘the qrdsol-s made’ or ‘they made (them) qrdsol-s’ seems likely. The presence of qrds immediately after ]mln, the noun or verb

302

chapter seven

that initiates a decree, implies that qrds could be referring to the city or to a city institution such as the assembly.29 sarni“ appears twice, in both cases followed by sb, ‘and’. In the first instance, it is impossible to decide whether sb is joining sarni“ to another plural noun, due to the crack of the stone. The second example is much clearer: sarni“ sb 1orsol“ is undoubtedly a sequence of two accusative (or nominative) plural nouns. The first editors of C.Ka 5 tried to compare this latter word with C.Ka 5, l. 8–9 b2o[--]ol“, and proposed the integration b2o[rs]ol“. Although this hypothesis is very attractive, it is complicated by a serious difficulty: ÿ b2 seems to be formally closer to ± b (C.Ka 4) than to 1.30 The only form that can be identified as a possible proper name is l. 4 ∞yrpai (nominative?), which reappears as genitive singular in l. 9 (∞yrapai-≤ ). The clearest syntactic parallel between C.Ka 2 and the Kaunos bilingual is l. 6–7, otr“bi sb a∞tmsk[m . . .]dbi = Bilingual otr“ sb a∞t[ms]kmt absims ‘themselves and (their) descendants’. Unfortunately, it is impossible to calculate the letters missing between a∞tmsk[ and ]dbi, but it seems likely that =bi was attached to (a form of ) the word a∞tmskm(t?), so that the formula in C.Ka 2 would present a ‘X= bi and X= bi’ structure: otr“=bi sb a∞tmsk[m . . .]d=bi. The exact function of this = bi is unknown. It could be a particle reinforcing the coordination (‘both them and (their) offspring’, ‘not only . . . but also . . .’), but it could also be a postposition (‘for’, ‘with’?). Both interpretations permit an etymological connection with Lycian -ppi in hr-ppi ‘on; for’ (cf. for this form Lyc. hri = CLuw. “arri ‘up; (on) top’). Carian =bi could be a generalisation of the lenited form of this particle instead of Lycian unlenited -ppi (cf. the parallel process in Lycian -be vs. CLuw. -ppa, Melchert DLL s. v.). 3. Sinuri’s Longer Inscription (C.Si 2) (a) [--]ryin ∞tmño≤ : sb ada ∞tmño≤ eri : pisñoi mda : pñmnn≤ñ : pda∞m≤uñ ∞i “aoyr∞ri mt∞elã 29 For a purely theoretical etymology suggested in Blümel-Adiego (1993:94) see Chapter 11, s. v. 30 That 1_ and ± are different letters (which rules out a triple equivalence 1_ = ± = ÿ) is confirmed by their co-occurrence in C.Ka 4.

analyzing carian inscriptions

303

ñmailo mda lrHñ : stspñ vacat sm“s[--5--] sb añmsñsi mda sm[--7--]a∞e[ ∞[--8--]tuñdñ[ ñe-?-[ (b) pim[. . .] Ha?[. . .]

The longer inscription from Sinuri, engraved after a long Greek text, could be a true bilingual, but the Greek text is so badly damaged that it turns out to be practically unusable as a means of understanding the Carian one. The greatest progress in the analysis C.Si 2 has been made by Diether Schürr: he was able to identify in the first line of the text a reference to the Carian dynasts Idrieus and Ada, sons of Hekatomnos ([--]ryin ∞tmño≤: sb ada ∞tmño≤ ). Moreover, Schürr argued convincingly that it belonged to the same stela as a fragment of a Greek inscription also discovered in Sinuri. This fragment adds very limited, but nonetheless interesting information about the content of the Greek inscription preceding the Carian one, and it is certainly more valuable than the information that can be obtained from the scarce remains of the Greek text in the bilingual fragment. The Greek unified text contains two decrees of the abovementioned dynasts, both conceding an ét°leia (tax exemption). A personal name, Ponmoonnow, is also mentioned in genitive in the first Greek decree, and Schürr also found it in the Carian text (l. 2 pñmnn≤ñ, alternative reading ?pñmun≤ñ). This could be the same name that appears in later Sinuri inscriptions in the form Pormounow, as the denomination of the syngeneia devoted to the administration of the temple. In Adiego (2000), I attempted to make some progress in the understanding of the text. Many of the proposals outlined in that study were very hypothetical, and I will not repeat them in any detail in the present book. Perhaps the main idea that should be retained is my insistence on searching for verbal forms: it is logical to assume that some verbal form must exist not very far from the mention of the Hekatomnids, expressing the action carried out by the dynasts, in the same way that in the second Greek text the names of the dynasts were very probably followed by a verb ¶[dvkan] (if Robert’s very plausible integration is accepted). In Adiego (2000) it was suggested that both pisñoimda (l. 2) and ñmailomda (l. 4) were verbs. In the first case, a connection was

chapter seven

304

proposed with the Common Anatolian verb for ‘to give’ (Hitt. pài-/piyaCLuw. piya-, Lyc. pije, etc.); in the second, I suggested a rather klingklang resemblance to Lycian ◊mmait˜e in the trilingual of the Letoon of Xanthos, a third person plural verb with a possible meaning ‘to install, to build’. In both alleged verbs, mda was interpreted as the same element that appears as mdane in other Carian inscriptions, which I consider to be a particle chain (see p. 324). As for the resulting sequences pisñoiº, ñmailoº, o (in both forms) and i (in pisñoiº) were interpreted as clitic pronouns (Adiego 2000:142): Verb

Direct Object

Indirect Object

-mda element

Translation

pisñ-

-o-

-i-

-mda

‘they gave-it-to him/to them’ ‘they established it/him’

ñmail- -o-

-mda

These postclitic pronouns, attached to the verb, were syntactically compared with the well-known ‘nasalized preterites’ of Lycian ( pijet˜e, mmait˜ ˜ e ), where the nasalized vowel comes from the univerbation of the verb with a clitic pronoun ( pije-t˜e < *-to+om ‘he gave-it’). The rest of the ideas contained in Adiego (2002) are merely hypothetical. In the sequence pñmnn≤ñ: pda∞m≤uñ ∞i a construction with the relative ∞i was envisaged, and two possible interpretations were suggested: ‘Pñmnn- who (is) the priest’ or ‘the syngeneia of Pñmnn-’. Both interpretations for pda∞m≤uñ were considered to be consistent with an etymological connection of pdaº with Lycian pdd˜en- and Hitt. peda-, ‘place’. For eri, I proposed a possible word for ét°leia, on the basis of its resemblance to Lycian arawa-, ‘exemption (ét°leia), freedom’, but without discounting the alternative view suggested by Neumann (apud Adiego 2000:144) of eri as preverb identical to Lycian eri (cf. Hitt. ar¢a). Leaving aside all these speculative attempts, the most conclusive and remarkable morphological information provided by the bilingual inscription of Sinuri is the form pñmnn≤ñ, which must surely be an accusativus genitivi or, more correctly, an accusative formed on the basis of the (old) possessive adjective, comparable to the Lycian forms in -hñ (Lusãñtrahñ). The same analysis is probably also valid for pda∞m≤uñ, although the presence of u between ≤ and ñ obliges us not to disregard alternative interpretations.

analyzing carian inscriptions

305

4. The Hyllarima Inscription (C.Hy 1) The recently discovered bilingual stone in Hyllarima has proved to be a fragment that fits well alongside what was until recently the only known inscription from that location. Joining the two pieces together has provided us with a complete version of the Carian part of the original stela with practically no problems of reading, and has also helped us to understand the Greek texts that accompanied the Carian inscription. Of these, the only one that seems to be contemporary or very close to the Carian texts is the brief list of ‘priests of all the gods’ in column B: Column A

Column B

“asqariod dymda muot armotrqdosq

kdu≤opizipususot mol“ msot ylarmit

brsi ari“≤ brsi≤ mane : u≤ol≤ rtim u≤ol≤ pur?i≤

flere›ew ye«n pãntvn: ÑErm¤aw Fan°v ÑErm¤adow: flereÁw ye«n pãntvn: ÑUssvllow ÉArrissiow

u≤bzol tñu≤ brsi≤ pau mane≤ ybrs≤ (A later Greek inscription containing a list of priests of Apollon follows)

(A later Greek inscription containing a priesthood sale follows)

(Recall that other, later Greek inscriptions appear on both sides of the inscription, see p. 136, n. 25 for details). Any attempt to analyse the Carian text is seriously hampered from the beginning by the doubts about the exact order in which the first two lines of both columns (in fact, the only part containing common vocabulary, since the remaining lines contain only onomastic formulae) should be read. As pointed out in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
306

chapter seven

that an identical word for ‘priests’ cannot be found in each column. This option would also raise another intriguing question: why are the names of the priests in the first column in Carian and the names in the second column in Greek, despite the fact that Carian is used for the headings of both columns? Both solution (1) and solution (2) imply that the two first lines of both columns would be the common heading for the entire Carian inscription. But there are no clear arguments for or against either solution: the first lines in both are for now impenetrable, and in the case of the second lines, although they do contain words that can be interpreted (see immediately below), their structure does not allow us to clarify whether or not they consitute a consecutive sequence. From the two initial lines of both columns, the only forms for which we can find a plausible interpretation are armotrqdosq and mol“ msot ylarmit. The first, armotrqdosq, is undoubtedly the most relevant contribution of the new Hyllarima fragment: its interpretation is straighforward— although the syntactic connection with the rest of the text remains unclear—and it is of great interest from both a linguistic and a cultural perspective. In armotrqdosq, it is easy to recognize two typically Anatolian god names: armo-, the name of the moon good (Hitt. Arma-), and trqd-, the storm god already documented in other Carian inscriptions (Kildara, Iasos). As noted in Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
31

Other solutions seem less convincing, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
analyzing carian inscriptions

307

us to make a series of (sometimes fragile) assumptions about the morphology and semantics of the three words involved, at least in the case of ylarmit, it seems plausible to consider a connection with the place name Hyllarima, as suggested for the first time by Ray (1988:152).32 The interpretation of msot as, ‘of the gods’, is based on the possibility of connecting it with the Luwic word for ‘god’: note particularly Milyan masa- ‘god’, and also Lyc. maha(na)-, CLuw. mà““an(i)-. The stem also appears in Carian onomastics: msnord-, Masanvrada (see Chapter 11 s. v. msnord≤ ). Less definite connections can be established for mol“ = ‘priests’,33 where moreover the character of the final -“ (an ending or rather a derivative suffix) remains unclear (see p. 318), although the new inscription from Mylasa (C.My 1) now offers another example of mol“ in the first line, preceding a long list of individuals. Even if the meaning ‘priests’ proved to be incorrect, the appearance of mol“ in the heading of two inscriptions consisting of lists of onomastic formulae would still be worth noting. From a morphological point of view, this interpretation of mol“ msot ylarmit assumes that mol“ must be in plural, presumably in nominative (as in the Greek formula), although the possibility of another case cannot be totally ruled out. Following the same interpretation, msot ylarmit must by contrast be a genitive plural, characterized by the ending -t. On these morphological repercussions of interpreting mol“ msot ylarmit as ‘priests of the Hyllarimean gods’, see p. 319. The remaining lines of column A consist exclusively of five onomastic formulae, engraved at different times (see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
32

Schürr (1992:146) had attempted to identify a name corresponding to Greek

Eemiaw in the Greek list of priests by isolating armit, but the value y /y/ of W, now confirmed by the Kaunos bilingual, makes the connection between ylarmit and Hyllarima

clearly preferable. 33 Cf. perhaps Lyc. mle-, ‘sacrificial offering (??)’ and related words (particularly mlatraza, mluhidaza, two priestly titles) in Melchert DLL, ss. vv.

chapter seven

308

Both Arrisis and Imbrasis are names that appear in the first Carian onomastic formula (brsi ari“≤ brsi≤ ), and it is reasonable to assume that we are dealing with the same individuals.34 5. Other Inscriptions from Caria The new inscription from Mylasa (C.My 1) consists of an initial line as the heading for a list of personal names. Therefore, only this first line contains what seems to be common lexicon. As is the case of most Carian texts without personal names, it remains practically impenetrable: idrayridsemd ?bq mol“ ty∞[ The most interesting characteristic is the presence of the word mol“, also found in Hyllarima, which has been analysed as accusative or nominative plural with the meaning ‘priests’ (see above). The presence of a noun in plural fits well with the following list of personal names. In Adiego (2005:92–93) it was also suggested that ty∞[ could be the Carian adaptation of Greek TÊxh, the goddess of Fortune. Therefore mol“ ty∞[ could mean ‘priests of Fortune’, ‘priests for Fortune’, although this is merely hypothetical. The preceding sequence idrayridsemdbq is very difficult to analyze. If the reading of d is certain, perhaps a word or particle chain, md (cf. md orkn), could be segmented. In idrayriº, we can attempt to identify two stems idra- and yri- that recall, respectively, the place name Idriaw and the yri-formant in personal names such as “ayriq, idyri∞≤, Saurigow. Cf. also (without tectal suffixation) E.Th 26 yri≤ and possibly E.AS 5 pnyri≤ru. Little can be said about the rest of Carian inscriptions from Caria. The Euromos inscription C.Eu 2 does not seem to be a funerary inscription, insofar as none of the typical words for ‘tomb, burial’ can be identified, as already noted. Neither can we identify any clear onomastic formulae. It is possible that the first sequence omob∞i contains

34 See Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
analyzing carian inscriptions

309

the relative pronoun (hence the segmentation adopted here). As for the following words, perhaps a genitive temazi≤ can be segmented. In this case, the d that immediately follows it could be compared with d in i[---]inis=d=rual from C.Ka 5. Another word that may be present in the text is armon, which cannot be clearly interpreted: it could be directly compared to armon in E.Me 8 (‘dragoman, interpreter’, although this meaning would seem somewhat out of place here) or be analyzed as an accusative in -n of the moon-god armo (attested in C.Hy 1a). The rest of the inscription is even more difficult to fathom. In the shorter text of Sinuri (C.Si 1) at least a possible onomastic formula can be identified: (1) adymd“ : yri∞ñ : t[-]rsi : [. . .?] tbe≤ (vacat) (2) yri∞ñ : binq : sñaidlo

t[-]rsi : [. . .?]tbe≤ is convincing as a N-Ø N-≤ structure, and the incomplete second name can be compared with Thebes qutbe, Kuatbhw. The rest of the inscription remains unclear, a situation that is further compounded by the reading difficulties. In Adiego (2000), sñaidlo was tentatively analysed as a verb, comparable to pisñoi=mda, ñmailo= mda. ºaid º was directly linked to Lycian a(i)-, ‘to make’, and sñº was compared to Lycian se=ññ(e). Leaving aside these more provisional attempts, one must focus on the striking disposition of the two texts; a relatively large gap has been left between the two, and the fact that in the first text a word adymd“ that possibly contains a plural ending (-“, cf. mol“ ) is followed by a single onomastic formula, makes it plausible that the formula adymd“: yri∞ñ was conceived as the heading of a list of personal names, and that this list was never completed. The inscription from Hyllarima shows how different names were added to the list on subsequent occasions, and this could also have been also the initial aim of C.Si 1. The inscription of Kildara (C.Ki 1), shown below, is even harder to analyse than the preceding texts: [. . . . . . .(.)]zolba∞a[..(.)] kil[ [. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[ kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[ iasoum

The only elements to have been isolated as recognizable words are: (1) the two instances of the place name Kildara (l.1: kil[, l.3; kilara or

chapter seven

310

kilarad? -d could be a case ending or a clitic form d, comparable to -d- in i[---]inis=d=rual); (2) the god name trqd (l.2, or better trqdimr as a compound name?); (3) the word qrds, also in l.2, undoubtedly related to qrds, qrdsol in C.Ka 2, and for which an ‘institutional’ meaning has been proposed. The only clear evidence for the content of the Kildara inscription is negative: there is no point of contact with the Greek text inscribed immediately after it. The name of the individual honoured as proxenos and eueregetes in the Greek inscription, Uss[vllow?] son of Samvow, does not appear,35 and there is no sequence that can be compared with the phraseology used in the proxeny decree of Kaunos (C.Ka 5). As for C.Ka 4, the fragmentary inscription from Kaunos that is largely incomplete and has no clear context, it is impossible to even attempt an analysis: [. . .]u≤ou≤ ibrsdr[-] [. . .]a yomlnr_1i [. . .]dar1_ idym“

Only two elements have been recognized here: the form ibrsº, without any doubt related to the family of names ibrs(i)-, brsi, and yomln, a variant of the word uiomln in the first line of the Kaunos bilingual, interpreted as a verb or noun pertaining to the semantic field of ‘decree, decision, to decree, to decide’. The two Stratonikeia inscriptions (C.St 1, C.St 2), as far as we can currently tell, consist exclusively of onomastic formulae. E. Balance and Some Controversial Questions The sum of the preceding analysis of a great part of the Carian corpus can seem at first sight somewhat disappointing: the results that can essentially be considered conclusive are very scarce, and even some of these are perhaps overly optimistic, since speculation has been unavoidable in several cases. Strictly speaking, our ability to analyze Carian inscriptions is limited to the identification of proper names and onomastic formulae, which allows us to understand only a very small area 35 However, one could be tempted to read ßAmous “ !amous instead of ÎAsouM iasoum in the last line, in order to obtain the name of the father of Uss[ollos?], Samoos, mentioned in the Greek inscription, see p. 142.

analyzing carian inscriptions

311

of Carian grammar. Only in the case of the Kaunos bilingual can the interpretation be developed to any extent, thanks to existence of the Greek version, but even with this advantage we do not obtain the results we would hope for. As for the rest of the texts, the inscription of “rquq qtblem≤ (C.xx 1) is something of an exception, since the brilliance of Melchert’s interpretation has not been matched for other inscriptions. These limited results will be systematized in the next chapter, where I shall focus on two problems that have arisen in the course of this chapter, namely the s-ending and the alleged verbal forms mdane and variants.

CHAPTER EIGHT

MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES

In this chapter I summarize the morphological traits that can be obtained from an analysis of the inscriptions, and interpret them from a historical and comparative perspective. Needless to say, the resultant picture will remain exasperatingly incomplete, and in many cases will be based on extremely fragile evidence. It will however be sufficient to demonstrate the clear relationship between Carian and Indo-European Anatolian languages and, more specifically, Luwic dialects.

A. Nominal Inflection Our present knowledge of nominal inflection is based mainly on the information given by the personal names, to which we can also add some common nouns. There are no examples of adjective inflection, with the exception of ethnic forms, which can be interpreted as adjectival complements (for instance otonosn in C.Ka 5). Only a few endings can be established with some confidence. 1. Nominative Singular The singular nominative ending is systematically -Ø, as appears clearly in the onomastic formulae (u≤ol, arli“, ada, etc.). This also seems to be the ending for common nouns, for instance upe, ue ‘stele’. This zero ending can be directly compared with Lycian and Milyan sg. nom. c. -Ø, and we can imagine it to have a similar origin: a PIE *-s > Proto-Anatolian (PA) *-s (Hitt., CLuw, HLuw, Pal., Lyd. -/s/) dropped in absolute final position. Words such as the abovementioned upe, ue seem to be vocalic stems of the common gender, also with loss of final -s.1

1

If they are not old eh2- stems with inherited ending -ø for the sg. nom.

morphological features

313

2. Accusative Singular An ending -n for the singular accusative has been clearly established thanks to the Kaunos bilingual, confirming former interpretations which led to the same conclusion.2 The personal names nik[—]la-n, lys[ikl ]a-n show this ending for a-stems of personal names (Frei-Marek 1997:34, 48). Another clear example of -n accusative is orkn (‘bowl’ or similar). The ending -n for singular accusative also appears in the pronominal flexion (see below p. 320). This ending is also comparatively transparent: PIE *-m > PA *-n. Unlike in Lycian, where the ending in contact with a stem final vowel a, e results in a nasalized vowel (noted by means of special letters <ã>, <˜e>), the Carian forms with -an could point to a conservation of the nasal, although it is not impossible that a process similar to the Lycian example has occurred, though not noted with the same graphical precision. In ork-n we find the same ending, but in this case after a consonant, which could represent a syllabic nasal or merely a defective vowel notation (/orkVn/). 3. Genitive Singular The most characteristic ending for the genitive singular, confirmed only by personal names, is -≤. Melchert (2002:311) has argued convincingly that its origin lies in PA *-assì-, a possessive suffix with i-mutation that serves to create adjectival forms in Luwic dialects (CLuw. -assì-, HLuw. -asi-, Lycian -ahi, -ehi, Milyan -asi, -esi ) that carry out the proper function of a genitive (cf. Lyc. e˜ni mahanahi ‘mother divine’ = ‘mother of the gods’). This etymological connection explains the presence of -≤, most probably a palatal sibilant /ç/ resulting from the contact of s with ì, and either dropped or not graphically noted in Carian.3 It is less clear if -≤ in Carian continues to act as an adjectival suffix, agreeing in number and case with the word that complements it, or if

2

See Melchert (1993:80). Melchert (personal communication) informs me that his views about the origin of Carian -≤ have changed since the publication of Melchert (2002). He now proposes that -≤ is cognate with Hierohplyphic Luwian -(a)si, and that both forms come from the true PIE genitival ending, *-osyo. This interesting alternative hypothesis merits further discussion that will not be included here. In any case, it does not alter the phonological explanation, formulated above, of -≤ as a palatal sibilant resulting from the contact of s with i. 3

314

chapter eight

in fact it has been reinterpreted as a pure case ending. A single form, pñmnn≤ñ in C.Si 2, suggests that -≤ retains its adjectival value, as it shows a further accusative ending -ñ. However, the example is too isolated to be considered proof that the adjectival character of -≤ has been preserved: it could merely be the result of a secondary process of agreement, as occurred in Lycian with -hñ. In any case, whatever the explanation of pñmnn≤ñ, it is a good illustration of that fact that in Carian, like in Lycian, the limits between genitive and possessive adjective constructions were rather blurred.4 4. The -s Ending and the Problem of Carian Datives Throughout the chapter devoted to the analysis of Carian inscriptions, we have repeatedly mentioned the existence of a specific -s ending, which has been interpreted as a dative ending by some authors (Schürr, Melchert, Vittmann). Our analysis has led us to the provisional conclusion that the solution is perhaps not so clear. We shall now attempt to analyse this ending more carefully and evaluate the plausibility of interpreting it as dative. Any analysis of the possible examples of s-endings is hampered from the beginning by the difficulty of distinguishing between true s-ending forms and simple Ø-nominatives of s-stems (whose existence is undeniable, given the presence of s-stems inflected in genitive: ibrs-≤, idyes-≤, pals-≤, etc.). To quote a case already mentioned (see p. 283), a word such as smdÿbrs (C.Ha 1) could for example be analysed as an s-ending form of a stem smdÿbr-, comparable to k“atÿbr, dtÿbr ardybyr-≤, or as a nominative of an s-stem smdÿbrs-, parallel to ybrs-≤. The examples of forms ending in -s from the sub-corpus of Memphis also help to illustrate this. Listed below are all the Memphis inscriptions that present these types of words. I exclude only E.Me 39, where the reading of -s is not certain. The inscription is also very fragmentary and hardly usable: ap[—]ws / a[rb]ikarm≤ ∞i (E.Me 23) tdu≤ol / kbos | “amsqi[. . .? (E.Me 24) (a) idmns | myre≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i / (b) idmns | myre≤ ∞i (E.Me 33) ntokris | dw≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i (E.Me 35) [q?]lalis / [?]iam≤ ∞i / alos ∞arnos (E.Me 45) tqtes | paraibrel≤ ∞i | mn[o-?] (E.Me 47) 4 More problematic is the intepretation of the form pda∞m≤uñ, see the discussion in Melchert (2001:311).

morphological features

315

From all of these examples, the most likely to have the s-ending form is undoubtedly ntokris; Vittmann (2001:52) has argued convincingly that this name was taken directly from Egyptian, ruling out Ray’s theory that it can be identified as a form that arrived in Carian from the Greek Nitvkriw, the only way to explain the final s as a part of the stem (by assuming it to be an s-stem arising from the Greek sigmatic nominative). Also suggestive of an s-ending, if the reconstruction of the initial letter is accepted, is [q?]lalis, given the existence of a name qlali-≤ (G 2), Greek Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw. The rest of the examples are ambiguous: ap[—]ws, idmns and tktes allow more than one interpretation.5 Finally, kbos is very unlikely to be a personal name in nominative of an s-stem, because it occurs precisely after the nominative tdu≤ol, i.e. the name of the deceased. However, it could also be a title or an adjective accompanying tdu≤ol (an ethnic name? see p. 278), so that it would also be in nominative. A similar explanation could be given for the enigmatic alos ∞arnos of E.Me 45. For convenience, I will assume that all these examples can be interpreted as s-ending forms. In fact, this will not affect the ideas to be formulated about the value of the s-ending to any great degree, since with the exception of kbos and alos ∞arnos, the context in which we find the rest of the examples is similar to that of the clearest ones (ntokris, [q ? ]lalis): as the first word of an onomastic formula—which implies that they represent the name of the deceased—followed by one or more personal names in genitive. By analyzing the possibility that the s-ending recognizable in some words could be a mark of a dative case, we can first of all clearly separate the formal aspects from the functional ones. Formally, we can agree with the hypothesis formulated by Melchert (2002:309) that this s-ending comes from a genitive ending PIE *-e/oso (like Lycian -a/-ehe, cf. Adiego 1994c). An alternative view—a Luwic possessive suffix without i-mutation *-asso —cannot be ruled out, although Melchert (ibid.) is right in pointing out that there is no evidence to support the proposal of an adjectival character for -s in Carian. In any case, both solutions are equally attractive from a phonological point of view, as both offer a straightforward explanation for the presence of a different

5 In the case of idmns, the name idmuon-≤ could favour an analysis as idmn- if both forms belonged to the same paradigm, but the differences between idmn- and idmuondo not allow us to confim this hypothesis.

316

chapter eight

sibilant sound in this -s-ending (< *-e/oso or *-asso-) vs. the Carian genitives in -≤ (< *-assì, see above). If we accept the above arguments, the problem for Carian datives in -s can be reduced to a purely functional one, the question being whether there is evidence for a functional displacement of these old genitives to the expression of a dative value. As Melchert points out, such a displacement would not be particularly problematic because it is well documented in other languages. However, in my opinion, the evidence currently at our disposal is not at all convincing. The most radical version of this hypothesis—that -s has become exclusively the mark for dative, contrasting with -≤ specialized as genitive/possessive—is disproved, as Melchert admits, by the formula i[—]inis=d=rual, where -s cannot be anything other than a genitive or possessive governed by rual (= Gr. §p‹ dhmio[u]rgoË ÑIpposy°nouw). Moreover, the onomastic formulae in the same inscription nik[—]lan lysiklas[-?], lys[ikl]an lysikratas[-?] suggest that -s should be interpreted as a genitive or possessive. If one accepts the existence of genitives/possessives in -s-, the claim of an s-dative must be substantiated by unequivocal evidence, and this is hard to find, since all the examples of alleged datives can also be interpreted as genitives/possessives: a) All the examples of possible datives in -s in the Memphis subcorpus can also easily be interpreted as genitives or possessives: if one observes the texts quoted above, a translation ‘for X’ or ‘of X’ sounds equally acceptable. b) The same analysis can also be applied to other examples: an interpretation of “arnajs sb taqbos as ‘of ”arnaj and of Taqbo’ is as good as a dative interpretation ‘to ”arnaj and to Taqbo’. Vittmann (2001:52–54) has made the case for a dative value based on the fact that the Carian inscription appears integrated in an Egyptian formula, ‘give life’, which seems to require a dative. He cites the parallel examples of certain Egyptian-Phoenician bilingual inscriptions where the same Egyptian formula ‘give life’ is used, and where the personal name is introduced in Phoenician by the preposition l, ‘to, for’. However, while the Phoenician parallel may seem to provide a strong argument for seeing the Carian sequence as syntactically integrated in the Egyptian sentence, the opposite may also be true, namely that the Carian and Egyptian parts are more loosely related: the Egyptian sentence might simply be a stereotyped formula, and the Carian phrase a mere indication of possession. Even the Phoenician example accommodates a similar loose relationship between both parts, insofar as l is usually employed in Phoenician for

morphological features

317

introducing the target of a dedication. Regarding armotrqdosq in Hyllarima, the context does not allow us to ascertain whether the word is a genitive or a dative, but the character of the inscription, which presents a list of priests, seems more consistent with an interpretation as genitive (‘priests of the god Armotrqd-’) than as dative (although a reading ‘priests for the god Armotrqd-’ or a generic reference to the establishment of a cult ‘to Armotrqd-’ cannot be ruled out). c) The -s-dative hypothesis adds an unnecessary complication to the interpretation of ntro/ntros in their respective inscriptions (see above pp. 285–286). The dativum dedicationis with the god name ntro, ‘Apollo’, a simple and elegant interpretation that fits well with the overall sense of the text, becomes a nominative with the meaning ‘priest of Apollo’ and, conversely, ntros prãidas must then be an anonymous priest of Apollo to whom the object is dedicated instead of a direct reference to the divinity. But even accepting this explanation, there is nothing to prevent us interpreting ntros prãidas as a possessive, insofar as the overall structure of the inscription remains unclear. d) Attributing a dative role to the forms in -s means that the form trqude from Iasos remains unexplained. It is true, as Melchert remarks, that the overall sense of the inscription is not clear, but if trqude is simply the name of a god—as armotrqdosq in the new inscription from Hyllarima seems to confirm—it is difficult both formally and semantically to assign it a value other than dative. It cannot be an accusative (as we would expect a final -n), a genitive (there is neither -≤ nor ‘possessive’ -s) or a nominative (the subject of the entire text seems to be a personal name, perhaps ]are“, on which the patronym in the genitive siyklo-≤ is dependent). To summarize, we can draw two conclusions: (1) there is evidence for the retention of the original genitive/possessive value of -s, at least in some clear examples, and (2) there is no conclusive evidence to affirm that -s has adopted a dative value. 5. Other Possible Datives Note that my opinion, which does little to support the existence of s-datives, is accompanied by an attempt to recognize other words as datives. In this book at least three possible candidates have been mentioned: in the previous pages I have referred to trqude and ntro. We can add also rtmi, but it depends on the analysis of the inscription C.Tr 2, which remains very controversial. From an etymological point of view, ntro could be explained as a dative in -o < *-à comparable with the

318

chapter eight

(admittedly scarce) examples of datives in -a for a-stems in Lycian (see Melchert DLL:x; note for instance Urebillaha). As for trqude, we can envisage a PIE dative singular ending *-ei, as can be expected in an nt-stem such as trqud- < *tºHnt-. Finally, rtmi could be a dative in -i of an i-stem (*artimi-?, cf. rtim nominative in C.Hy 1a). 6. Nominative Plural No clear examples of nominative plural can be cited at present. We can only mention two possible forms: • in C.Hy 1, and also in C.My 1, it has been proposed that mol“ could be a common plural nominative with the meaning ‘priests’, although other explanations are possible. If this hypothesis were true, a suitable interpretation of mol“ could be mol-“, with an “-ending formally identical to that of the common plural accusative -“ (see below), a trait that Carian would share with Milyan (Nom. pl. -z / Ac. pl. -z) against Lycian (-Ø / -s). However, -“ could in this case be a derivative suffix, so that mol“ ought to be interpreted as mol“-Ø, leading to the converse situation: a nom. pl. in -Ø nearer to Lycian than to Milyan. • in the funerary inscriptions of Kaunos and Krya, the possibility was envisaged that sdis could be a nominative plural corresponding to sidi (see p. 291). However, this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with either of the two above hypotheses for mol“. We could attribute the discrepancies to a differentiation between a Kaunian dialect and a purely Carian one, but at this point it becomes a merely ad hoc solution. 7. Accusative Plural The Kaunos bilingual offers good evidence of -“ as a plural accusative ending for the common gender: sarni“, (un)do[—]tl“, kbdyn“, b2o[—]ol“ make reference to the two Athenian citizens honoured in the decree, who are mentioned in accusative. The simplest etymological explanation of -“ as an accusative plural mark can be found in Lycian -s and Milyan -z, both from Luwic*-ns (< PIE *-ns). The appearance of the (presumably) palatoalveolar sound “ instead of the generic, unmarked dental sibilant s recalls the Milyan use of z instead of s, irrespective of the exact nature of z in Milyan. In both languages, the use of a sibilant other than s can be interpreted as the outcome of the original cluster *-ns.

morphological features

319

8. Other Possible Case Endings 1) In Adiego (2002) it was argued that some words ending in -t were plural genitives. The basis of this hypothesis is the interpretation of mol“ msot ylarmit as ‘priests of Hyllarimean gods’, roughly corresponding to the Greek text ‘priests of all the gods’ (see pp. 306–307). The hypothesis was developed from the assumption that the Carian letter O was the Kaunian variant for the sign t, and consequently some words ending in O = -t were also interpreted as genitives. If this hypothesis is accurate, we still do not know what the origin of this genitive plural ending might be. Given that -t probably represents a dental-palatal affricate /t“/ or similar, a direct derivation from PIE -om (> Old Hittite -an, Lycian -˜e ) is impossible, which opens the way for analogical process. In this way, the palatal character of -t could be somehow related to the palatal ending -≤ of the genitive singular. Assuming a plural nominative *-ns (see above), an analogical proportion Nom. sg. *-s (>-Ø)—Genitive sg. *-si-s (>-≤ ): Nom. pl. *-ns (-“ ?) → Gen. pl. *-ns-is (>-) could be proposed (with a phonological process *-nsis > *-nt≤ > -t). 2) The contrast between alos ∞arnos (E.Me 45) and alos-d ∞arnos-d (C.xx 2) leads me to think that -d could be a true case ending in the latter example. The (very hypothetical) interpretation of C.xx 2 outlined in Adiego (2000:153–155; see here p. 284) pointed implicitly to an analysis of alos-d ∞arnos-d as ablative (‘from Halikarnassos’). The ending could then be compared to Lycian -adi/edi CLuw. -ati, HLuw. -ari-/ati, but this comparison is complicated by the fact that in most cases of the origin or Greek transcription of Carian d that can be controlled, this letter reflects an original -nd- group, which would not be the case of -d from *-Vdi (see p. 247). Other analyses are also possible: one could connect -d with the likely preposition d (cf. Lycian ñte) in C.Ka 5 d=rual (see p. 254). However, one ought to assume then that d became a sort of case ending, the only possible explanation for the iteration alos-d ∞arnos-d.

B. Pronominal Inflection We can identify in Carian at least two demonstrative pronominal stems: s(a)- and a-. The only clear indication of a pronominal paradigm can be stated for the pronoun sa, on the basis of sa E.Me 27, san (G 1), snn (C.Ha 1,

chapter eight

320

C.xx 1): sa and san seem to be singular nominatives according to the context in which they appear, whereas snn is undoubtedly a singular accusative. The difficulty is to establish the relation between the two nominatives sa and san, for which there are two possibilities: the difference between both forms could consist of a gender distinction (sa common gender vs. san neuter gender, reflecting -Ø vs. -n respectively), or alternatively that san is a kind of extended form (this was the explanation given in Melchert 1993:79–80) independent of the possible gender distinction. This latter hypothesis is supported by the accusative form snn that seems to imply a s(a)n- stem to which the accusative ending -n has been attached. However, it is also possible that in snn, both n actually constitute an accusative mark,6 thus the first interpretation can be maintained. In this sense, there is a striking parallel between Lycian inflection and the pronoun ebe-: Nom sg. c. Ac sg c. Nom-Ac sg. nt.

ebe-Ø eb˜eñn˜e eb˜e

cf. Carian sa-Ø cf. Carian snn cf. Carian san

< *-s “long” forms of original *-n < *-n

However, perhaps this parallelism is merely an illusion: in the case of the pronoun a-, we find ann in C.Ka 3, where it can hardly be a common accusative parallel to snn, eb˜eñn˜e, since it appears in a context without a verb. It might instead be interpreted as a (neuter?) nominative. The interpretation of an in an sidi is not clear either, because it is not certain whether in this inscription it represents an accusative or a nominative. In the latter case, interpreting it as neuter seems inconsistent with the proposed analysis of sdis as as common plurals (cf. supra). In summary, the current inventory of pronominal forms is too incomplete and their interpretations too ambiguous for even a minimally coherent paradigm to be traced. Besides these demonstrative pronouns, we can also refer to the (at least originally) relative pronoun ∞i, whose etymology is unproblematic: it comes from PIE, PA *k wis (cf. Hitt, CLuw. kui“, Lyc. ti, Mil. ki ). As seen in Chapter 7, this pronoun became in Carian a type of connecting particle, in a similar way to the Old Persian haya/taya, although some examples of its use can be still identified as remaining very close to its original relative value.

6

Cf. Neumann (apud Melchert 1993:80, n. 5), who compared snn with Lycian eb˜eñn˜e.

morphological features

321

C. Verbal Inflection The difficulties of identifying verbal forms were outlined in our analysis of the Carian inscriptions. The only word I consider to be even a minimally reliable verbal form is ÿbt, for which Melchert suggested a very plausible interpretation (= Lyc. ubete ‘he offered’). The search for other possible verbal forms can take one of two directions, which although not totally incompatible, are in some cases difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, recognizing an ending -t, comparable to Lyc. -te (or perhaps also -ti if the verb was a present, not a preterite), opens the search for other forms also ending in -t that can be compared with these singular endings or with other endings that in Lycian are also characterized by a -t (for example, the third plural present and preterit endings -ti/-te after diphthongs, such as ºai-ti, ºei-ti, ºai-te / ºei-te). In such cases, the resemblance of the sound context (t after a vowel) regarding the singular ending could make it likely that the outcome in Carian is also t (although this is an optimistic supposition, and disregards possible analogical alterations). The results of such a search are however very limited: in our analysis of Carian inscriptions (Chapter 7), only two forms have appeared that, based on their context, can be interpreted as verbs with these type of endings: (1) not in C.xx 2 (connected there to Hitt. nà(i)-, CLuw. nana- < * PIE *neyH-, so that a meaning ‘he brings/he brought’—3rd sg. present or preterite—could be suggested); (2) ait in C.Ka 2, l. 8, where it appears in a sequence qrdsol“ ait: ait has been tentatively connected to Lycian ait˜e, a 3rd pl. preterite form of the verb a- ‘to made’ (see p. 301). To these two forms one can also provisionally add the word aitusi in C.Ka 5, if segmented ait + usi, although problems arise when trying to establish the meaning of usi. An alternative view—to segment aitu + si—is an attractive solution as it yields a possible imperative form (cf. -tu in Lycian), but it fails to analyse the word si. Other possible forms ending in -t could allow a similar interpretation. A good example is 1aitk, also in C.Ka 2, if segmented 1ait=k), but the verbal stem cannot be established as we are unsure of the phonological value of the initial letter 1. On the other hand, scholars have searched for verbal forms by means of an internal and combinatory analysis of the Carian texts. In this sense, there has been a certain consensus in regarding a sequence repeated in different inscriptions as a possible verbal form: the sequence mdane (Thebes mlane). The fact that this interpretation is based on internal

322

chapter eight

and combinatory grounds explains why it preceded the definitive decipherment of Carian: it was ”evoro“kin who suggested that mdane, mlane was a verb (see for instance ”evoro“kin 1977:124). Following the decipherment, authors such as Hajnal, Melchert and Schürr have followed this line of argument, and in the case of these possible verbal forms they have also added some etymological connections to the functional basis of the hypothesis. The most recent and comprehensive treatment of the subject is an unpublished paper by Melchert (Melchert, mdane).7 The interpretation of mdane, mlane as a verb is supported above all by evidence from three brief inscriptions found on objects, where mdane appears to be the one verb of a sentence. By contrast, most of the examples of mlane, from Thebes, are contextually far less clear. All the examples are given below: mdane: “arkbiom : zidks mdane : ÿn-?-mo | den : tumn (E.Sa 1) ntros : prãidas / or“a / nu mdane : uksi wrm≤ (E.xx 7) ÿ≤ biks not : alosd ∞arnosd : jzpe mdane (C.xx 2) mlane: a?q≤baq ewm ≤emot / qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudk≤o mlane (E.Th 10) ?-˚bjqmq ew mlane qeb≤t | u[. . .]ü≤q | qwsal | mqabaewleqo“oski.oms (E.Th 12) lÿ∞se | “i“≤ | mlan[-?] (E.Th 35) dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem≤ (E.Th 44) w. dbo≤kn ewá¬å»e ˚[ (E.Th 47) (cf. also lane in: balewlane | “rbk˚[-]sal | (E.Th 49).

Of the three examples of mdane, the last is of particular importance, since there is a possible conflict with the word not, which I have proposed to be the verb of the sentence.8 In the other two instances, it must be recognized that there is a reasonable chance of mdane being a verb, although there is no reason not to look for a verb in some of the other words that appear in both inscriptions, and that remain uninterpreted. If mdane is a verb, from the inscriptions in which it appears we could take it to mean, ‘to vow, to offer’ or similar (cf. Melchert, mdane). As stated above, Theban graffiti with the variant form mlane are much more obscure. Only E.Th 44, and perhaps also E.Th 35—but 7 I thank H. C. Melchert for allowing me to use this paper. Although I disagree with Melchert’s views on mdane and related forms, I consider his usage and analysis of the forms superior to Hajnal’s (see Hajnal 1997b:151–157), who arbitrarily separates mlane from mdane and does not include mda forms in his study. 8 Indeed, there is no reason why the inscription should not contain two different verbs, not and mdane

morphological features

323

note the lack of a final letter—offer apparently complete and brief texts in which mlane could be a verb. In the remaining examples, it appears after a sequence ew, very close to the form ewm, which is also typical in the Thebes corpus. This creates the possibility of a different segmentation of ewmlane: ewm + lane, instead of ew + mlane. The example E.Th 49 introduces even more confusion: the sequence ewlane, analyzed as ew + lane, supports both ew and lane as isolable words in ewmlane. A possible compromise, and perhaps the correct solution, would be to isolate three elements: ew + m + lane. This would allow different combinations: ew + m, ew + lane, m + lane and ew + m + lane.9 The difficulties of analysing mdane as a verb begin when other, less favourable factors become involved: besides mdane, the sequence mda appears repeatedly in C.Si 2: . . . eri : pisñoi mda : pñmnn≤ñ : pda/∞m≤uñ ∞i “aoyr∞ri mt∞elã / ñmailo mda lrHñ : stspñ vacat / sm“s[-5-] sb añmsñsi mda (C.Si 2a)10 Moreover, in C.Ha 1, a sequence md can be easily segmented:11 smdÿbrs | psnlo | md orkn tÿn | snn

As I have argued (see Adiego 1994a:54–55, 2000:140), this mda/md seems almost inseparable from mdane, a theory also expounded by Melchert in his unpublished paper. In fact, he interprets md- to be the lexical root of all these alleged verbal forms. Melchert even extends the presence of this root to the form mln in C.Ka 5, unifying md, mda, mdane, mln under a common root *mVld- (by assuming a *-ld- > -ndprocess in the forms with d ), which he compares with Hitt. mald-12 ‘vow, solemnly pronounce’, but also ‘dedicate, give’. As for the different endings of the md-family of words, Melchert (mdane) offers the following analysis: mln as a preterite third plural from *mVld-onto;13 mda as a present third singular (used as a preterite) with an ending parallel to Hittite -ài in maldài; -ne would be an enclitic object pronoun (following Schürr 1996a:66).

9 Given the difficulties regarding the segmentaton of the (possible) elements that make up ewmlane, I enter this in the Glossary (Chapter 11) as a complete word. 10 Cf. also C.Hy 1a dymda, but in this latter case I am not sure of the segmentation dy mda. 11 ºmd º also appears as a sequence in other inscriptions (C.My 1 (?), C.Si 2, C.Ki 1: note also in the first word of C.Ha 1), but the contexts are too obscure (C.My 1, C.Ki 1) or simply too unlikely (C.Si 2, C.Ha 1) to allow us to isolate md as a word. 12 As Melchert recalls, the connection mln = Hitt. mald- was already suggested in Hajnal (1997:152). 13 Without discounting the possible interpretation as a present (< *mVld-enti).

324

chapter eight

In Adiego (2000:140), I argued against this interpretation of md/mda/mdane/mlane as a verb, and I believe that the objections formulated in that study are still valid: it would be very unusual not only that the same verb was used in very different classes of texts (dedicatory inscriptions on objects, visitors’ graffiti, a public decree, the heading of a list of priests . . .) but also that the same verb was used at least three times in the same inscription (the decree from Sinuri, C.Si 1). Thus if we were to accept this interpretation we would be obliged to acknowledge both an excessively polysemic or general meaning for md-, and an unrealistic lack of lexical variety in Carian. For this reason, I choose to recognise in md/mda/mdane/mlane a functional word or a chain of functional words. If one wants to retain the interpretation of md- as a verb, the only remaining possibility would be to see it as an auxiliary, lacking any lexical meaning (cf. Adiego, ibid.). I am however more inclined to categorise md/mda/mdane as a chain of particles; in Adiego (1994:54–55) I already introduced the idea of analyzing mdane as a chain of introductory particles followed by two enclitic pronouns, -n(accusative) and -e- (dative), although I now believe that an analysis of -ne as a unique enclitic pronoun, as suggested by Schürr and Melchert, is perhaps more plausible. In any case, md would remain as particle chain m-d—documented tel quel in C.Ha 1—where one could tentatively imagine a connection with the Lycian introducing particle me for initial m-. It is true, nevertheless, that this comparison is a mere desideratum, since the behaviour of Lycian me vs. Carian m- would be totally different in terms of the order of constituents: whereas Lycian me always appears in the first or second position in a clause,14 Carian m- can seemingly be placed anywhere.15 Besides mdane (and variants), other forms have been considered possible verbs on the basis of the context in which they appear. Perhaps the most likely of these to in fact be a verb is uiomln, documented in the Kaunos bilingual inscription (C.Ka 5), and possibly also in C.Ka 2 [ui?]omlã and C.Ka yomln, if these forms are interpreted as pure variants of uiomln. It is possible that this word is the Carian form corresponding to the verb ¶doje in the Greek part of the bilingual, although this does not necessarily mean that the Carian version had a literal 14

See Melchert (2004), s. v. me. The interpretation of mdane as a chain m+da+ne, where m stands as a particle, is consistent with the tentative analysis of the Theban form ewmlane as ew+m+lane (analysis based on the independent existence of ewlane and ewm, see above p. 323). 15

morphological features

325

correspondence to the Greek one (indeed, other possible analyses of uiomln have been envisaged, see Chapter 11 s. v.). Of the different attempts to explain uiomln, perhaps the most convincing is the proposal made by Hajnal and Melchert to isolate a verb, mln, a preterite third plural of a stem, ml- < *mVld-, so that mln could come from *mVld-onto (cf. Melchert, mdane). One of the advantages of this analysis is that it can be applied to another of the words to have been identified as a possible verb (Adiego 2000:142, see here p. 304): pisñ (in the sequence pisñoi mda) in C.Si 1a. In Adiego (2000), pisñ was also interpreted as a preterite third plural with the meaning ‘they gave’, formed from verbal root pi -, equivalent to Hitt., Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije- ‘to give’, followed by an iterative suffix -s- and a personal ending -ñ. The form would therefore be almost parallel to the Lycian, tusñti, a present third plural of an iterative stem tus-, created from tuwe-. Both the function and the meaning proposed for pisñ are consistent with the context: the form appears following the onomastic formula of the Hekatomnids Idrieus and Ada at the beginning of a decree, so a suitable translation might be ‘Idrieus (son) of Hekatomnos and Ada (daughter) of Hekatomnos gave . . .”.16 This would mean that pisñ could contain a preterite third plural ending -ñ from *-onto, parallel to -n in mln. Other possible verbal forms (ñmail in C.Si 1a, cf. Adiego 2000:142; nu in E.xx 7) have been suggested on very hypothetical grounds, and they will not be discussed here. To summarise, the results of the search for verbal forms in Carian are currently very uncertain. We can establish, with the utmost caution, only three possible endings: -t as a preterite (or present) third singular ending, and -t and -n/ñ as preterite (or present) third plural endings (the first after the diphthong -ai, the second in other contexts, similar to those that in Lycian become -ñte/-ñti ).

16 In Carian: [—]ryin ∞tmño≤ : sb ada ∞tmño≤ eri : pisñoi mda . . . As for eri, it could be a preverb or a noun (direct object of pisñ ?), see above p. 304.

CHAPTER NINE

THE GENERAL VOCABULARY AND THE PROPER NAMES

A. General Vocabulary Our knowledge of Carian general vocabulary is unavoidably very limited; we have already seen (Chapter 2) that the indirect sources provide us with a very small number of glosses, and these in turn, despite their seemingly reliable origins (they appear to date back to Greek authors of Carian origin), remain uncertain insofar as none of them has been identified in the Carian inscriptions up to now. As for the direct documentation, the only texts that can be interpreted with any degree of confidence are a number of brief inscriptions that contain exclusively, or almost exclusively, onomastic formulae. It is true that some of the longer texts must contain essentially Carian common words, but they are in general impossible to analyse. In this necessarily brief section, I will limit myself to collecting in a synthetic way the general vocabulary that arises from an analysis of the inscriptions (see Chapter 7): further details about these forms and about others, which are interpreted more hypothetically, will be presented in the corresponding entries of the Glossary (Chapter 11). Given the typology of a great number of Carian inscriptions, it is not surprising that one group of the common words whose meanings we can establish belongs to the semantic field of kinship: we know the Carian words for ‘son’, mno-, ‘father’ ted, and ‘mother’ en, although in the case of these two latter terms, the interpretation is based solely on the combination of an etymological connection with other Anatolian dialects and the suitable, but unique, context in which they appear (E.Me 38 and E.Me 32, respectively). No other kinship terms have been identified directly in the Carian inscriptions, and we can only speculate that the personal names quq-Gugow and ksbo-Xasbvw might also be the common words for ‘grandfather’ and ‘grandchild’, on the basis of the good Lycian parallels xuga ‘grandfather’ and xahba ‘grandchild’. Due to the funerary character of many Carian texts, a collection of words has been compiled which refer to the funerary stele or, more generically, to the tomb: upe/wpe/upa, ue, ≤jas/≤as, s(i)di. However, no

the general vocabulary and the proper names

327

clear etymological connections can be established for any of these words (see Chapter 11 ss. vv.) and it is impossible to specify the exact meaning in each case. The only definite word to have been identified for different objects is ork-, which appears on two bronze phiales in accusative (orkn), hence it must mean directly ‘phiale’ or more generically ‘bowl, receptacle’. Also secure is the identification of øtr- as the Carian word for ‘person, self ’. Apart from these few words, most other items of Carian general vocabulary have been identified based on merely hypothetical analyses of the texts, which are not necessarily accepted by all the scholars. For example, I have argued for mso- as the Carian word for ‘god’. The connection is formally suitable (cf. CLuw. mà“san(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)- and particularly Mil. masa-), and has good parallels in Carian onomastics (msnord-), but it relies on my own interpretation of C.Hy 1, where it is found. This problem is particularly evident in the case of Carian verbs; we have already seen (Chapter 8) how difficult it is to find verbal forms in Carian, so practically all the possible examples of verbs are in fact dependent on a concrete interpretation of certain Carian inscriptions, which are in general very difficult to analyse. The clearest form, ÿbt in C.xx 1, points to a verbal stem ÿb-, ‘to offer’, but this interpretation is essentially based only on the good parallel ubete ‘offered’ in Lycian. Similar situations arise in the case of other possible verbs, such as ait, which would seem to indicate a stem a- ‘to make’ (= CLuw. à/àya-, Lyc. a(i)-), or pisñ, compared (see above Chapter 8) to CLuw. piya-, Lyc. pije- ‘to give’. Needless to say, in cases like this, there is a clear danger of resorting to circular arguments: if we take the example of the latter form, we can establish a meaning ‘to give’ for an alleged verbal form pisñ only on the basis of an etymological connection, yet we then believe it plausible to claim Carian has a verb pi- ‘to give’, which in turn confirms a genetic relationship between Carian and the Anatolian languages! Lacking more concrete evidence (bilingual texts, convincing combinatory analysis and so on), these forms—usually hapax legomena in uncertain contexts—must be used with great care, and must be included in our analysis only as provisory and hypothetical possibilities. On functional words (demonstrative and relative pronouns), I refer to Chapter 8. To those forms we can add the clear identification of a copulative conjunction: sb (to be connected to Mil. sebe, ‘and’).

328

chapter nine B. Proper Names

As stated repeatedly in this work, the area that yields the greatest volume of information is Carian onomastics: the sources, both direct and indirect, provide a large number of proper names, currently the most valuable information on Carian available. Carian onomastics can be analysed in two different, but complementary and interrelated ways. Firstly, diverse stems and suffixes can be identified through an internal analysis of the compounding and derivation mechanisms that clearly intervene in their formation. Secondly, many of these names can be totally or partially compared to the rest of Anatolian onomastics, both from the first and the second millennia B.C. Given our scarce knowledge of Carian common vocabulary, the first approach yields very limited results: we are only able to establish some regular patterns, both in composition and derivation, from a purely combinatory analysis of the onomastic materials, and the meaning of the elements—lexical stems, suffixes—that we isolate cannot be established. Yet despite its limitations, this method of analysis is not altogether worthless, insofar as it allows us to identify some recurrent procedures in the formation of proper names. A good example is the series of stems that appear combined, giving rise to a number of very characteristic compound proper names, as the table of the p. 330 is intended to show. We find here a set of first elements (i)d-, par(a)-, pun-, “ar-, etc. that in general never appear as independent words and that are used alongside a set of second elements (quq, u≤ol, etc.), which are for the most part also documented in a simple, non-compounded, form. This implies a different functional nature of first vs. second elements, a possibility that can be confirmed in at least those cases where an etymological explanation is plausible (see below). More difficult is to establish possible derivation procedures without the use of comparative evidence. The segmentation of suffixes is not always easy, and it is also difficult to specify in some cases whether we are dealing with a suffix or a lexical stem in composition; for instance, the useful list of suffixes, created by Blümel using only this approach, and included in his corpus of Carian personal names (Blümel KarPN: 32–33), offers some elements that can confidently be considered (on the basis of an etymological approach) lexical stems, and not suffixes (-biw, -muhw).1 In any case, several suffixes can be well established from 1

It must be said, however, that Blümel, very cautiously, does not speak of ‘suffixes’:

the general vocabulary and the proper names

329

directly and indirectly attested personal Carian names: -ol (Greek -vllow/-vldow, -vlliw), -s(i)- (Greek -assiw), -om (Greek -vmow). As for place names, the well known suffixes -(V)ssow and -(V)nda are abundantly attested. Comparison with the other Anatolian proper names offers more promising results. As I explained in Chapter 2, the research on Anatolian onomastics during the last century demonstrated not only the existence of a clear linguistic unity to which Carian onomastics belongs, but also the Anatolian Indo-European character of this linguistic unity. In other words, an important part of this geographical and chronological onomastic continuum can be confidently analysed etymologically, since a lot of lexical stems, suffixes, and morphological procedures of the Anatolian Indo-European family can be identified. Three excellent examples of this type of interpretation are the decisive book of Laroche on Cuneiform Anatolian personal names (Laroche: LNH), the equally influential work of Houwink Ten Cate devoted to Lycian personal names (Houwink Ten Cate 1961), and finally the contribution of Zgusta (Zgusta 1964b), which although cited less frequently, is nonetheless very valuable. Comparison of Carian proper names with the rest of Anatolian onomastics therefore not only provides us with a greater capacity for combinatorial analysis, but also allows us to establish the meaning of many lexical and functional elements that intervene in their construction. In the following pages, I will offer (in a non-exhaustive, but in my opinion sufficiently representative way) examples of this latter approach by collecting several lexical elements of Anatolian origin that can be identified in the Carian name system, and which generally also appear in the known inventories of proper names from the rest of Asia Minor. This exposition is very similar to that presented in Adiego (1993a), where Houwink Ten Cate (1961) was used as a model,2 but in this case, the names directly attested in Carian inscriptions are also included.3

the list appears in a section entitled ‘Komposition und Wortbildung’, although true suffixes appear mixed together with these lexical stems. 2 Names with no indication of origin must be taken as Carian. 3 The reasons for this inclusion are given in p. 15.

a[rb]ikarm

“arwljat

wliat/wljat Uliatow, Oliatow

u≤ol-/w≤olUssvllow

u≤ol/w≤ol

Panuassiw

Others

Ekamuhw, Ejamuhw Xeramuhw

Saruassiw

idyri∞-

ydiq-/yriq/yri∞-/-yd∞

idmn(-s) idmuonidyes-

Aktadhmow

Others

kdu≤ol(-“)? tdu≤olpsu≤olYussvllow Karusvldow Maussvllow

prpwri∞? Senurigow

Saurigow “aÿdiq“ayriq“rwli-

pñnmnnPonmoonnow?

Panablhmiw

Par(a)ussvllow parÿd∞ paraeymparyri∞ parpeym Paraudigow

dw≤ol-, idu≤ol Idussvllow

Aktauassiw Aktaussvllow

-uassiw

“aru≤olSarus(s)vllow

dbiks-

piks-

wli/jat-

“(a)r-

“rquq-

dbikrm, dbkrm

pik(a)rm

p/bik(a)rm- p/biks-

Saussvllow

“arkbiom-

dquqIdagugow

quqGugow

quq-

“a-

Panamuhw

-muhw

pnu≤ol-/punw≤ol -pnw≤ol-, pnu≤olPonussvllow

paraibrel-

Imbarhldow kbjomKebivmow

kbiom/kbjom-

p(u)n-

Pan(a)-

par(a)-

(i)d-

Akta-

Ø

ibrel-

Carian Compound Proper Names

330 chapter nine

the general vocabulary and the proper names

331

1. Theophores A type of personal name very widespread in Anatolian onomastics is the theophore: we find god names used directly as personal names, dvandva compounds in which two god names are associated¸ compounds consisting of a personal name and a lexical element, nouns derived by suffixation from a god name, and so on (see the enlightening study by Laroche LNH:282–295). § 1. 1 (Hitt., Luw.) Arma, Carian armoArma is the Hittite and Luwian Moon-god (Laroche NDH: 80). This god name is now also documented in Carian, in the dvandva form armotrqd- from Hyllarima (C.Hy 1).4 Its use in the formation of proper names is commonly seen in the languages of the second millennium as well as those of the first millennium. Carian PN Ermapiw < Arma + piya (§ 3.1) = Armapiya (Laroche LNH nº 135). Cf. Ermapiaw (Zgusta KPN § 355–20, Lycia), Armapiaw (KPN § 97–3, Lycia, Cilicia), Armapia (fem., KPN § 97–4, South of Phrygia-Lycia). a) Other instances (not in Caria) of Arma, either alone or in composition with muwa-, nani-, etc.: Houwink Ten Cate (1961:132–134), In Hittite and Luwian: Laroche (LNH:290) b) The variant Erma- (besides Arma-, Arma-) of the Carian name and others, is usually attributed to the analogical influence of the Greek divine name ÑErm∞w (already Kretschmer 1896:361). c) The Egyptian flavour of the name Ermapiw (Sayce 1887[92]:122) was considered by Masson as merely coincidental, because the name can be satisfactorily analysed from an exclusive Minor Asian point of view (Masson 1959:167–170). However, Hornblower (1982:357, n. 35), though accepting Masson’s views, wonders if in cases such as this a sort of homonymy could influence the choice of the name.

§ 1. 2. Luw. Tar¢unt-, Lyc. Trqqas, Mil. Trqqiz, Carian trq(u)d- Cf. Hitt. Tar¢uThe Anatolian Storm god. The name has a good PIE etymology (*terh2‘to cross’, ‘to pass’: in Anatolian ‘to overcome’, *térh 2-u- from a -u-present).

4 Although I prefer to interpret armotrqd- as a theonym representing a divine paredra due to the context in which it appears, I do not completely rule out the possibility that it could be a personal name.

332

chapter nine

The god name is directly attested in Carian: trqude C.Ia 3, ?/trqd/? C.Ki 1, armo-trqd- C.Hy 1. At least in Iasos and Hyllarima, it is most likely that we are dealing with the divine name itself. Place name Tarkondar//a// deducible from the name of a syngeneia Tarkondare›w (Mylasa). More dubious are Konodvrkond//a// possible place name, from a name of phyle ≤ Konodvrkondevn in Mylasa, Otvrkond//a//, from a name of a phyle ÉOtvrkonde›w. a) Internal analysis of Tarkondar//a// is not clear: Tarkond+ar(a)-? (perhaps better than Tarkon+dar(a), Adiego 1993a:28). b) In Konodvrkond(a), Otvrkond(a), neither the internal structure nor the origin of v vocal are clear (the connection with Hitt. ¢anna- ‘grandmother’, Adiego 1993a:28 is very hypothetical). For the second name, a prothetic o- could be postulated (Adiego 1993a:28),

§ 1. 3. Lyc. natrº-, god name to be identified with Apollo The existence of a god name natrº, equivalent to Apollo, can be deduced from the well-known ‘translation’ ÉApollÒdotow of the indigenous name Natrbbij˜emi in the Xanthos bilingual. The god name seems to appear directly in Carian in the form ntro- (see Chapter 11, s. v.), and can also be recognized also as intervening in the formation of several personal names from Greek sources. The clearest example is Neterbimow, undoubtedly the same name as Lycian Natrbbij˜e mi. Also of this family are the names Nvtrassiw and, less clearly, Nutar. § 1. 4. CLuw. màssan(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa- ‘god’, Carian mso(?). Cf. also Sidetic masara = yeo›w A clear isogloss shared by Luwian, Lycian, Milyan and Sidetic (the presumed ‘Luwic group’) in contrast to Hittite, Palaic and Lydian, is the common word for ‘god’. While Hittite and Lydian have forms inherited from PIE *dyew- (Hitt. “iu(n)-, secondarily thematic forms “iuna-, “iuni-; Lyd. civ-), the Luwic dialects present a form masa-, mà““an(i)-/*masa(na) (> Lyc. maha(na)-), masar(a/i)-, of unknown origin and with serious formal problems (is masa- the original form, and ma““an(i)-, *masanamassar(a/i)- secondary formations?). Place name Masan≈rada, msnord-, possible ethnical name from this city. This can be analysed as a compound name with a second element equivalent to Luwian *(a)radu-, see below. Place name Massvn//a// (name of a demos in Mylasa). Massariw (Carian name of Dionysos), PN Massarabiw, seem to contain an r-form of the stem, as in Sidetic. Massarabiw can be analysed as *masara-bi- (-bi = -piya, see below § 3. 1).

the general vocabulary and the proper names

333

2. Some Nominal Stems § 2. 1. CLuw. annara/i- ‘forceful, virile’, ànnari- ‘forcefulness, virility’, etc. Cf. Hittite innarà-, ‘forceful’. Perhaps this stem can be seen in the place names Naras//a// and Naruandow5 and in the name (or title?) naria- (see Chapter 11. s. v.). Cf. also Narbaw? Cf. also the name Andarsvw, if the explanation of -nd(a)r- as a result of *-nr-, given in p. 262, is accepted. § 2. 2. CLuw.(?) *(a)raduThis element can be identified in two Arzawian names, Tarhundaradu and Piyammaradu. The status of (a)radu- is unclear: it could be a god name related to the name of the Luwian stag-god, Runt(iy)a- (a more recent form of Kurunta-), but this connection is far from certain (cf. Laroche LNH:282, n. 6). Schürr has claimed to identify this element in the Carian place name Masanvrada, ethnic (?) msnord-, assuming that the place name derives from a PN Masanvradow, the name of the city’s founder according to the information given by Stephan of Byzantium (Schürr 2002). Although the validity of this latter point must be viewed cautiously (Masanvradow could be an artificial creation from the place name), Schürr’s argument is in my opinion quite persuasive. Schürr also proposes that the same element can be identified in the Carian place name Parembvrda (analysed as Paremb-vrda, Schürr 2002:170), and that the possibility also exists that other Carian names in Greek sources that include a sequence ardº, ordº belong to this family of nouns (place name Ardur//a//, PN Ordomaw). Even the PN Arduberow/ardybyr-, if analysed as Ard-uberow/ard-ybyr- (not Ar-duberow/ardybyr-) on the basis of ybrs- (C.Hy 1), could contain the same stem.6 § 2. 3. CLuw. arpa- ‘confusion, tumult, strife’, Lyc. erbbe- ‘strife, battle’7 The stem CLuw. arpa-, Lyc. erbbe- intervenes in the formation of proper names, but it is only attested in those of the first millennium, as Houwink

5 Neumann (1998:185), by contrast, connects Naruandow to an alleged Hitt. naru-, a type of plant, but this latter word is actually Akkadian (*narû, a type of malt, see Tischler 2001, s. v.). 6 According to Melchert, “the element -arada may be analyzed as a derivative of the word seen in Hittite ard- ‘companion’. A Luwic *arada- would mean ‘community’, which seems appropriate for a placename. The further derived -aradu would again mean ‘companion’ or similar” (pers. comm.). 7 Not ‘defeat’ (Adiego1993a:30), see Melchert DLL.

334

chapter nine

Ten Cate has pointed out (1961:147–148). The basis for his association of -arba-/-arbh- with this Luwian word is a passage in Milyan of the Xanthos stela: trqq[i]z : esetesi[k]e er[b]besi[k]e: lusasi : esene[m]la (TL 44d 12–13). Houwink Ten Cate takes the same view as Laroche, who associated erbbe with Luw. arpa-. As for esetesi[k]e, CLuwian also offers a possible direct cognate: a““atta““i-, Gen. Adj. of a““atti- documented as divine epitheton (dÀla“ a““atta““i“ ). It is clear therefore that er[b]besi[k]e and esetesi[k]e are genitive adjectives used as epithets of god Trqq[i]z. The key to connecting erbbe-/arpa- with onomastic forms is the Cilician proper name Trokoarbasiw (KPN § 1512–22) where the same god name and one of his epithets appear together in composition. PN Arbhssiw, Arbhsiw. The same name in Cilicia: Arbasiw (Zgusta KPN § 85–1). § 2. 4. HLuw. hasu- Lyc. xahba- ‘grandson’ PN ksbo, Greek Xasbvw. Both Carian and Lycian point to a secondary -à stem (Carian -à > -o, cf. armo) from the u-stem attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian (cf. Melchert DLL). Cf. also Kasbvlliw, apparently derived from ksbo/Xasbvw. § 2. 5. CLuw. ¢àpa/i- ‘river’, *¢apài- ‘irrigate, water’ It possible that the sequence kb- (Greek Kebº, Kbº) that appears in some Carian names (kbjom-Kebivmow and “arkbiom, kbdmu-, Kbondiassiw, Kbvdhw, and the indigenous place names kbid- for Kaunos and kbo- for Keramos) is the Carian result of this Luwic stem: at least from a phonological point of view, the correspondences are appropriate, and in the case of the two place names, a denomination ‘river’, ‘irrigated (land)’ or similar is very suitable (cf. Schürr 2001a:64 for Keramos-kbo). § 2. 6. CLuw. ¢ù¢a-, Hitt. ¢u¢¢a-, Lyc. xuga-, Mil. xuga- ‘grandfather’ This word intervenes in the formation of the onomastics of the second millennium: Huhanani (LNH nº 379), Huhhaziti (LNH nº 385), etc. It is also documented alone in the Lycian name Kougaw (KPN § 717). Carian: quq, Greek Gugow. dquq, Greek Idagugow. The (first element, (i)d- Ida-, is well documented as a proper name, either alone (Ida KPN § 451–1, Eida KPN § 451–2, both in Lycia) or as the first element of compounding: Carian idu≤ol-, du≤ol- = Greek Idussvllow, dbiks-, dbkrm-; Lyc. Eida-ssala, Ida-zzala KPN § 451–10, cf. Salaw, Zzala KPN § 1358–1). I now have little doubt that the name of the Lydian king GÊghw must

the general vocabulary and the proper names

335

have the same origin. The problem posed by the phonetics (Lydian does not conserve PIE laryngeal *h2, unlike the other Anatolian dialects) can be overcome if we imagine the name to have a Carian origin. As a result, the long discussion in Adiego (1993a:40–41) does not need to be repeated here. § 2. 7. CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- ‘open country’ im(ma)ra/i- (only verified as common word under the form of Gen Adj im(ma)rassa/i-) is the CLuw. word corresponding to Hitt. gimmara-. It appears in the formation of a proper name already found in Cuneiform sources: Immaraziti (Laroche LNH nº 450). In the onomastics of the first millennium it adopts the forms imbr-, imbar-, etc., id est, with the development of an epenthetic labial. A possible form without labial could be the place name Imrougara (KON § 374, Eastern Phrygia; cf. Zgusta KON:198–199). In Lycian direct documentation, the word seems to appear as ipre. With this in mind, the proper name Ipresidi is very interesting, as it could correspond exactly to Luw. Immaraziti. Most instances of proper names containing this element from the documentation of the first millennium come from Lycia and Caria. Place name ÖImbrow (promontory near Kaunos), from the pure stem. PN para-ibrel, Imbarhldow. This corresponds formally to CLuw. im(ma)ralla-, adj. attested fragmentarily (im-ra-a[l ) and as a place-name (URUImralla), see Melchert CLL s. v.) PN ibrsi-/ibarsi-/brsi-, Imbrasiw, Imbrassiw, Imbarsiw. It corresponds to the CLuw. Gen. Adj. im(ma)ra““a/i- or to a further derivation of this word (*im(ma)ra““iya-). ÖImbramow, var. ÖImbrasow, Carian name of Hermes, Steph. Byz. s. v. ÖImbrow. ÖImbrasow is also the name of a river in Samos. Schürr’s objections8 to connecting these forms with Luw. im(ma)raare in my opinion not overly convincing. § 2. 8. Lyc. mere- ‘law’, maraza- ‘judge, arbitrator’ Panamara. Cf. also PN Mareuw, Marow. § 2. 9. Hitt. muwa-, Luw. *mùwa-, Mil. muwa- ‘might, power’ This word, common to both Hittite and Luwian, is one of the most characteristic terms in the formation of proper names from all periods.

8

Schürr (1991[93]:171), (2001b:104–105).

336

chapter nine

Before the discovery of Hittite and Luwian it had already been identified by Kretschmer (1896:332–333). It was Friedrich (1931) who connected the Anatolian names of the first millennium with the names in -muwa of the second millennium, and who identified muwa- as a common word in Cuneiform texts. Carian: MÒtulow, mythic founder of the Carian city Samylia (Steph. Byhz. s. v. Samul¤a, Zgusta KPN § 976: not in Blümel KarPN) = Muwatalli-, a name well documented in Cuneiform sources (Laroche LNH nº 837).9 With first element pan(a)-/pun(a)-: pñmnn-, Greek Ponmoonnow, Panamuhw, Panamuaw, an inhabitant of Kos (Zgusta KPN:695), place name Pounomoua. Pormounow is most likely a more recent form of pñmnn-, since it

appears as the name of a Syngeneia in the temple of Sinuri, where pñmnn-/Ponmoonnow is documented in an earlier inscription.10 The sound change required is commonplace (nm > rm by nasal dissimilation). Other compounds with muwa- as a second element: uksmu-/wksmu-, a Carian name corresponding to Ouajamoaw (Zgusta KPN § 1141–2, Isauria, Cilicia), Ouajamvw (Zgusta KPN § 11141–2, ibid.). Perhaps also kbdmu-. muwa- as the first element in mwsat-, corresponding to Lydian Mousathw (Zgusta KPN § 987a), Pisidian Moushta, Moshta (all equivalent to CLuw. Muwaziti- Laroche, LNH nº 840?). Less clear is myze-, Mouzeaw. § 2. 10. Hitt. peda-, Lyc. pdd˜en- ‘place’ Some Carian place-names show a stem Phda-, Pida-, Peda- that can be connected with Hitt. peda-, Lyc. pdd˜e and, ultimately, with a ProtoAnatolian *pédon ‘place’, from PIE *pédom (> Greek p°don, etc.). The stem also appears in the place names from Cuneiform sources, Petassa and Pitassa (See Laroche TA1, nº 49). Phdasa, Pidasa (pl. nt.) (§ 1054–1). According to Blümel KarON, s. v., at least two places bore this name: Phdasa near Halikarnassos, and Pidasa in Grion. Pedanass//ow//. For the reading, see Blümel (KarON:177, n. 56), not Pidº (Adiego 1993a:43)! 9 It has been suggested that MÒtulow not only corresponds to the name Muwattalli but is in fact also the name of a Hittite king, transmitted by the Greek sources. The question has been raised in the more general problem of the historicity of the Trojan War (Motylos was a king who received Paris and Hellena during their flight to Troy). 10 The equivalence of the two forms was already suggested by Robert (1945:98).

the general vocabulary and the proper names

337

Pidossus § 1058–1, an island near Halikarnassos. Cf. Perhaps also the personal name Pedvldow. In Adiego (2000), I proposed that the same stem could be seen in C.Si 2 pda∞m≤uñ/?, see Chapter 11, s. v. § 2. 11. Luw. *pi¢a- ‘luminosity, splendour, might’ This stem appears in Luwian in this form only in personal names (See Melchert CLL), but various derivatives are verified in common lexicon ( pi¢amma/i-, pi¢a““a/i-, pi¢atta/i-).11 The etymological interpretation is clear: pi¢a- comes from PIE *bheh2- ‘shine, glow’ (OInd bhà´ ti ‘shines’, Greek fa¤nv ‘make visible’ etc.). The stem had already been identified by Houwink Ten Cate (1961:156–157) in the Anatolian onomastic system, particularly in the Luwian area (at this point, however, the meaning of the root was unknown). Carian: piks-, dbiks-; Pigassvw. pikre-/pikra- = Greek Pigrhw (var. Pikrhw, Pitrhw?). This is a frequently documented name (either in this form or through derivates, as Pigrassiw, § 1255–5, Pamphilia), not only in Caria but also in other countries of Asia Minor: Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphilia, etc. The only possible cognate in Cuneiform sources is Pi¢irim, the name of a Cilician king, Laroche LNH nº 977, but this is an isolated form (cf. Adiego 1993a: 36–37). pikarm-/pikrm-, dbikrm-/dbkrm-, cf. the Lycian name from Greek sources Pigramiw, Pigramow (Zgusta KPN § 1255–1/2). Pijvdarow (internal structure not clear). It is very doubtful that the two Carian place-names, Peigelasow and Piginda, belong to this group. § 2. 12. CLuw. pùna- ‘all, totality’, cf. also CLuw. pùnata/i- ‘all’, Lyc. punãma- ‘totality’ In Anatolian onomastics from all periods, two elements, puna- and panaare repeatedly found. Laroche (LNH:32) considered them two variants of a single form, the meaning of which was unknown at the time. Nowadays, a quantifier meaning ‘all, totality’ or similar seems to be well established for Luwian pùna- (and derivative pùnata-), and for Lycian

11 The last two only in the form of GenAdj, with -a““a/i- suffix attached to them (Melchert CLL, s. v.).

338

chapter nine

punãma-. The same meaning can be determined for the onomastic component. Whether pana- was actually a variant of puna- is less clear (panadoes not appear as a common lexical item in Luwian). If this is the case, the alternation must be very old, because both puna- and panaare found in the Cappadocian onomastics, from the beginning of the second millennium. Pùna- in Carian: PN pñ-mnn- = Pon-moonnow, Por-mounow. Place name Pouno-moua For these forms, and particularly for Pormounow, see above muwa-. pnu≤ol-/pnw≤ol-/pnw≤ol- Pon-ussvllow. More doubtful: pnyri≤ru-. It is possible, although very hypothetical, that the common noun also appears in Carian direct documentation in the form punot (see Chapter 11 s. v.). Pana- in Carian: Pana-blhmiw. For the second element, cf. Lyc. -plemiw, -plemi, -pl mmi ˜ ˜ mi, Esedepl˜emi (KPN § 1387–1/3). in Sedeplemiw, Sedepl m Pana-muhw. For the second element, see above § 2. 9. Pan-uassiw. For the second element, cf. Akta-uassiw, Sar-uassiw. Place name Pana-mara (for -mara, see above § 2. 8). § 2. 13. CLuw. ura- ‘great’, HLuw. ura/i-, cf. Hitt. ura/i- ‘great’ This adjective appears in the Anatolian onomastics of both the second and the first millennia (cf. Houwink Ten Cate 1961:164–165): Laroche LNH: nº 774: Massanaura, nº 872 Nattaura, n 1431 Ura, 1437 Urawalkui, etc. Oraw (Lycian; Zgusta KPN § 1100–1), Ouramoutaw (Cilician; Zgusta KPN § 1169), etc. In Carian it can be recognised in the personal names urom-, urm-, wrm-, and in the place name Urvmow (converted to Eurvmow, Eurvpow by the influence of Greek). However, the etymological connection of this latter form to ura- is challenged by the existence of variants such as Kuròmew and huròmew (see Blümel KON s. v. Urvmow) because the initial k-/h- would then remain unexplained. § 2. 14. Hitt. *walli-, walliwalli- ‘stark, mighty’ (Cf. CLuw. wallant- ‘fit, capable’)? Some Carian names point to a stem that could be reconstructed as *wala/i-:

the general vocabulary and the proper names

339

wliat/wljat, Greek Uliatow, Oliatow (documented directly in Carian as wliat/wljat) Oaloalow (about this form, see Adiego 1993b). At least in the second case, a direct connection with the reduplicated stem Hitt. walliwalli- seems very likely (< PIE *äuelH- ‘to be stark’). For Uliatow, however, there is also a possible relationship with the family of Hittite walli-, ‘glory’, CLuw. walli(ya)-, HLuw. wa/iliya-, ‘to exalt’ (see Melchert CLL s. v.), from PIE *äuelh1– ‘to choose, to select’ (if we are not actually dealing with the same root). 3. Verbal Stems § 3. 1. Hitt. pài-/piya-, Luw. piya-, Lyc. pije-, Pal. pi(sa)-, Lid. bid- [pid-] ‘to give’ All the Anatolian languages in which the verb ‘to give’ is found contain a similar form that has a clear common Proto-Anatolian origin. Its use in onomastics is also common to all Anatolian linguistics and very productive, above all in the formation of theophores: Tarhundapiya (LNH nº 1267) = Tarkumbiou (gen.; KPN § 1512–13, Cilicia). Ermapiw, cf. above armaMassarabiw cf. above massan(ì)As well as the simple form of the stem, we also find in Anatolian onomastics forms that can be clearly denoted ‘Luwic’ participles in *-mo/i- (cf. CLuw. -mma/i-, Lycian -me/i-): Laroche LNH: nº 980 *Piyamad KAL, nº 981 Piyamaradu, Lycian Armadapimiw, Pisidan Kouadapemiw, etc. In Carian: Neter-bimow = Lyc. Natr-bbij˜emi = ÉApollÒdotow (in the trilingual inscription of Xanthos). 4. Adverbs As previously mentioned, Carian contains some characteristic compound names that were systematized in the table above (p. 330) only on combinatory grounds. A comparative approach serves to confirm that, at least in two cases ( par(a)-, “ar-), the first elements of these compound names can easily be connected to adverbial stems in other Anatolian Languages. The use of adverbs as the first elements of compounds is also verified by the rest of the Anatolian proper names, particularly in Lycian (see Houwink Ten Cate 1961:172–175 and the forms cited below).

340

chapter nine

§ 4. 1. Hitt. parà, CLuw. parì, HLuw. para/i ‘forth, away’, Lyc. pri ‘forth; in front’. This adverb appears in Carian as para-/par-, Greek Para-/Par-: para-eym, para-ibrel, par-ÿd∞- (= Greek Para-udigow), paryri∞-. Para-ussvllow, Par-ussvldow. Probably also in the place name Paremborda (Neumann 1988:191, cf. also above p. 333). § 4. 2. Hitt. “ara, “èr, Luw. “arra, “arri, Lyc. hri “ar-/“r-, Greek Sar- in Carian: “ar-u≤ol-, Greek Sar-us(s)vllow “r-quq, “r-wli — Sar-uassiw. For the second element, cf. Pan-uassiw. The following forms might perhaps be considered as a variant of Sar-: “a-, Greek Sa-: “a-yriq- (= Greek Sa-urigow), Sa-usvllow Note the parallel use of hri- in the Lycian personal name Hrixttbili (besides simple Ktibilaw, cf. Melchert DLL, s. v. Hrixttbili ). 5. Lallnamen As mentioned in p. 13, Lallnamen—hypocoristic names whose structure recalls the language of children, characterised by open syllables, with or without different patterns of reduplication—were identified by Kretschmer (1896) as characteristic of the Anatolian onomastic system. Hittite and Luwian evidence confirms the antiquity of such formations in Anatolian (see the exhaustive analysis in Laroche LNH:239–246). Carian is no exception: we can identify a considerable number of names that can be interpreted this way, although mostly in Greek sources, since only one Lallname, ada, is directly attested. I refer here to Appendix C, where it will not be difficult for the reader to identify them in the list of Carian names from indirect sources. Many of these Lallnamen seem to obey simple structures of the type aC(C)a (Aba, Abaw Abbaw ada-Ada, Adaw Appa) and reduplicated CaC(C)a (Nana, Nanaw, Papaw, Tata, Tataw, perhaps also forms in -h, -o- and -v if these stem vowels are secondary: Nanh, Nannh, Nannow, Nannow, Nannv), while others show somewhat different patterns (Minnaw, Nonnow) or are derived from suffixes of unknown value (Amiaw, Ammiaow, Nannixow, Papiaw, Tatarion, etc.).

the general vocabulary and the proper names

341

6. Suffixes Extensive evidence exists of the use of different suffixes in the formation of Anatolian proper names, but as Laroche (LNH:327–328) rightly pointed out, their analysis is hampered by diverse factors: the impossibility of explaining their actual origins and values, the risk of incorrect segmentations (“les dangers du découpage formel” in Laroche’s words),12 and the great variety of stems to which they can be attached, which prevents us from identifying the derivational mechanisms behind the construction of such names. These problems are compounded in the case of the indirect documentation, insofar as the Greek adaptations may be masking a more complex situation. A good example of this is provided by sigmatic suffixes; taking into account only Greek evidence, one might be tempted to consider a single suffix -ssi- both for Arlissiw and for Imbrassiw. Direct evidence, however, available for these forms but not for others, indicates two different Carian suffixes, -“- for arli“-Arlissiw and -si- for (i)b(a)rsi-Imbrassiw. Note the parallel situation in Lycian, where -si- in Mollisiw and Triendasiw from indirect sources, treated as a single suffix (-zi [sic]) in Houwink Ten Cate (1961:183–184), in fact corresponds to two Lycian different suffixes, -se/i- (Mullijese/i-) and -zi- (Trij˜etezi-).13 It is because of these doubts that I shall limit myself to listing a very reduced number of suffixes, citing only those cases where the identification of the suffix seems clear. § 6.1 Place name suffixes -assa-, -nda- (Cuneiform sources) = -(a)ssow, -(a)nda (Greek sources) These two suffixes intervene in the formation of a large number of Anatolian place names, documented both in the second and the first millennia. As we have seen (cf. p. 13), it was Kretschmer (1896) who, systematizing former ideas, rightly concluded that the Anatolian place names in -ss-, -nd- widely attested in Greek sources belonged to a single linguistic family spoken in Anatolia. Later, the (re)discovery of the Anatolian languages of the second millennium allowed us to confirm this theory, thanks to the appearance of numerous place names in -assa-, -nda-, as well as authenticating these suffixes as purely Indo-European

12

Laroche (LNH:328, m. 25). It is even possible, if we accept Neumann’s analysis (Neumann 1978:64; cf. also Melchert DLL, s. v.) that Mullijesi- is actually a compound name from *mulli+ esi ‘shall be strong’, parallel to Aruwãtijese/i- ‘shall be high’ (*aruwãti + esi ). 13

342

chapter nine

Anatolian. This is not the place to address a further aspect of Kretschmer’s views, namely the possible link between both suffixes and the suffixes -ss-, -ny- that appear in the Greek linguistic area, a very complex question that remains unresolved.14 The place names formed with these suffixes are systematically collected in two key works by Laroche: TA1 (-assa- place names) and TA2 (-nda- place names), where they are also interpreted linguistically in the framework of Anatolian. Both suffixes are widely found in Carian place names from Greek sources, which should come as no surprise, since the south-western part of Asia Minor is one of typical areas for -assa- and -anda- place names in Hittite sources (Laroche TA2:72). Given that the exact location of many place names form Hittite sources is unknown, it is impossible to ascertain which of these place names in -assa- and -anda- were situated within the limits of Classical Caria, but at least in two cases we can establish a connection, thanks to recent progress in the study of Hittite geography: (1) the identification Millawa(n)da with Milhtow, an Ionian city situated on the Carian coast, is now widely upheld as a result of the definitive equivalence Lukka = Lycia, and the subsequent reordering of the map of Western Anatolia;15 (2) the proposal of identifying Mutamutassa from Cuneiform sources with the important Carian city of Mylasa (Carruba 1996:23, Hawkins 1998:27), which although subject to a certain amount of disagreement, is in my opinion consistent with the newly configured Hittite geography. It seems unnecessary to quote here the wealth of examples of Carian place names constructed with these two suffixes. I refer the reader in this case to Appendix C, where a complete list of names attested in Greek sources can be found. As for direct Carian sources, there are no certain examples of this type of place name, the only possible example being the contentious alos(d) ∞arnos(d) if it is equated to Halikarnassos (see Chapter 11, s. v. alos). A detailed analysis of Carian place names in -(a)nda- and -(a)ssow, with some very interesting suggested interpretations, can be found in Neumann (1988).

14 See the recent treatment by de Hoz (2004), who rightly criticizes the tendency to oversimplify the problem and argues against a genetic relationship between both pairs of suffixes. 15 Cf. Melchert (2003:6): ‘. . . it no longer seems possible to deny the long proposed identifications of Apasa with Ephesos and Millawanda with Miletos’.

the general vocabulary and the proper names

343

§ 6. 2 Luwic participle suffix (CLuw. -mma/i-, Lyc. -me/i-) Laroche categorised as original Luwian participles a number of personal names with a -mma/i- suffix in Cuneiform sources (for instance Ayami/aimi, from Luw. à/-àya- ‘to make’, Laroche LNH:530), although not all the names that contain these suffixes can or indeed should be considered participles. Names in -mow, -miw are abundant in the Anatolian onomastics of Greek sources, and Carian is no different. However, as in the case of the second millennium names, it cannot be automatically assumed that these are original participles, as this would constitute an oversimplification. Rather, it is more advisable to interpret them in this way only if their internal structure is clear and the base to which the suffix is attached can be confidently identified as a verbal stem, in a similar fashion to the abovementioned name Ayami/Aimi. In assuming this more accurate analysis, the possibilities of recognizing participles among the Carian names with nasal labial suffix decreases dramatically. In fact, we are left with only one Carian name that can be interpreted as a participle with absolute certainty: Neterbimow, thanks to its clear correspondence to Lyc. Natrbbij˜emi, a transparent name formed by a theophore (Natr-) and a participle of the verb pije- ‘to give’ (see above § 1.3 and § 3.1). The search for other participles in Carian names yields only hypothetical results: it is plausible that names such as qtblem-/Kutbelhmiw/ Kotbelhmow, or those ending in -om (kbiom-Kebivmow, arliom-Arlivmow, etc.) may come from participles, but without a clear identification of possible verbal stems in the sequences preceding -m-, it remains indemonstrable. § 6. 3. -alla/iAnatolian personal names characterized by a suffix -alla/i- are well attested (Laroche LNH:329–330). As with -mma/i names, formations of different origin and meaning have converged under an apparently single -alla/i- suffix, which could also be valid in the case of Carian comparable forms. This suffix appears in Carian with the form -ol (Greek-vll-/-vld-) and perhaps also -el (Grek -hld-). I refer the reader to Chapter 6, p. 258 for a more detailed phonological explanation of these Carian forms; here it is sufficient to note that a vocalic change à > o, commonly seen in Carian, serves to explain the very particular form -ol- taken by this suffix in this Anatolian dialect. Examples of -vll-/-vld- in Greek sources are extremely numerous (see examples in Appendix C),

344

chapter nine

and it is also well documented directly in Carian, particularly by the family of u≤ol-Ussvllow names, which undoubtedly contain this suffix even though the origin and meaning of the stem to which they are attached (u≤ º) is by no means clear.16 For other possible suffixes recognizable in Carian place names (-ulia-, -um-), and a tentative connection to Hittite-Luwian onomastics, see Neumann (1988:389).

In Adiego (1993a:44–45), ”evoro“kin’s proposal of connecting u≤-/Uss- to CLuw. wà“u- was accepted. Now I have serious doubts about this connection, insofar as it does not explain why the peculiar sibilant sound ≤ appears here. The explanation of Carian genitives in -≤ as arising from *-ºsi- (see p. 313) points rather to a *usi- stem as a starting point, although without discounting other possibilities. Could u≤- < usito be related to CLuw. u““a/i-, Lycian uhe/i- ‘year’? 16

CHAPTER TEN

CARIAN AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN ANATOLIAN LANGUAGE

Despite the scarcity of linguistic information obtainable from the analysis of Carian inscriptions, several traits can be observed that clearly place Carian within the Indo-European Anatolian family of languages. More precisely, some of these traits situate Carian in the group of socalled Luwic dialects, integrated by Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian, Milyan, and probably also Sidetic and Pisidian, which share a series of phonological and morphological features that differentiate them from other Anatolian dialects (Hittite, Palaic, Lydian). The present chapter will be devoted to summarizing all of these traits found in Carian. For this task, it is essential to use evidence drawn from onomastics, in order to create a more complete picture of the Luwic character of Carian. I am aware of the risk involved in basing an argument on the etymological interpretations of proper names, but I think that a significant number of these interpretations can be confidently used to demonstrate the proximity of Carian to Luwian, Lycian and the rest of the Luwic dialects. I refrain from offering an exhaustive treatment of this subject because I consider it to be more realistic, and also more illustrative, to focus on a reduced, but very meaningful set of traits that clearly establish the Anatolian—and particularly Luwic—character of Carian. Beginning with phonology, a good indication that Carian belongs to Anatolian is the preservation of the PIE laryngeal *h2, a trait that differentiates Anatolian—with the exception of Lydian—from other Indo-European languages. As shown in Chapter 6, in Carian (and also in Lycian and Milyan) this PIE laryngeal becomes a tectal stop (lenited in some positions, at least in Lycian and Milyan), in contrast to Hittite and Luwian, where it appears as a (velar?) fricative (Hitt. CLuw. ¢, HLuw. h). The examples are taken from onomastic materials, but they seem convincing: pikº/bikº in piks, dbiks, pikre (Pigrhw), all from PIE *bhèh2vs. CLuw. pi¢º (see p. 337), quq = Lyc. xuga, ‘grandfather’, vs. CLuw. ¢ù¢a-. Specifically Luwic is the satem treatment of the PIE palatal voiceless stop *∞ (CLuw., HLuw. z, Lyc., Myl. s, against k used elsewhere

346

chapter ten

in Anatolian). Evidence for this treatment in Carian (> s) is provided by the demonstrative pronoun s(a)-: sa, san, snn, comparable to CLuw., HLuw. za- vs. Hitt. ka-. We can also consider as Luwic the loss of PIE *· in (i)brº = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- ‘open country’, against its preservation in Hitt. gim(ma)ra- (< PA *·emro-). In derivational morphology, a remarkable trait that once again situates Carian in the Luwic subgroup is the presence of an ethnic suffix -yn-/-ÿn-, easily interpretable as the Carian counterpart of Luwian -wanni-, HLuw. -wani-, Lyc. -ñni, Mil. -wñni-. In inflectional morphology we can also identify the ‘i-Mutation’, i.e. the insertion of -i- (probably from PIE *-ih2-) before the ending (replacing the thematic vowel if this exists) in the nominative and accusative singular and plural of the common gender nouns, a widespread phenomenon in the Luwic subgroup. It is true that this -i- does not appear as a result of the apparently defective vowel notation in Carian,1 but its effects can be detected in the umlaut displayed by the vowel of the preceding syllable in the word ted, ‘father’, for which an original a can be postulated, therefore *tadi- > *tedi- > ted- (cf. Lyd. taada- ‘father’ vs. Lyc. tedi- ‘id.’, also with umlaut). Another possible example of ‘i-Mutation’ can be considered for the Carian genitive -≤, if we accept Melchert’s very plausible etymological explanation (from the possessive *-assì-, in fact an ‘i-mutated’ form of the possessive *-asso-). Melchert’s explanation of -≤ also implies that Carian employed this sigmatic adjectival suffix to build nominal complements, which represents another clearly Luwic feature of Carian: it is in these languages (Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian) that we find this suffix used as a replacement for the inherited genitive endings, either in all cases or in the great majority, depending on the dialect. Other Carian case endings are equally consistent with this theory. While the acc. sg. -n informs us merely of the IE character of Carian (-n < PIE *-m), the common gender acc. pl. -“, if really indicative of a *-ns origin (as the preservation of the sibilant seems to suggest, vs. its loss when it comes from *-Vs in the nom. sg.), allows us to see the proximity of Carian to Luwic: *-i-ns is the ac. pl. c. ending behind CLuw. -inz, HLuw. <-iza> (= -/inz/), Lyc. -is, Mil. -iz. The presence of the Carian palatoalveolar (?) sibilant -“, instead of simple dental -s,

1

Regarding this problem, see above pp. 238–242.

carian as an indo-european anatolian language

347

suggests a secondary change of s, perhaps due to the contact with n, similar to the case of CLuw, HLuw, Mil. -z, irrespective of which sound actually represents z in each of these dialects, a question that is the subject of much debate. Verbal morphology cannot really be used as evidence of Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian language, since the insufficient direct examples noted in Chapter 8 ( ÿbt, ait, etc.) produce a clear risk of circularity: we interpret them as verbs mainly on the basis of their formal resemblance to Lycian (ubete, aite), so it is dangerous to use them as evidence for the classification of Carian. As for indirect examples, the name Neterbimow, a Carian version of the Lycian Natrbbij˜e mi (see above p. 343), is a good, although isolated example that suggests the existence in Carian of a participle suffix -m, comparable to CLuw. -mma/i-, Lycian -me/i-, itself another example of a Luwic trait. Several words of the scarce vocabulary from Carian inscriptions whose meaning can actually be confidently established also show clear parallels to the rest of the Anatolian languages: en ‘mother’ = Hitt. anna-, CLuw. ànna/i-, Lyc. ˜ene/i-, Lyd. ˜ena-; ted ‘father’ = CLuw. tàta/i-, HLuw. tata/i- Lyc. tede/i-, Lyd. taada- (vs. Hitt. atta-); armo- ‘Moongod’ = Hitt. arma-, Luw. *Arma- (see Melchert CLL, s. v.), Lyc. armma-, ˜ cf. Lyd. armta‘belonging to Arma’. Specifically Luwic are mso- ‘god’ (?), cf. also ethnic msnord- = CLuw. mà““an(i)-, Lyc. maha(na)-, Mil. masa-, Sidetic ma≤ara (dat. pl.), and the form of the name of the Storm-god, Carian trq(u)d- = CLuw. Tar¢unt-, HLuw. TONITRUS-hut- (= *Tarhu(n)t-) Lyc. Trqqñtvs. Hitt. Tar¢u-. Finally, a meaningful isogloss shared by Carian and Milyan is the copulative conjunction Car. sb, Mil. sebe ‘and’ (cf. also Lycian se ‘and’). Therefore, although the number of Carian phonological, morphological and lexical traits that can be used for comparative purposes is limited, they are in my opinion significant and consistent enough to classify Carian as an Indo-European Anatolian language, closely related to the so-called Luwic dialects (Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian, and Sidetic). This comes as no surprise: even before deciphering Carian, the analysis of Carian proper names from indirect sources had already allowed some scholars to identify Carian as an Anatolian dialect, and to point out its affinities with Lycian and other southern Anatolian dialects, but we can now, for the first time, actually confirm this linguistic classification of Carian on the basis of direct testimonies from the language.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CARIAN GLOSSARY

A list of the words found in the Carian inscriptions is presented here, accompanied by a brief interpretation (whenever possible) and a short bibliographical note. It should be taken into account that in the cases of inscriptions without interpunction, the entry is the result of my segmentation, and must therefore be taken as hypothetical and viewed with caution. The following is the order of the letters (in transcription) adopted here: a b b d d e g i/j k ∞ l l m n ñ ã o p q r ® s ≤ “ t t u/w y/ÿ/ z H 1

Note that the letters for the pairs of vowel/semivowel sounds have been put together. This allows us to clearly show the equivalences between forms such as w≤ol≤ (Egypt) and u≤ol≤ (Caria proper, where a specific letter for /w/ does not exist). I exclude from the glossary the sequences consisting of one or two letters that appear in contexts that are very fragmentary, isolated and impossible to interpret. The coin legends are also excluded (see the appendix by K. Konuk). aba ?d ? C.Ka 8 abrq∞[ E.Ab 14 absims C.Ka 5 Pronominal form? In Adiego (1998a:25) absiº is tentatively connected to Lyc. ehbi < *ebesi ‘his’ (therefore a∞t[ms]kmt absiº = ‘his (for ‘their’?) descendents’), but this hypothesis leaves final ms unexplained.

carian glossary

349

ada C.Si 2a Nom. sg. in the formula ]ryin ∞tmño≤ sb=ada ∞tmno≤ ‘Idrieus of Hekatomnos and Ada of Hekatomnos’. Fem. PN: Ada (the Carian queen, Hekatomnos’ daughter and Idrieus’ sister and wife): Ada in Greek sources, a typical Carian feminine name (cf. Aba, Alasta) documented particularly in the regions of Mylasa and Stratonikeia (Blümel KarPN:9). Schürr (1992:138), Adiego (1994a: 40).

adymd“ C.Si 1 Singular or plural nominative? Verbal form? Cf. Adiego 2000:152. Final -“ could point to a nominative-accusative ending. Melchert (apud Hajnal (1995[97]:18, n. 15) suggests that it could be a verb in a reflexive construction (‘he made for himself ’): ad (‘made’, cf. Lyc. ade) + md (particle) + “ (reflexive); y would be an anaptyctic vowel. Cf. dymda in Hyllarima?

ait C.Ka 2 Possible verbal form: 3. plur. pret. ‘they have made’ = Lyc. aite (Car. ai- = Lyc. a(i) ‘to do, to make’?). Melchert (1998:35). See also Adiego (1998a:25, 2000:140–141).

aitusi C.Ka 5 Perhaps related to ait. A segmentation aitu could offer a good connection with Anatolian imperatives (cf. Lycian tãtu ‘they must put’): therefore aitu, ‘they must make’, ai- ‘to do, to make’ = Lyc. a(i) ‘id.’), but the resulting final word si would remain unexplained. Adiego (1998a:25).

ai[-]iqom E.AS 7 The segmentation of the word is very doubtful.

350

chapter eleven

Reading and segmentation according to Schürr. Ray (1994:203), starting from the older reading psÿ≤ainiqom, proposes comparing psÿ≤ainiº to the Egyptian PN P3-sb3-¢‘j-m-njw.t, Greek Cousennhw, literally ‘the star arisen in Thebes’, although he recognizes that no explanation can be given for the isolated three final letters qom. Vittmann (2001:58) mentions Ray’s proposal without further commentaries.

akymyduÿeryly[vacat]d C.xx 3 A complete inscription whose segmentation into words remains unclear. The meaning of the whole inscription is unknown. On this inscription, see Schürr (2001c). Schürr points out that the abundance of vowel signs present here is very unusual in Carian. He isolates a form akymudu as a possible 3rd pl. imperative, with a < */-ndu/ ending comparable to Hittite and Luwian corresponding endings. For akymy-, he proposes a connection with Hitt. ak(k)- ‘to die’. All these proposals are formulated within the framework of a very speculative interpretation of the possible content of the text. In any case, a segmentation akymydu ÿeryl[ is likely, given the unusual sequence ºuÿeº. The syllabic iteration y . . . y recalls the similar situation in ardybyr≤ (as well as dtÿbr, k≤atÿbr, smdÿbrs), so that the first y in these cases could in fact be secondary (epenthetic?): akymyduº < *akmydu-. Could this inscription actually be a sort of alphabet model (with the names of letters: a-ky-my-du, etc.)?

a∞akowr E.AS 4 a∞mnnartnyr C.Ka 2 Van den Hout (1999) claims to recognize here a clitic chain a=∞=m=n, to be compared with Lycian parallel forms. Cf. his analysis of a∞t[ms]kmt.

a∞t[ms]kmt C.Ka 5 a∞tmsk[m-]d C.Ka 2 The respective integrations are dependent on each other, but given the textual connections between C.Ka 2 and C.Ka 5, they seem to be well founded. Some doubts persist, however, regarding the final letters of

carian glossary

351

each word. Perhaps we are dealing with two differently inflected forms of the same stem. In C.Ka 5, the corresponding Greek text makes the meaning “descendants” a plausible interpretation. See Adiego (1998a:24) and here on p. 300 for a very speculative attempt at an etymological explanation (a∞t- = Hitt. katta, mskm-, to be related to Luw. ma“¢a¢it- ‘growth, prosperity’, the overall sense of the word being ‘offspring, Nachkommenschaft’). A radically different approach is taken in van den Hout (1999): he suggests analysing this form as a clitic-sequence, in which he underlines =ms=, interpreted as a pl. dat. of a 3rd sing. personal pronoun. As for the rest of the elements (segmented as a=∞=t=ms=km), he suggests some possible Lydian parallels.

a∞t[ C.Ka 5 It could be the same word as in the two preceding entries (a∞t[mskm . . .]). alos E.Me 45 alosd C.xx 2 Attested in both cases in agreement with the word ∞arnos: alos ∞arnos, alosd ∞arnosd. Tentatively connected with the Carian place name Halikarnassos (ÑAlikarnassÒw), but this raises serious formal difficulties. Halikarnassos-identification already included in Adiego (1990:135–136). With more reservations: Adiego (1993a:245–246), (1994a:40). The duplicate ending -d points clearly to two different nouns (substantive + adjective or vice versa). In Adiego (2000:154) alos-d ∞arnos-d is interpreted as an ablative singular (Carian -d = Luw. -ti ) ‘from Halikarnassos’; alos ∞arnos in E.Me would be merely the name of the city in nominative (see here pp. 279, 315). Other proposals: a salutation or wish formula (Gusmani 1979a:222), (1986:62); Schürr (1992:153) interprets -s as a dative ending, which makes an analysis of these forms as place names difficult.

amt [ C.Tr 1

352

chapter eleven

an C.Tr 2 ann C.Ka 3 These forms appear in two funerary inscriptions. In C.Tr 2, an is accompanied by sidi, a typical word found in funerary contexts. In C.Ka 3, it appears preceded and followed by two personal names in genitive (“orus and i brs≤ ). The simplest interpretation is to consider an/ann a demonstrative that functions as adjective modifying sidi in C.Tr 2 (‘this tomb(?)’), and as substantive governing the personal names in C.Ka 3 (‘this of ”oru (son of ) Ibrs’). For this interpretation, see Adiego (1996:161) and here pp. 290, 320. Also, Hajnal sees here a demonstrative (Hajnal (1995[97]:20, from */eno-/). Adiego (loc. cit.) suggests other possible forms of the pronoun in ankbu“ and añmsñsi. Schürr (1996c:158) proposes that ann C.Ka 3 designates the tomb, but given an sidi of C.Tr 2, the interpretation as demonstrative seems more suitable.

ankbu“ E.Bu 1, E.Bu 2 Perhaps a title or a kinship term (in nominative), given the contexts in which it appears. See Schürr’s etymological attempt (Schürr 1996[98]:97–98] to connect ºkbu“ with the kinship terms kombow, kombion ‘grandson’, attested in several late Greek inscriptions from Caria, and related to Hitt. kappi- ‘little’ by Neumann (1961:61). anº would then be a sort of prefix modifying in some way the kinship term (cf. epñ-n˜e ni in Lycian, from n˜eni ‘brother’).

an[ C.Ka 2 añmsñsi C.Si 2a Perhaps to be segmented into añ msñsi. In such a case, a comparison with Luwian anni“ ma“sana““i“, Lycian [˜e ]ni mahanahi ‘mother of the Gods’ would be striking. In any case, the reading, based only on the RobertDeroy edition of C.Si 2, is not absolutely certain. Connection of msñsi to Luwian ma““ana““a/i-, Lycian maha(na)- suggested in van den Hout (1999:39).

carian glossary

353

aor≤ E.Me 1 (aor[≤]), E.Bu 6 PN in genitive, Carian adaptation of an Egyptian name ( J-Ór literally ‘O(?) Horus’, [a˙òr], Greek Avw (?), see DNb:55). Vittmann (2001:42).

apmen E.Me 44a PN in nominative, Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Óp-mn (literally ‘Apis is perpetual’, *[˙apimèn], Greek ÑApimenhw, see DNb:781). ap[---]ws E.Me 23 PN. It is not clear if it is a nominative of a s-stem, or a ‘s-case’. a?q≤baq E.Th 10 a[rb]ikarm≤ E.Me 23 PN in genitive. If the form is correctly completed, it gives a Carian name corresponding to Lycian (in Greek sources) Arpigramow (Zgusta KPN §104–1). The name would therefore be a compound ar-bikarm-. For the second element, cf. pikarm-/pikrm-. Completed and connected to Arpigramow by Kammerzell (1993:214), this view is commonly accepted: see for instance Schürr (1992:139), Adiego (1994a:31) (with further remarks on the structure of the name).

ardybyr≤ E.Me 52 PN in genitive. Corresponding to the Carian name in Greek adaptation Arduberow. A name belonging to the family of names in -(d )ybr-. Connection to Arduberow already suggested by Ray (1982b:189), but seriously hampered by his decipherment system (†argébér≤ ). See Adiego (1993a:225–226), (1994a:40). The doubts about the exact reading raised in Schürr (2001c:119)—who suggests an alternative interpretation a | rdybyr≤ )—are not particularly convincing, and in any case do not alter this correct identification. On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224–227).

354

chapter eleven

are“ C.Ia 3 Probably a PN in singular nominative (but a plural nominative cannot be ruled out). It is possible that the beginning of the word is incomplete. arie ?≤ E.Me 38 PN in genitive. arjom≤ E.Me 42 PN in genitive. The connection with the PN arliom- is unclear: is it perhaps a variant, parallel to ar´ri“, ari“ (Arrissiw), as well as arli“ (Arlissiw). Independently of this possible connection, compare also arjwith the Carian PNs Ariauow or Aridvliw. Schürr (1992:134) suggests attributing the alternation arjom-/arliom to a dialectal variation.

ari“ C.St 1 ari“≤ C.Hy 1a PN in nominative (ari“ ) and genitive (ari“≤ ). Correspondence to the Greek adaptation Arrissiw is confirmed by the evidence of the bilingual inscription C.Hy 1, where the name Arrissiw appears in the Greek part (although the individuals mentioned are not necessarily the same). Given this identification, ari“ could be a variant spelling of ar´ri“, q.v. Both ari“-Arrissiw and ar´ri“ could be variants of arli“-Arlissiw, as arjom against arliom. See arjom for further remarks. ar∞ila≤ E.Me 39 PN in genitive. Perhaps a Carian adaptation of the Greek PN ÉArx°laow (Dor. ÉArx°law). For the use of ∞ for a Greek velar stop, cf. urs∞le-. Greek origin already suggested by Ray (1994:202)]. For an interpretation as an purely Anatolian name, see Adiego (1993a:240).

carian glossary

355

arliom≤ E.Me 9 (arlio[m≤]), E.Me 43b PN in genitive. It is the Carian name that appears as Arlivmow in Greek sources. For the identification, see Adiego (1990:134; 1993a:231; 1994a:35).

arli“ E.Ab 24 arli“≤ E.Me 9, E.Me 15, E.Me 51 PN in nominative (arli“ ) and genitive (arli“≤ ), corresponding to Arlissiw in Greek sources. Cf. moreover the Carian place name Arlissow. The stem seems to be the same as arliom-. Note also the possible variants ari“, ar´ri“. Connection to Arlissiw already stated in Faucounau (1984:236). Cf. Adiego (1993a:230; 1994a, n. 3.3).

armon E.Me 8a, C.Eu 2 In E.Me 8a, noun in nominative: ‘dragoman, interpreter’, corresponding to Egyptian p3 w˙m ‘dragoman, interpreter’ in this bilingual inscription. In C.Eu 2: function and meaning unknown (it would be very unlikely for it to have the same meaning as in the other example). For a detailed discussion of the problems posed by the exact meaning of Egyptian p3 w˙m, see Vittmann (2001:50–52), who argues convincingly for the sense ‘interpreter’, and dispels all the doubts raised in Masson-Yoyotte (1956) and subsequent literature about this interpretation. Janda (1994:180–182), starting from the alleged meaning ‘herald’, proposes for armon- an origin from *ar(V)ma-wanni-, where *ar(V)ma- would correspond to HLuw. ataman-/adaman-/ ‘name’, assuming a semantic change, ‘name’ > ‘determination, decision’. The meaning ‘dragoman’ corresponds even better to the semantics of this explanation (perhaps ‘interpreter’: ‘who names the things in another language’) but the sound changes assumed are ad hoc. For armon in C.Eu 2, see above p. 309.

armotrqdos C.Hy 1a Most probably a dvandva-like compound formed by the divine names armo- (Carian version of the Anatolian moon-god Arma-) and trqd- (the

356

chapter eleven

Anatolian Storm-God, Hitt. Tarhu-, CLuw. Tarhunt-, Lyc. Trqqñt-, see below, trqude). A (possessive?) ending -os (= Luw. -a““a-?) has been added to the compound stem armo+trqd-. On this form, and for a different possible analysis, see Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
ar®i“ E.Bu 1(ar[®]i“), E.Bu 2 PN in nominative. The identification with the Carian name from Greek sources, Arris(s)iw, depends on the exact value of the letter transcribed as ®, but this is now reinforced by the certain equivalence ari“ (q.v.) = Arrissiw in Hyllarima (where there is no letter ® ). The connection of all of these forms to arli“-Arlissiw is unclear (cf. also arjom- and arliom-). Adiego (1992a:34). See also Adiego (1994a:35).

artay≤ E.Me 22 PN in genitive, to be compared with Artaow, although the Greek adaptation as an o-stem could mean that the stem is not exactly the same. Cf. also Arthumow (Zgusta KPN § 109, Blümel KarPN:11), which can be analyzed as a stem, *artay-/artey-, followed by a suffix, -m-. The final part of Arthumow recalls names such as paraeym- parpeym-. For art º/Artcf. also Artuassiw, Aryuassiw. Adiego (1993a:231–232; 1994a:35).

artmi C.Tr 2 PN in nominative(?). It could be the Greek goddess name ÖArtemiw, directly used as personal name (cf. Lydian artimu≤, also attested both as personal and god names), or a variant form of the Carian name Artimhw. The problem posed by the relationship between the Greek divine name (of Asian origin?) Artemis, and the family of Anatolian names collected in Zgusta KPN § 108 (Arteimaw, Arteimow, Artimhw, etc.), is not at all clear, and cannot

carian glossary

357

be dealt with here (see remarks in Zgusta KPN:102 and Adiego-DebordVarinlio
artmon C.Tr 1(art{ }mon) PN in nominative. It is the Carian adaptation of the Greek name ÉArt°mvn. Note the identical adaptation in Sidetic (artmon). The Greek PN ÉArt°mvn is well documented in Caria. For instance, it appears in the well-known inscription of Halikarnassos, SGDI 5727, where it is used by individuals whose father’s name is clearly Carian (ÉArt°mvnow toË Panamuv, ÉArt°m[v]na Territò, etc.). For the identification, see Schürr apud Adiego (1994, 3.49).

a≤b≤t E.Th 13 a[-]mob[ C.Al 1 a[--]a[----]om≤ C.St 1 The final part clearly indicates a PN in genitive (for the ending, cf. names such as arliom-, kbjom-, etc. bal E. Th 49 PN? baqgk[. . .] C.Ia 5 bebi E.Th 23 It seems to be an incomplete form of bebint, see the following entry.

358

chapter eleven

bebint E.Th 28 (bebi.nt), E.Th 30, E.Si 4 (be?bint), E.AS 7 Word of unknown function and meaning. In E.Th 28 and E.Si 4 it appears preceded by a diamond-like sign (t, K) whose function is uncertain. Former readings of some of these testimonies raised doubts about the second letter of the word (w ÿ rather than e e), but a unified reading, bebint, must now be preferred (see Schürr 2001b:108). Schürr has argued in different works in favour of an interpretation as a verb (a third singular preterite form, see Schürr 1996a:65) with the meaning ‘to offer’ (Schürr 2001b:108). It is also seen as a verb by Hajnal (1995[97]:18): a 3rd sg. present ‘he sends’ of the verbal root that he also recognizes also in binq (q.v.).

bebnd E.Th 6 Perhaps related to the preceding entry (bebint). bejeym E.Th 28 Perhaps a PN in nominative. As for the final part of the word, cf. the PNs paraeym, parpeym. be≤ol E.Ab 23 PN in nominative. Although no directly comparable form is attested in Greek sources, it recalls other Carian names with -ol (Greek -vllow, -vldow). betkrqit[-- . . .] E.Si 5 bi C.Ka 2 (2×) C.Ka 5 Apparently a conjunction or particle, as it appears in C.Ka 2 following an accusative otr“ (‘themselves’). In this same passage, it seems to be used as a postclitic in correlation: . . . bi . . . bi. Its identification in C.Ka 5 is less certain. Cf. also another example ]bi in C.Ka 2. On the possible different interpretations of bi, see p. 302.

carian glossary

359

bid≤lemsa E.Ab 30 Function and meaning unknown. Not a PN, because it precedes an onomastic formula in nominative. Cf. perhaps [--]msal (E.Bu 1), which also precedes a PN in nominative. Hajnal (1995[97]:23) proposes the segmentation bid≤lem sa, where sa would be a demonstrative (see sa). For the first word, he suggests that ºem indicates a participle.

bij≤≤pe E. Si 8 Probably a PN in nominative. binq C.Si 1 A verb? The reading of the last letter is not absolutely certain. Hajnal (1995[97]:18): ‘ich schenkte’, 1st sg. pret. < */píäiannà-¢a/, to be compared to Hitt, piyannài- ‘to send’. For the same verb also ºbint, → bebint as 3rd sg. present.

bsis E.Ab 30 b?s?ui∞am E.Lu 5 bu∞y[-----]i[-----]i C.Ka 5 bÿ“ E.AS 7 A word that apparently agrees with the following: (esak?dow“ ). A demonstrative pronoun in accusative or nominative plural? The idea of a demonstrative pronoun has been repeatedly defended by Schürr (see Schürr 1996a:69, 2001b:98, 112): b- would come from PA *obó/i-( > CLuw. apa-, Lyc. ebe-) with aphaeresis (as in HLuw. pa- besides apa-, or Lyd. bi- [pi-]). The ending -“ can be compared with -“, the acc. pl. animate ending in C.Ka 5.

360

chapter eleven

bÿta“ E.Si 6 PN in nominative? banol

C.My 1 (2×) PN in nominative. Perhaps the Carian name corresponding to Ibanvlliw in its Greek adaptation. For this possible connection with Ibanvlliw, see Blümel-Kızıl (2004:134), Adiego (2005:85).

bem≤

E.Me 17 PN in genitive. b2o[--]ol“

C.Ka 5 Noun in plural accusative. It appears in a long sequence that corresponds to the Greek formula proj°nouw e[‰nai k]a‹ eÈerg°taw Kaun¤v[n]. Frei-Marek (1997:38–39) try to bring this word closer to 1orsol“ (completing therefore [rs]). However, this solution implies that the initial letter of the word, ÿ (here transcribed by b2), has to be likened to 1, contradicting the theory defended in the present book, that ÿ is a letter for b (see also Adiego 1998a:23). As for the meaning, it hardly can be ‘descendents’, as Frei-Marek suggests, given the clear correspondence otr“ = aÈtoÊw. b2o[--]ol“ must rather be a word at the same level as kbdyn“ (in kbdyn“ sb b2o[--]ol“ ). In Adiego a connection of b2o[--]ol“ with Imbros, the citadel near Kaunos, is very tentatively suggested. See pp. 299–300.

brsi

E.Th 26, E.Th 48, C.Hy 1a brsi≤

C.Hy 1a (2×), C.St 1 PN in nominative (brsi ) and genitive ( brsi≤ ). Carian name rendered in Greek as Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw. Form with aphaeresis or no notation of initial vowel that coexists with the full forms ibrsi-, ibarsi-. Identification now assured thanks to the bilingual inscription C.Hy 1, where both brsi and Imbrasiw appear (although not necessarily referring to the same individuals).

carian glossary

361

Schürr (1991[93], passim). For brsi—Imbrasiw in Hyllarima, see Adiego-DebordVarinlio
dbikrm E.Th 19 PN in nominative. Can be analysed as (i)d- + bikrm. For the first element, cf. d-quq- (Greek Idagugow), d-w≤ol/id-u≤ol- (Greek Idussvllow), d-biks. For the second element, cf. pikrm/pikarm (cf. also Pigramiw, Pigramow in Lycia, Zgusta KPN § 1255–1, 2). Note below the ‘devocalised’ form dbkrm. dbiks E.Th 13 PN in nominative. A compound name formed by d- (see dbikrm above) and biks (see piks[ ). dbkrm E.Ab 34 PN in nominative. A variant form of dbikrm. dmo“bqs E.Si 11 Perhaps a PN. See the study dedicated to this word by Schürr (1996b). There, ºbqs is connected with piks-/biks- and other forms that are derived from PIE *bhè´ hos (see piks-).

dm-?-n E.Th 34 It could be a noun in accusative singular, given the context (prna∞non dm-?-n). dokmmpint E.Th 4 dquq E.Th 44 PN in nominative. It corresponds to Idagugow in Greek sources, a compound name (i)d- (see dbikrm-) + quq- (see quq-).

362

chapter eleven

For this identification, see Adiego (1993a:235; 1994a:35–36). Tentatively compared in Adiego (1995:27, n. 9) with Milyan ddxug[, but the segmentation and the interpretation of this latter form are doubtful (see Schürr 1996b:154).

dr“≤iem E.Th 53 PN in nominative? Initial dr“ º recalls dar“ º in dar“qemorms[. Note that in Thebes d is practically absent, and its function could be assumed here by d.

∂saml-?-?-$o E.Th 16 dtÿbr E.Th 2 PN in nominative. It belongs to the family of names in -(d)ybr- (and variants). Cf. ardybyr-, dybr, etc. On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224–227)

dw≤ol≤ E.Me 35 PN in genitive. This is a variant with aphaeresis (or no notation of the initial vowel) of the name now attested in its complete form in Mylasa (idu≤ol-), which corresponds to Idussvllow. A compound name (i)d- (see dbikrm-) + u≤ol≤ (cf. u≤ol-/ Ussvllow). For this identification, see Adiego (1993a:241). Aphaeresis suggested by Neumann apud Adiego ibid.). Schürr (1996b:154) recalls, in addition to Idussvllow, the Carian name Yussvllow.

dÿbr E.Th 5 PN in nominative. A name belonging to the family of names in -(d)ybr-. On this family of names, see Adiego (1993a:224–227)

carian glossary

363

dymda C.Hy 1a Meaning and function unknown. Cf. in any case adymd“ in C.Si 1. dar“qemorms[

C.St 2 Part of an onomastic formula, like those that precede it in the same inscription? Schürr (2001c:119) proposes the segmentation dar “qem orm s[ and interpreting “qem as a participle. For dar“, if a PN, compare with Andarsvw and probably also Dersvw (see p. 246).

den E.Sa 1 Analysed as a sort of preposition (comparable to Hitt. andan) governing tumn (= ‘for Atum’) in Adiego (1995:21–23). See here p. 287.

drual C.Ka 5 Unclear form. It must correspond in some way to Greek §p‹ dhmio[u]rgoË in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5, but the precise analysis remains unclear. An attractive theory has been formulated independently by Hajnal (1997b:150) and Melchert (1998:37; cf. also 2002:308) that the entire sequence i[--]inis d rual can be analysed as ‘under the ship of Hi[pposth]enes’, with d < *nde = Lyc. ñte ‘in(to)’, i[—]inis genitive/possessive, and rual as a noun corresponding to the title dhmio[u]rgoË. Attempts to find an etymological explanation for rual (Hajnal 1997b:151, from */erowà-/ ‘freeedom’, cf. Lyc. arawa-; Schürr 2001b:109–110, a similar explanation, but starting from a different analysis of the sequence) seem somewhat rash.

emsglpn E.AS 4

364

chapter eleven

en E.Me 32 ‘mother’ (nominative). It corresponds to Lycian ˜eni, Lydian ˜ena≤, CLuw. anni“ ‘mother’. Carian vocalism points to an ‘i-mutation’ stem (*ani-) and subsequent umlaut a > e caused by this i-suffix. For this meaning, see Schürr (1996a:62), Hajnal (1995[97]:21–22). For i-mutation and umlaut, see Schürr (2001b:97) and here on p. 259.

eri C.Si 2a Function and meaning unknown. In Adiego (2000:143–144) it is interpreted as a noun with the meaning ‘tax exemption, ét°leia’, functioning as direct object of pisñoi mda (q.v.). Moreover, a connection with Lycian arawa- ‘tax exemption’ is suggested. Neumann (apud Adiego 2000:144) envisages the possibility that eri could be a preverb identical to Lycian eri. All of these hypotheses are dependent on a particular interpretation of C.Si 2 traced in Adiego (2000), cf. here on p. 304.

esak?dow“ E.AS 7 Very likely to be a compound noun that seems to contain the stem kdow- (cf. kdou≤ in E.Bu 1), usually interpreted as the Carian word for ‘king’ (cf. Lycian xñtawat(i )- ‘king’, and the form KNDWÍ/KNDWS in the Aramaic part of the Trilingual inscription of the Letoon of Xanthos, which is perhaps a direct reflection of the Carian word). See Adiego (1995:18–21) for a detailed discussion of this question. The most compelling point of this interpretation is undoubtedly the coexistence in E.AS 7 of esak?dow“ and pisma≤k (= Psammetichus)—separated by the word mÿqudem— that opens the possibility of interpreting them as ‘the king . . . Psammetichus’, and of linking this inscription to the well-known long Greek graffito, also from Abu-Simbel, in which this Pharaoh is also mentioned. But decisive formal details of esak?dow“ remain unexplained: the value of initial esa-, and the precise function of -“, which seems to agree with the word preceding esak?dow“, bÿ“ and which recalls the ending of plural accusative in C.Ka 5, which would make the interpretation ‘king Psammetichus’ very difficult to argue (see here on p. 294).

carian glossary

365

ewlane E.Th 49 See following entry and ewmlane. ewm E.Th 10, E.Th 13 A typical sequence in Theban graffiti: Cf. sl∞maewm, which can perhaps be segmented into sl∞ma ewm, the incomplete form ewm-?-?-?-?, and the sequence ewmlane. Note also ew in the preceding entry ewlane. See p. 323 for a possible segmentation into two elements ew+m.

ewmlane E.Th 12, E.Th 44 One of the alleged ‘verbs’ in mlane, mdane, q.v. Note that the segmentation is not clear (ew+mlane, ewm+lane or ew+m+lane?), see p. 323. euml ?bnasal E.Bu 2 Analysis, function and meaning are unknown. Cf. eypsal also in Buhen, which would allow us to isolate an element sal. Could be sal and adverb with the meaning ‘here’ (cf., for the ending, Lyc. ebeli, and for the stem, the pronoun sa-/sn-).

ewm-?-?-?-? E.Th 52 See ewm entry. eypsal E.Bu 6 See euml?bnasal above. gkem≤ E.Th 44 PN in genitive grdso[-]i[

C.Ka 2 Probably related to qrds, qrdsol, especially since it appears in a sequence qrds grdso[-]i[ that could constitute a type of figura etymologica.

366

chapter eleven

gdb“laã1i[-]

C.Ka 2 i[---]inis C.Ka 5 PN, probably with s-ending. This incomplete name must be the Carian adaptation of the Greek Hipposthenes, the name of the demiurge in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. Tentatively completed as i[poz]inis (Frei-Marek 1997:31). For this interpretation, see drual. However, an alternative segmentation i[---]ini sdrual (thus Schürr) cannot be discounted. As for the missing letters, FreiMarek’s solution is quite good, but not the only possibility (the use of for Greek sy is impossible to demonstrate).

ialli E.Ab 40 PN in nominative. iarja≤ E.Ab 2 PN in genitive. iasoum C.Ki 1 See here p. 142 on the doubts about the exact reading and a very hypothetical alternative reading.

ibarsi≤ E.Ab 3 ibrsi≤ E.Bu 4 PNs in genitive. Alternate forms of a name corresponding to Imbras(s)iw/ Imbarsiw in the Greek source. For further remarks, see the variant form brsi-. ibrsdr[-] C.Ka 4 The initial sequence is undoubtedly related to the ibarsi-/ibrsi-/brsifamily of words, but both the precise analysis and the segmentation

carian glossary

367

into elements are not clear. Perhaps we must segment ibr-s dr[ and identify here a construction similar to i[---]ni-s drual (‘under the demiurge Hipposthenes’, according to the Greek translation) in C.Ka 5. Connection to ib(a)rsi-family already noted in Schürr (1992:140). Schürr also recalls Imbrow, the name of a citadel near Kaunos (Zgusta KON § 373–1, Blümel KarON:168), and whilst in former works he suggested that ibrsº could be the ethnic name of Imbros, following the discovery of the Kaunos bilingual he prefers to take ibr º as the actual name of the citadel, and to interpret ibr-s dr[u] as ‘(in?) Imbros, ‘the people’ (with *sdru- ‘people’ as the basis for sdrual ‘demiurgos’). However, s is most likely to be an ending, both here and in C.Ka 5.

ibrs≤ C.Ka 3 PN in genitive. The same name as ib(a)rsi-, or a name closely related to it. The doubts about the analysis lie in the absence of i at the end of the stem. It could simply be the result of a defective notation, or perhaps the reflection of a different suffixation (for instance -s- < *-so- against -si- < *-siyo-).

idmns E.Me 33a E.Me 33b PN. Case unclear (nominative of an s-stem, or rather a stem idmn- with a ‘dative’ -s ending?). It seems to be a compound whose first element is (i)d-, cf, idu≤ol-/dw≤ol-/Idussvllow, etc. idmuon≤ E.Me 18b PN in genitive. No parallel forms in Greek sources. It could be analyzed as a compound name: id + muon-. For the first element, see the preceding entry (idmns), whilst -muon- could belong to the family of muwa- names. Janda (1994:176) suggests interpreting this name as a derivative of the Carian place name Iduma by means of the ethnic suffix Luw. -wanni-: ‘aus Iduma stammend’.

368

chapter eleven

idrayridsemdbq C.My 1 Heading of the long inscription of Mylasa, followed by the words mol“ tu∞[, and a list of onomastic formulae. This sequence, undoubtedly constituted by more than one word, remains impossible to analyse. See here on p. 308 for the sequence idrayriº.

idu≤ol≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. Carian name rendered in Greek as Idussvllow. For its analysis, see the variant form dw≤ol-. Blümel-Kızıl (2004:137).

idyes≤ E.Me 63a PN in genitive. Initial id º recalls the lexical element (i)d-/Id-, see dw≤ol-. idym“ C.Ka 4 The final -“ could point to a plural accusative (and also nominative?). A stem idym- recalls the Carian place name Iduma.

idyri∞≤ C.Eu 1 C.My 1 PN in genitive. A clear compound name id+yri∞-, still not attested in Greek sources. For the first element, cf. (i)d-/Id- in dquq, idu≤ol, etc. The second element is the well-known stem yri∞-/yriq- /ÿdiq-/ÿd∞- (Greek -urigow, -udigow). Cf. Blümel-Kızıl (2004:137), who reconstruct a possible Greek adaptation *Idurigow. For a unifying explanation of yri∞-/yriq- /ÿdiq-/ÿd∞-, see pp. 262–263.

inut≤ E.Ab 18 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

369

ionel≤ E.xx 3 PN in genitive. It could contain the same stem as ‘Ionia’, ‘Ionian’. For this connection, see Schürr (1991[93]:173), Adiego (apud Schürr ibid.). In Adiego (1994:49, n.15) a detailed account of the possible process is given: starting from *iona- < *iyauna- < *iyawana- ‘Ionian’ (cf. Lyc. Ijãna-), *-wanawould be the ethnic suffix Luw. -wanni-, Lyc. -ñni, Carian -yn/-on.

irasa E.Si 3 PN in nominative? The context is very unclear. irow E.Me 14, E.Me 16 irow≤ E.Me 27 PN in nominative (irow) and genitive (irow≤ ). Most likely to be a feminine name in E.Me 16 and 27 (see pp. 272–273). As according to Vittmann, a name of Egyptian origin: J.r=w (attested both as a masculine and feminine name), phonetically [iròw] or [ j6ròw]. Vittmann (2001:45). Egyptian origin already suggested in Ray (1994: 202). The Egyptian interpretation for irow now seems preferable to former attempts to analyse it as Anatolian (cf. Ray 1982b:184, Melchert apud Adiego 1995:23, Hajnal 1995[97]:27, n. 38), especially given the difficulties raised by the different proposals of this type (see Adiego 1993a:247; 1995:23–24).

isor≤ E.xx 1 PN in genitive, of Egyptian origin: it is the adaptation of Ns-˙r (literally ‘(s)he belongs to Horus’, phonetically reconstructed *[6s˙òr]; Greek perhaps ÉEsour, ÉEsouriw, etc., DemNb:685). Vittmann (2001:50). Former attempts to connect it to the Anatolian place name Isaura (Adiego 1993a:247) must be ruled out.

370

chapter eleven

iturow≤ E.Me 32 PN in genitive, whose feminine character is clear from the context (the word en ‘mother’ refers to it). Carian adaptation of the Egyptian (both masc. and fem.) PN Jr.t=w-r.r=w (DemNb:70) *[ j6turòw], Greek ÉIyorvw. Ray (1994:202). See Vittmann (2001:45) for the phonetically reconstructed form.

iÿkr≤ E.AS 5 PN in genitive jzpe C.xx 2 PN? It immediately precedes mdane in the inscription. In Adiego (2000:154) it is analysed as a PN in dative. Schürr (1996a:65), takes Jzpe to be the name of the donor of the object (presumably in nominative). Hajnal (1997b:150) interprets the entire sequence alosd ∞arnosd jzpe as a dating formula ‘zur Zeit der ?-schaft von Jzpe’, but he does not explain the precise morpho-syntactical status of jzpe. All the attempts to find explanations for a possible PN jzpe are somewhat speculative: Schürr (1996a:65, n. 14) compares jzpe with the Lydian PN i≤tubelm, and Hajnal (1997b:150, n. 14) recalls the Persan PN Vi“tàspa-/ÑUstãsphw.

kattÿri≤ E.Ab 25 PN in genitive kbdmu≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. Perhaps a compound name kbd+mu-. The first element clearly recalls the place name kbid- ‘Kaunos’ (for the omission of the vowel, cf. particularly the form of the ethnic name kbd-yn-“ ), although it is not clear if the PN alluded directly to the place name or if it contained the common noun from which the place name was created. As for the second element, it seems to be the well-known Anatolian stem muwa-, ‘strength, force’.

carian glossary

371

For the connection of kbd(+mu)- to kbid- ‘Kaunos’, see Blümel-Kızıl (2004:136), who also recall the Carian name from Greek sources Kbvdhw. For a possible Anatolian etymology of all these names in kbº, see p. 334.

kbdyn≤ C.Ka 5 ‘Kaunians’ (in plural accusative). Meaning assured by the Greek part of the bilingual C.Ka 5. An ethnic noun derived from the place name kbid- ‘Kaunos’ (q.v.) by means of a suffix -yn- that corresponds to Lycian -ñni-, Milyan -wñni-, CLuw. -wanni-. Identification as ethnic name and comparison of -yn- with the Luwic suffix already in Frei-Marek (1997:37, 50).

kbidn C.Ka 5 Carian name of the city of Kaunos (cf. the Lycian form xbide), or, more improbably, an ethnic name derived from it (cf. kbdyn“ ). Morphological analysis is unclear. Cf. the Lycian name of this city, Xbide, and the Aramaic adaptation of the god name ‘Kaunian king’, KDWÍ/KDWS KBYD”Y. For the reading of the last letter of the word, see Frei-Marek (1998:2). It is possible that this city name was in Carian a plurale tantum (as is presumably Lycian xbide), according to Hajnal (1997b:149), see also Melchert (2001:310, n. 12). Both Hajnal and Melchert (loc. cit.) point to a genitive plural (-n < *-òm), but while Hajnal imagines a true genitival value (‘decree of Kaunos’), Melchert suggests that this genitive plural could become a dative-locative, like in Lydian (therefore kbidn ‘in Kaunos’). For the possibility that kbidn is an ethnic name (in nominative plural, from *kbid-wen-is), see Adiego (1998a:20), (2002:19–20). For a possible etymology of the names in kbº, see p. 334.

kbjom≤ E.Me 12, E.Me 32, E.Th 13 PN in genitive. Carian name adapted in Greek as Kebivmow. kbjom- also appears in the compound name “arkbiom. Adiego (1993a:232). Hajnal (1995[97]) suggests that this name would contain a participle < */piìemmo/ì/- ‘given’, with an alleged change *^m > om. For a possible etymology of the names in kbº, see p. 334.

372

chapter eleven

kblow≤ E.Th 46 PN in genitive. kbokt≤ E.Th 2 PN in genitive. See Adiego (1994b:252), where the name is analysed as a compound formed by kbo- (cf. kbo-s, perhaps also taqbo-s) and kt (cf. ktmno).

kbos E.Me 24 Ethnic name? (‘Keramean’?). It could be formed from a place name kbo- (‘Keramos’? see Konuk 2000b) by means of an -s- suffix (cf. otonos-n from otono- ‘Athens’). For this interpretation, based on the peculiar structure of E.Me 24, see above p. 278. The interpretation was already suggested by Schürr (2003:116, n. 1). For a possible etymology of the names in kbº, see p. 334.

kdou≤ E.Bu 1 Noun in genitive. Could it be the Carian word for ‘king’? See esa?kdow“.

kdu. si≤ E.Ab 35 PN in genitive. It seems to contain the lexical element kd-, as esa?kdow“, kdou≤, kdu≤ol“ (= Hitt., Luw. ¢ant-). kdu≤ol“ C.xx 4, C.xx 5 PN? It seems to be a name of the u≤ol-family, but the final -“ could be a plural ending (cf. kbdyn“, sarni“, etc.) Note also the element kd- (see preceding entry). Schürr (2001b:117) suggests that we are dealing with the plural of an adjective whose meaning would be ‘belonging to the king (= the god)’ (for the meaning ‘king’, cf. esa? kdow“, kdou≤ ).

carian glossary

373

kdu≤opizipususot C.Hy 1b Sequence most probably consisting of more than one word, but impossible to be segment with any confidence. Note the presence of the sequence kdu≤ º, to be related either totally or partially to esa?kdow“, kdou“, kdu≤ol“.

ken E.Th 28 kidbsi≤ E.Me 15 Ethnic name (less probably PN) in genitive. It could be (at least originally) the ethnic name derived from a place name *kidb-, to be identified with the Carian city Kinduh in Greek sources. Hajnal (1998:90). Schürr has attempted to establish different connections for this word, which he instead considers a PN: comparison with the Carian name Kindacow (Blümel KarPN:16), name of the father of the founder of Masanvrada, according to Stephan of Byzantium (Schürr 1991[93]:170); connection to Mil. xñtabasi, poss. adj. of xñtaba ‘ruler’ (Schürr 1996b:152) and to the Cilician names Kendebhw, Kendhbhw, Kendhbaw (Schürr 2001b:105), for these latter names, see Zgusta KPN § 576).

kilarad [ C.Ki 1 kil[ C.Ki 1 Place name: the Carian city of Kildara/Killara (Kildara/Killara). In the first example it is not clear if d belongs to the word. The identification was made already by Kowalski (1975:79, 83), although his transcription was still very unsatisfactory (krº´zara).

klorul E.Me 6 Ethnic name, title, or common noun in nominative. Hardly a PN, given the structure of the inscription in which it appears.

374

chapter eleven

See above p. 270, where the inscription is analysed and this word is taken as an ethnic name. Schürr (1992:135) instead suggests that it is a common noun with the meaning ‘wife’, because he interprets the entire inscription triqo parma≤≤ ∞i klorul ∞i as ‘Triqo (f.), the wife of Parma≤’.

knor C.Kr 1 kojol E.Me 44a Ethnic name, title or sim. in nominative. Hardly a PN, given the structure of the inscription in which it appears. Above p. 271, kojol is analysed as an ethnic name and tentatively related to the name of the island Kos. This connection is hampered by the fact that the name of the person to which kojol seems to make reference, is of Egyptian origin. Schürr (1992:155) proposes interpreting kojol as a ‘title in -ol’ (like nuolº, sarmrolº), and suggests connecting it with the Carian gloss ko›on, ‘sheep’.

kolt E.Si 2 ko“m≤ E.Th 39 PN in genitive kowrn[. . .? E.Si 2 kow[?-?] E.Th 24 krws E.Th 39, E.Th 45 (krwß) PN in nominative. ksbo C.My 1 PN in nominative. Carian name that corresponds to Xasbvw (all the examples are from Mylasa) in Greek sources. Cf. also Kasbvlliw. Blümel-Kızıl (2004:137).

carian glossary

375

ksolb≤ E.Me 43a Ethnic name (less probably PN) in genitive (see above p. 269). In either case, it seems to be related to the place name Kasvlaba from Greek sources. Schürr (1992:143), Adiego (1994a:36). As an ethnic name: Janda (1994:174).

k≤atÿbr E.Th 2 PN in nominative. Name belonging to the -(d)ybr-family. Cf. in this case the Lycian name Janduberiw (Zgusta KPN § 1061). For this family of names, see dÿbr-.

k“mmsm[. . .] E.AS 8 ktais C.Eu 1 PN in ‘s-case’ (‘dative case’) or, less likely, in nominative. Carian form of the Greek name ÑEkata›ow. For the identification: Schürr (1992:154), Schürr apud Adiego (1994a:39, 1994b:252). In Adiego (1994a:39) ktais is interpreted as an s-stem created from a Greek nominative (like Lycian zeus-, from ZeÊw), but in the present book an analysis of -s as an ending is preferred (see pp. 288–289).

ktmn E.Th 37 PN, perhaps an incomplete form of ktmno (see the following entry). Adiego (1994b:251).

ktmno E.Th 25 PN in nominative, corresponding to Ekatomnvw (Zgusta KPN § 325–1–3, Blümel KarPN:13) in Greek sources. Note the variant ∞tmño-. Adiego (1994b:251–252).

376

chapter eleven

kt ?tri≤ E.Ab 40. PN in genitive. Perhaps related to the PN kattÿri≤. kuari≤bar E.Me 18a An unclear form. Perhaps it must be segmented into kuari≤ bar, the first word being a PN in genitive (cf. the following entry kwar≤ ). However, bar would remain unexplained. kwar≤ E.Me 31 PN in genitive. kudtubr E.Th 9 PN in nominative. It apparently belongs to the family of names in -(d)ybr-, but note the use of u instead of y/ÿ (like “odubr-, q.v.) kwri≤ E.Th 34 PN in genitive. Perhaps it contains the same stem as kwar-, kuari≤bar. ∞arnos E.Me 45 ∞arnosd C.xx 2 See alos, alosd. ∞arr≤ E.Ab 32 PN in genitive. ∞aye E.Ab 31 PN in nominative. ∞diye≤ C.St 2 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

377

∞i E.Sa 2: qÿri≤ ∞i; E.Me 6 (2×): parma≤≤ ∞i, klorul ∞i; E.Me 8b: armon ∞i, E.Me 9: arlio[m≤] ∞i; E.Me 10 (3×): q[---]≤ ∞i, [mw]don≤ ∞[i], [--]w≤ord≤ ∞i; E.Me 12: mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 13 (2×): wet≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 16 (2×): pikra≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 17: bem≤ ∞i; E.Me 18b (2×): idmuon≤ ∞i, mdayn ∞i; E.Me 19: zmu≤ ∞i; E.Me 20 (2×): “rwli≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 21: qÿblsi≤ ∞i; E.Me 23: a[rb]ikarm≤ ∞i; E.Me 25: parpeym≤ ∞i; E.Me 28 (2×): pntmun≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 30: pleq≤ ∞i; E.Me 31 (2×): kwar≤mHm≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ [∞]i; E.Me 32 (2×): ∞i en, mw[d]on≤ ∞i; E.Me 33a (2×): myre≤ ∞i, mdayn ∞i; E.Me 33b: myre≤ ∞i; E.Me 35: mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 38: ∞i ted; E.Me 40 (2×): pikrm≤ ∞i, mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 42 (3×): mwsat≤ : ∞i, mwdon≤ : ∞i, tbridbd≤ : ∞i; E.Me 43a: “rquq≤ ∞i; E.Me 43b: mno≤ ∞i; E.Me 44a: kojol ∞i; E.Me 44b: mwton≤ ∞i; E.Me 45 (2×): [?]iam≤ ∞i, yi≤{∞}biks≤ ∞i; E.Me 46b: mwdon≤ ∞i; E.Me 47: paraibrel≤ ∞i; E.Me 48: [-]owt≤ ∞i; E.Me 50b: p∞simt≤ ∞i; E.Me 57: ]i≤ ∞i; E.Me 58: ]s≤ ∞i; E.Bu 6: ursea∞k ∞i; E.xx 1: isor≤ ∞i; C.Eu 2: omob ∞i; C.Si 2a: pda∞m≤uñ ∞i ∞j E.Me 36 Originally a relative pronoun, turned into a particle for introducing complements. From PA *k wis < PIE *k wis (Hitt., CLuw. kui“, Lycian ti, Milyan ki ). Most spellings point to a postclitical usage, with the exception of E.Me 32: ∞i en, where it seems to be proclitic. See Adiego (1993a:213–216) for a brief status quaestionis and for a functional comparison of ∞i with the Old Persian relative constructions. Compared to Lycian and Milyan relatives in Adiego (1994a:46). See Hajnal (1997a) for a more detailed treatment and here pp. 273–275.

∞i∞ E.AS 7 Meaning and function are unclear. Schürr (2001:98) compares it to the Lycian indefinite pronoun tike (cf. also Milyan -kike). While the comparison is sound from a phonological point of view, the presence of an indefinite pronoun in E.AS 7 depends on the overall interpretation of the inscription, a question that remains unresolved.

∞iqud E.Si 1 Very probably a PN in nominative.

378

chapter eleven

∞lbiks≤ E.Th 33 PN in genitive. It seems to include the nominal stem -biks- (cf. piks[, dbiks, ÿ≤biks, yi≤{∞}biks-, but there are no clear parallels for the resulting first element ∞l-. ∞lmud [? C.Ia 3 Perhaps an epithet of the word that it follows, the GN trqude ‘Tarhunt’, although other interpretations cannot be discounted (for instance, a verbal form). The possibility of a word in agreement with trqude would increase if we accept Gusmani’s proposal of reading a letter e after ∞lmud [ (therefore trqude ∞lmude, with the same ending for both words).

∞?mpi E.Si 10 ∞tmño≤ C.Si 2a (2×) PN in genitive. It is the typical Carian name Ekatomnvw (cf. the variant form ktmno), that here makes direct reference to the well-known Carian dynast Hekatomnos, the father of Maussollos, Artemisia, Idrieus and Ada. Schürr (1992:137). See also Adiego (1994b). Neumann has repeatedly argued in favour of a purely Greek origin of the name (a hypochoristicon of an *ÑEkatÒmnhstow: Neumann apud Schürr 1993:137, n. 6; Neumann apud Adiego 1994b:248; Neumann 1994:17), but the existence in Carian of a noun mno‘son’ means that we can analyse the name as a Carian compound kt+mno (for kt- cf. Akta-ussvllow, kbo-kt-, etc. see Adiego 1994b).

∞toi C.My 1 ∞toi≤ PN in nominative (∞toi) and genitive (∞toi≤ ). Tentatively compared to ktai-, ÑEkata›ow. See Adiego (2005:90–91). For the reading ∞toi≤, see Blümel (2005:188).

carian glossary

379

∞yrapai≤ C.Ka 2 ∞yrpai C.Ka 2 Two forms apparently belonging to the same paradigm: genitive (∞urapai-≤ ) and perhaps nominative (∞yrpai ). It is not clear, however, if we are dealing with a PN. Note the divergent vocalisation ºrpº/ºrapº. ∞[-]urb≤ E.Ab 36 PN in genitive ∞[--8--]tuñdñ[ C.Si 2a limtaoa C.Ia 1 lkor≤ E.Me 2, E.Me 36 PN in genitive loubaw E.Me 49 PN in nominative. It appears in the contentious inscription E.Me 49. lrHñ C.Si 2a ltari≤ E.Ab 4, E.Ab 5 (ltari[≤]) PN in genitive lÿ∞se E.Th 35 lÿ∞si≤ E.Me 43a PN in nominative and genitive. However, it is not totally clear if we are dealing with two forms belonging to the same paradigm (which

380

chapter eleven

would imply a vowel-stem alternation ºe / ºi-), or two different stems derived from the same root. In any case, the name seems to correspond to the Carian name Lujhw in Greek sources (Zgusta KPN § 836, Blümel KarPN:18). Cf. also Lu-uk-“u, the name of an Egypto-Carian in Borsippa. Adiego (1990a:134). On Lu-uk-“u, see Eilers (1935:217), (1940:192), and Waerzeggers, Borsippa, where the Egyptian origin of the Carians of Borsippa is stated.

lys[ikl ]an C.Ka 5 lysiklas[-?] C.Ka 5 PN in accusative (lysikla-n) and in ‘genitive/possessive’ (lysikla-s(-?)). Carian adaptation of the Greek name Lusikl∞w. It is not clear if lysiklas is a complete form (of a true genitive in -s) or if a further letter must be added. In this latter case, the most suitable solution is lysiklas[n], a possessive adjective in accusative for expressing the name of the father of Nikokl∞w in the inscription. Frei-Marek (1997).

lysikratas[-?] C.Ka 5 PN in ‘possessive’ (lysikrata-s(-?)). Carian adaptation of the Greek name Lusikrãthw. As in the case of lysiklas[ (see the preceding entry), it is not clear if the word is complete (representing a true ‘genitive’) or whether it must be completed (most probably as lysikratas[n]) in order to obtain a possessive adjective in accusative. Frei-Marek (1997).

mal≤ C.Ka 1 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

381

mane C.Hy 1a mane≤ C.Hy 1a PN in nominative and genitive. Typical Carian name that appears in Greek as Manhw. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
manon C.Eu 2 mañ“qaraH≤rl-?- [ C.St 2 maãtnor E.Th 34 maqly≤[ C.St 1 Perhaps a complete form. If so, it would be a PN in genitive. marariso[- . . .] E.Si 1 Apparently the beginning of a PN. mdayn E.Me 18b, E.Me 33a mdaÿn E.Me 11a, E.Me 11b, E.Me 17 Ethnic name (or similar) in nominative, the genitive of which is mwdon≤ (q.v.). Different possible interpretations have been envisaged, none of them definitive: ‘foreigner’, ‘Carian’, ‘inhabitant of Myndos (a Carian coastal city)’. In any case, the word seems to contain the suffix -yn-/ -ÿn- equivalent to the Luwic suffix for ethnic names *-weno/i- (cf. in Carian kbd-yn-“ ). For the paradigmatic relationship with mwdon≤, see Melchert (1993:82–83). If this relationship is, as it seems, correct, former attempts to explain mdayn/mdaÿn as a word for ‘husband/wife’ (Merigi 1980:35b–36a) or ‘farewell’ (Ray 1982b:184) must be ruled out ( pace Adiego 1993a:219–220).

382

chapter eleven

mdot2 C.Ka 5 Function and meaning are unknown. The segmentation mdot2 un adopted here is not definite. In Adiego (2002:17–18) the word is analyzed as a plural genitive corresponding to mdayn/mdaÿn, and a meaning ‘foreigner’ is assumed for all of these forms. The sense of sarni“ mdot2 in C.Ka 5 would therefore be ‘representatives (sarni-“ ) of the foreigners’, corresponding to Greek prÒjenoi). Melchert (1998) prefers to read mdot2un as a complete word and, assuming a glide-value (/w/) for the letter O (here transcribed as t2), analyzes the form as a preterite first plural with the meaning ‘we have established’, and with md º to be connected with Hitt. midà(i)- ‘fix, fasten’.

md [. . .] E.Me 52 Perhaps to be completed as md[ay/ÿn]. md C.Ha 1 See below mdane mda C.Si 2ª (3×) See below mdane. mdane E.Sa 1, E.xx 7, C.xx 2 Analysis of this form has been much discussed (a verb or a chain of particles?). Cf. also the possible variant mlane in Thebes (see mlane, ewmlane, ewlane). On mdane and the two preceding forms md, mda see discussion in pp. 321–324.

me®≤ E.Me 34 PN in genitive. meÿqak E.AS 8

carian glossary

383

mi∞≤≤ E.Ab 35 PN in genitive. mlane E.Th 10 Cf. mdane, and see p. 323 on the intricate relationship between this form and ewlane, ewmlane. mlan[-?] E.Th 35 Cf. the preceding entry. mlqi≤ E.Th 27 PN in genitive. mlne C.Ia 3 Connection to mdane/mlane and/or ºmln in uiomln, yomln is possible, but far from certain. mmn∞al E.Th 21 mnos C.Eu 1 (mn[os?]), C.Ka 5 mno≤ E.Me 10, E.Me 12 (m[no≤]), E.Me 16, E.Me 27, E.Me 39, E.Me 43b, C.Ka 1, C.Kr 1 mn[o-?] E.Me 47 Common noun in genitive (mno-≤ ) and in a ‘s-case’ (mno-s), ‘son’. Perhaps in some way related to HLuw. nimuwiza-, ‘son’. The precise analysis of mnos in C.Ka 5 is far from certain, given the unclear context in which it appears. Meriggi (1967:223), (1980:35a), Ray (1982b:184–185), Gusmani (1986:63), Adiego (1993a:216–219).

384

chapter eleven

moa[-]lboror C.Ka 5 moi C.My 1 PN in nominative. Perhaps it corresponds to the Carian name in Greek sources, Moiw. Blümel-Kızıl (2004:134).

mol“ C.Hy 1b C.My 1 Plural nominative with the meaning ‘priests’? See above pp. 306–207 on this interpretation, based on the analysis of C.Hy 1b and its possible correspondence to the Greek text that follows it.

mplat E.Th 11 PN in nominative. mqabaewleqo“osk$ioms E.Th 12 An impenetrable sequence, undoubtedly consisting of more than one word. Note the isolable sequence ew, to be related to ew lane, ewm, also in Thebes. mqt jq E.Th 4 mrsi≤ E.Me 2, E.Me 26 Ethnic name or PN in genitive. mrsj[. . .] E.Me 54 Very probably related to the preceding entry. mslmnlia C.Ka 5

carian glossary

385

msnord≤ E.Me 3, E.Me 48 Ethnic name or, less probably, PN. Clearly related to the Carian place name Masanvrada (Zgusta KON § 782, Blümel KarON:174). According to Schürr, msnord-/Masanvradº can be analyzed as msn + ord, with a second element comparable to Luwian -aradu in Tar¢unt-aradu (Laroche LNH n. 1268, Piyam-aradu (Laroche LNH n. 981), so that msnord- = Luw. *Ma““an-araduConnection to Masanvrada already mentioned in Adiego (1990a:136). Note that the word was formerly read as †msnori≤, which conditioned some proposals of interpretation. For the corrected reading, see Schürr 2001b:103, Schürr 2002:166–168). As for Schürr’s analysis, see Schürr (2002:165–168). He interprets msnordas a PN and instead prefers to compare it with the name of the eponymous founder of Masanorada, Masanvradow (Steph. Byz. s.v. Masanvrada). On aradu-, see above p. 333.

msot C.Hy 1b Genitive plural (?) or another case from a stem mso- or similar = ‘god’? See above pp. 306–307 for this interpretation, based on the search for parallels between C.Hy 1b and the Greek texts that follow it.

mt1yr C.Ka 2 mt∞elã C.Si 2a mudo[n]≤ E.Me 65 mwdon≤ E.Me 10 ([mw]don≤), E.Me 12, E.Me 13, E.Me 14 (mwdon!≤), E.Me 16, E.Me 20, E.Me 28, E.Me 29, E.Me 31, E.Me 32 (mw[d]on≤), E.Me 35, E.Me 40, E.Me 42, E.Me 46b Genitive of the ethnic name (or sim.) mdayn/mdaÿn, q.v.

386

chapter eleven

Interpretation as ethnic name already suggested in Meriggi (1980:35). Identification of -on- with the Luwic ethnic suffix -wanni- and connection to the Carian place name Mundow already noted in Adiego (1990b:501–502). See also Adiego (1993a:210–212), Melchert (1993:82–83), Janda (1994:173–174).

mwk E.Th 22 mumn“tnse-? E.Th 30 muot C.Hy 1a -ot recalls identical endings in C.Hy 1 (kdu≤opizipususot, msot, cf. also ylarmit). If the analysis of this latter is accepted (see s. v.), muot can be also a genitive plural.

mwsat≤ E.Me 42 PN in genitive. Cf. the Lydian name Mousathw (Zgusta KPN § 987a). Perhaps both names, and also the Pisidian names Moushta, Moshta, correspond to Luwian PN Muwaziti (Laroche LNH 840), a compound of muwa- Hitt., Luw. ‘strength, force’, and Luw. ziti ‘man’. Adiego (1992a:32), (1993a:233), (1994a:36).

mwton≤ E.Me 44b Variant form of mwdon≤, q.v. mute≤ C.St 2 PN in genitive. Cf. the Cilician name Moutaw (Zgusta KPN § 989–2). Behind muº, the Anatolian stem muwa- can be identified. Adiego (1994a:36).

mÿqudem E.AS 7

carian glossary

387

myre≤ E.Me 33a, E.Me 33b PN in genitive. myze C.My 1 PN in nominative. Tentatively compared in Adiego (2005:91) to the Carian PN in Greek sources, Mouzeaw.

mHm≤ E.Me 31 PN in genitive. m[-]sao[ C.My 1 naria≤ E.Me 5 PN or title in genitive. If it is a personal name, it must be the father of psm“kúneit in the bilingual text E.Me 5, which implies that this man had a double denomination, Egyptian W3˙-jb-r‘-nb-[ (in the Egyptian part) and Carian Naria-. However, it could instead be a title of Psm“kúneit (‘general’, ‘priest’ or similar). Possibly related in some way to the family of place names Naras/a/, Narisbara, Naruandow (connected to CLuw annarai-, ‘forceful, virile’ = Hitt. innarà- ‘forceful, violent’, all derived from PIE *h2nè´r ‘man’). For these and other possible examples of this stem in Carian onomastics, see p. 333.

naz E.AS 7 ne E.AS 7 nid≤kusas E.AS 8

388

chapter eleven

nik[--]lan C.Ka 5 PN in accusative, to be completed nik[ok]lan, nik[uk]lan, or similar. It is the Carian adaptation of the Greek name Nikokl∞w. Frei-Marek (1997).

ninut E.Ab 20 PN in nominative. niqau≤ E.Me 18a PN in genitive. Very likely to be a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian pharaonic name Nechao/Necho (Ny-k3w, Greek Nexvw). Adiego (apud Schürr 1996a:63, n. 11).

noril ?ams C.Kr 1 not C.xx 2 Verbal form (‘he brought’)? This is the interpretation proposed in Adiego (2000:153–155), where not is analyzed as a preterite third singular verb, to be connected to Hitt. nà(i)-, CLuw. (reduplicated stem) nana- < * PIE *neyH- ‘to bring’, see above p. 284.

nprosn≤ E.Ab 16 Apparently a complete PN in genitive. However, Schürr has proposed a segmentation npro + sn≤, interpreted as a PN (nominative) + PN (father’s name in genitive). As for the assumed first name, he compares it with the Egyptian name Nfr-˙r Nefervw (DNb:641), phonetically [nefer˙ó] according to Vittmann. For sn≤, Schürr provides the same form in E.AS 8 and allegedly in C.Kr 1 (read and segmented differently in this case). However, although the explanation of npro is very sound (see also Vittmann), the existence of a Carian name *sn- is doubtful. Schürr (1996a:68, n. 18), Vittmann (2001:42).

carian glossary

389

»ßw˚n E.Th 30 n≤ C.Kr 1 See a very hypothetical explanation (as pronoun) in p. 292.

n≤n[-]s“ E.SS 1 ntokris E.Me 35 (Presumably) feminine PN in ‘s-case’, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian fem. name Nj.t-jqr (literally ‘Neith is perfect’), Greek Nitvkriw (DNb:628). This was the name of a daughter of Psammetichus I. Schürr (1992:152, n. 9), Ray (1994:202–203). Vittmann (2001:52–53) argues convincingly (against Ray loc. cit.) that ntokris arrived in Carian directly from Egyptian, without Greek intermediaries. This implies that in ntokris, the final s must be a case ending, not a vestige of the Greek sigmatic nomimative (see above p. 315).

ntro C.xx 1 ntros E.xx 7 Carian God name, assimilated to Greek Apollo, in dative (ntro) and in s-case (ntro-s) or, less probably, a priest title (in nominative ntro and in s-case ntro-s), derived from a god name ntrº = Apollo. Independently of either interpretation, there is a general consensus that ntro- should be connected to Lycian Natr- in the PN Natr-bbij˜emi, ‘translated’ in Greek as ÉApollÒ-dotow. On these two alternative interpretations (the latter defended in Melchert 2002), see above p. 282. Carruba (2002) rejects the equation Natr-/ntro- = Apollo, and argues for a generic meaning ‘god’ and for an Egyptian loanword in Carian (from Egypt. ntr ‘god’).

390

chapter eleven

nu E.xx 7 Function and meaning are unknown. Melchert’s tentative translation of E.xx 7 (see Melchert (2002:308) implies the assumption that nu is an adverb, ‘now’ (to be compared therefore with Hitt. nu-). See above p. 286, where an intepretation as a verb is suggested.

nuol$∞[---]sarmrol∞yt E.Me 4 Perhaps more than one word, but the lacuna does not allow us to isolate words in the sequence. Schürr (1992:155) claims to identify two “titles in -ol”, nuol and sarmrol (cf. also his similar analysis of kojol). While the repeated ending in -ol could be good evidence for segmentation, no parallel forms, either to nuol or to sarmrol, are attested in Carian. Final sequence ∞yt could point to a verbal form, see above p. 276.

n[-]eakrnanb E.Si 3 ñmailo C.Si 2a A sequence containing a verbal form? Interpreted as a verb ñmail + enclitic pronoun -o- in Adiego (2000:141–142), where it is further connected to Lycian mmaite ˜ ‘they have established’), see here on p. 304.

oba C.Ka 2 obrbi≤ C.My 1 (2×) PN in genitive. obsmns[ C.Ka 2

carian glossary

391

obsmsmñ1ñ C.Ka 2 omob C.Eu 2 or C.Ka 6 PN? orbá E.Th 20 orkn C.Ha 1, C.xx 1 Noun in singular accusative, of a stem ork- ‘phiale’, ‘vessel’, or similar. Melchert (1993:80). Neumann and Edwin Brown (apud Melchert, ibid.) suggest a comparison with Gr. Ïrxh ‘jar’, Lat. orca ‘butt, tun’. Cf. also Lat. urceus, urna ‘water-pot’ (all these words probably share a common origin).

or≤ E.Ab 15, E.Me 41, E.Th 36 PN in genitive. According to Vittmann, an adaptation of the Egyptian name Ór ‘Horus’ (phonetically [hòr]) Vittmann (2001:42). However, cf. or in Kaunos.

or“a E.xx 7 ort C.Ka 5 ort[-] C.Ka 5 oru C.Ka 5

392

chapter eleven

otonosn C.Ka 5 (2×) Ethnic name in accusative, ‘Athenian’. Derived from a Carian form *otono- for ‘Athens’ by means of a -s- suffix. Much has been discussed about the precise nature of the -s- suffix. It could be a possessive suffix (= Lyc. -h-; also Frei-Marek 1997:35), an ethnic suffix equivalent to Lyc. -s- (Schürr 1998:161; similarly Hajnal 1997b:160, but resorting to Lyc, -is-) or, less probably, an ethnic suffix equivalent to Lycian -zi (cf. Hajnal 1997b:160–161, n. 32, where the difficulties of this explanation are highlighted). All three hypotheses are envisaged in Adiego (1998a:18).

otr“ C.Ka 2, C.Ka 5 Pronoun in acc. pl., corresponding to Greek aÈtoÊw in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. It can be connected etymologically with Lyc. atla-/ atra- ‘person, self ’ (cf. also HLuw. atra/i- ‘person; image; soul’. This interpretation and etymological connection was established independently by various scholars: Adiego (1998a:21), Hajnal (1997b:164; 1998:102), Melchert (1998:34), Neumann (1998:20)—who very appositely recalls the correspondance Lycian atru: Greek •autÒn in TL 25a, 4. See here on p. 297.

owdown[. . .]mwarudk≤o E.Th 10 A chain probably containing more than one word. The initial sequence owdown hardly seems to be separated from wdwn, q.v.

ow∞meb≤t E.xx 5 ouor C.Ka 2 (2×) pals≤ E.Ab 7, E.Ab 8, E.Ab 9 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

393

panejt E.Ab 2 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-n-Nj.t, Greek Panitiw, literally “the one of Neith” (DNb:385). Cf. the variant form pneit) Schürr (1992:152, n. 9), Adiego (1993a:254), Ray (1994:203 and n. 19). Cf. also Vittmann (2001:58).

paraeym E.Me 8a, E.Me 8b (para!eym) PN in nominative. The name presents the well-known adverbial stem para- as a first element of a compound (cf. para-ibrel, Para-ussvllow, etc.). As for -eym, it recalls Arthumow. Compare also parpeym-. paraibrel≤ E.Me 47 PN in genitive. A compound name consisting of para- (cf. above paraeym) and ibrel (= Greek Imbarhldow). Adiego (1994:36–37). On ibrel-, a stem derived from *ibr- = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i-, see above p. 335.

pareÿs C.Kn 1 parma≤≤ E.Me 6 PN in genitive. parãaq ? C.Tr 2 Adiego (1993a:263), Hajnal (1995[97]:20). See the discussion of the reading and possible interpretations of this word in pp. 289–291.

394

chapter eleven

parpeym≤ E.Me 25 PN in genitive. It is not clear if we are dealing with a compound with par(a)- as a first element, or whether in fact a stem parp- should be recognized. For the final part of the word, cf. paraeym-. For parpº, see s. v. prpwri∞.

par≤olou E.AS 1 paruos≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. Cf. the Carian name (f.) Paruv. Adiego (2005:91).

parÿd∞≤ E.SS 1 PN in genitive. It corresponds to the Carian name Paraudigow in Greek sources. A compound name par- (cf. para-ibrel, Para-ussvllow, etc.) + ÿd∞Adiego (1994:43). For the family of names containing the stem yri∞-/yriq/ÿdiq/ÿd∞-, see pp. 262–263.

paryri∞ C.My 1 paryri∞≤ C.My 1 PN in nominative and genitive. A compound name: par- + yri∞-. See the preceding entry. pau C.Hy 1a, C.My 1 p ?au C.My 1

carian glossary

395

pau≤ C.Tr 1, C.Tr 2 PN in nominative ( pau) and genitive ( pau≤ ) corresponding to the Carian name transcribed in Greek as Paow. Adiego (1994:37).

pa[-]in[-]t≤ E.Ab 17 Apparently a PN in genitive. pd[ E.Me 64a Cf. the following entries. pdnejt E.Sa 2 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian P3-dj-Njt, literally ‘the one whom Neith has given’ (Greek Petenaiyiw, Petenhyiw, Petenht, see DNb:316). Adiego (1992a:29–30).

pdtom≤ E.Bu 2 NP, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-dj-Jtm, literally ‘the one whom Atum has given’, Greek Peteyumiw, Petetumiw (DNb:294). Schürr (1992:152, n. 9) and apud Ray (1994:205); Vittmann (2001:58).

pduba E.xx 4 PN in nominative. pdubez E.Ab 15 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-dj-B3st.t, literally ‘the one whom Bastet has given’, Greek Petyubestiow, Petobastiw, Petoubastow, Petoubestiw (DNb:303).

396

chapter eleven

Identification proposed in Schürr (1996a:60), where the word is still read as †pdubÿz. Corrected reading given in Schürr (2000:172). See also Vittmann (2001:42). Cf. also the corresponding feminine theophoric name ttbazi, ttubazi.

pdubi≤ E.Me 10 (p∂uüi≤), E.Ab 6 PN in genitive. Cf. pduba. It is possible that we are dealing with two forms of the same paradigm, cf. the similar situation in (lÿ∞se/lÿ∞si≤ ). pda∞m≤uñ C.Si 2a An accusativus genetivi in agreement with the PN pñmnn≤ñ that precedes it? See Adiego (2000:144–148) for this morpho-syntactic analysis and for some attemps at etymological explanations (particularly the hypothetical connection of pd º with Lyc. pdd˜e ‘place’, cf. also here on p. 304).

pjabrm E.Me 12 PN in nominative. According to the illustration of the stela in which it appears, the name is feminine. pjdl ? C.xx 1 Noun in apposition to acc. sg. orkn? Other interpretations are also possible. The meaning and function of this word have been much discussed. Melchert (1993:80–81) interpreted it as a word ‘gift offering’ (from a *piyodhlom, to be related to the stem CLuw. piya-, Lyc. pije- ‘to give’), a view followed here (see p. 282). Totally different is the approach of Janda (1994:178), who preferred to see here a verb comparable to Lyd. bill /pill/ (< *pid-l ) ‘he has given’.

pidaru[ C.St 2 PN, probably to be completed pidaru[≤ ] in genitive. A possible Carian adaptation of the Greek name P¤ndarow. Adiego (1994a:39–40).

carian glossary

397

piew E.Ab 38 PN in nominative. Adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-n-jwjw (literally ‘that of the dog’), Greek Pieuw, Pihow, Pih# (Cf. DNb:349). See Vittmann (2001:44) for the identification and for further details on the Egyptian variants of the name.

pikarm≤ E.Me 14 PN in genitive. It is equivalent to the Lycian names in Greek sources Pigramiw, Pigramow (Zgusta KPN § 1255–1/2). The name contains the same stem as pikra-/pikre-, q.v., to which a m-suffix has been added. Cf. also the variant form pikrm≤, and the compund name dbikrm, dbkrm (d +bikrm = pik(a)rm-). Adiego (1992a:36), (1993a:233), Kammerzell (1993:19, 22).

pikra≤ E.Me 16 pikre≤ E.Me 3 PN in genitive. It is not clear if we are dealing with a simple alternance a/e or with two different stems, one in ºa- and the other in ºe. The name appears in Greek sources as Pigrhw/Pikrhw, a very spread Anatolian name. The name shows the stem pik- = Luw. *pi¢a-. Adiego (1992a:36), (1993a:228–229). On the family of names built on this stem, see p. 337.

pikrm≤ E.Me 40 PN in genitive. A variant, ‘devocalised’ form of pikarm≤, q.v. piks[ C.St 1 A PN or part of a PN. The part conserved clearly contains the nominal element piks-/biks- Cf. dbiks, ÿ≤biks-/yi≤{∞}biks-, derived from the stem pik- = CLuw. *pi¢a-, as pikre-/pikra-, pik(a)rm-. On this stem, see p. 337.

398

chapter eleven

pim[. . .] C.Si 2b pisiri E.Ab 1 PN in nominative. Very likely to be an adaptation of the Egyptian name P3-n-Wsjr, literally ‘the one of Osiris’ or P3j-Wsir, ‘this of Osiris’, Greek Pisiriw. Ray (1994:203); cf. also Schürr (1996a:61–62), Zauzich (apud Schürr, ibid.), Vittmann (2001:58). This Egyptian interpretation of the name must be preferred to former attempts to connect this name with Anatolian proper names (Adiego 1993a:248 and, with many reservations, 1994:43).

pisma≤k E.AS 7, E.AS 3 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Psmtk, Greek Cammhtixow. See also the devocalised form psma≤k. Identification already proposed in Kowalski (1975:91).

pisma[“/≤k . . .] E.AS 4 The same name as the preceding entry. Doubts about completing “ or ≤ arise from the existence of psm“k(wneit), as well as pisma≤k. pisñoi C.Si 2a Analyzed as a verb pisñ + clitics (-o-i ), in Adiego (2000:141), where pisñ is identified as a preterite third plural of a root pi-, ‘to give’. See above p. 304 for details. p.iub[a]Ωi≤ E.Me 1 PN in genitive. Probably the Carian adaptation of an Egyptian name whose final part contained the name of the goddess Bastet (B3st.t), although no exact parallels for the whole name can be found. Schürr (1996:62). For ‘Bastet-names’ in Carian, cf. ttubazi-, ttbazi-.

carian glossary

399

piubez E.Ab 10 PN in genitive. It seems to be a variant of the preceding entry. p∞simt≤ E.Me 50b PN in genitive. Tentatively compared by Schürr to the Egyptian name P3-dj-Ór-sm3-t3wy (shorter form P3-dj-sm3-t3wy), literally ‘one whom Horus, uniter of two lands, has given’, Greek Potasimto. Schürr (apud Ray 1994:205). Not included by Vittmann in his list of Egyptian names in Carian sources (Vittmann 2001:58–59). Although the use of this Egyptian name among the Carians of Egypt fits well with Egypto-Carian environment (Potasimto was the name of the commander of the Carian and Ionian mercenaires in the Nubian campaign of Psammetichus II), and the similarities between Carian and Greek adaptations are striking, the use of Carian ∞ for Egyptian d or dj is surprising (compare the use of Carian d or t for Egyptian d or dj in other names that also include the Egyptian verb dj, ‘to give’: pdnejt, pdtom, ptnupi, etc.). An Anatolian interpretation, by connecting p∞siº with Pija-, Pije-, Pijo-: Lycian Pijaw (Zgusta KPN § 1263–1), Pije-darow (KPN § 1263–2), Carian and Lycian Pijodarow) is given in Adiego (1993a:248).

pla?t E.Th 3 PN in nominative. If the reading plat is accepted, it could be a variant of the name plat q.v. (l instead of l is typical in Theban inscriptions). plqo E.Me 40 PN in nominative. It appears in Greek sources as Pellekvw, Pelekvw. Note particularly Peleqow in the Greek graffiti of Abu-Simbel. Adiego (1993a:234), Schürr (1991–1993:170). On Peleqow = Pel(l)ekvw (against former interpretations as a Greek name derived from p°lekuw), see Adiego (1994a:37), Masson (1994b:140), (1995:175).

plqodse E.Th 52 PN? It seems to include the name plqo, but final ºdse remains impossible to analyse.

400

chapter eleven

plat E.Ab 7, E.Ab 8, E.Ab 9 PN in nominative. platt E.AS 6 PN in nominative. Perhaps related to the preceding entry, but the final -t remains unexplained. pleq≤ E.Me 30 PN in genitive. It corresponds to the Carian name in Greek sources Peldhkow. Adiego (1993a:234), (1994a:37).

pneit E.SS 1 PN in nominative. Variant form of panejt (q.v.), an Egyptian name. Schürr (1992:152, n. 9), Adiego (1993a:254), Ray (1994:203).

pnld≤wl E.Me 49 About the peculiar inscription where it appears, the reading of which is very difficult, see p. 279.

pntmun≤ E.Me 28 PN (or title?) in genitive. According to Vittmann, it could be the adaptation of Egyptian p3 ˙m-nΔr n Jmn *[ p˙ent6n6mùn], literally ‘the Prophet of Amun’. Among other possibilities, Vittmann suggests that it could be a title (therefore sanuq“ ue pntmun“ ∞i mwdon≤ ∞i: “Stela of sanuq, who (was) the ‘Prophet of Amun’ (a priest title), who (was) mwdon.”). Vittmann (2001:46–47). The fact that the three names of E.Me 28 appear in genitive makes the structure of the inscription very ambiguous. See Vitmann (2001:47) for different possible analyses. Given this ambiguity, I prefer to interpret the inscription as a N-≤ (PN)—N-≤ (father’s name)—mwdon-≤ (ethnic name probably referring to the father).

carian glossary

401

pnu≤ol E.Th 40 pnw≤ol E.Th 27 pnu≤ol E.Me 19 PN in nominative. It appears in its Greek adaptation as Ponussvllow. Note the variant form for the genitive, punw≤ol≤. A name of the u≤ol-family (q.v.). Adiego (1990a:135). On the Anatolian origin of the element p(u)n-, see pp. 337–338.

pnu≤o≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. No parallel form is found in Greek sources, but it is possible that the word should be corrected as pnu≤o≤, so that the name would be the same as that of the preceding entry. Adiego (2005:84).

pnyri≤ru E.AS 5 pñmnn≤ñ C.Si 2a PN apparently in ‘accusativus genetivi’. The name appears in Greek as Ponmoonnow (documented also in Sinuri). Schürr (1992:138).

polo E.Me 8b PN (?) in nominative. Coordinated with the PN in nominative paraeym by means of sb, ‘and’. Melchert (1993:84) suggests that polo is a common noun representing a kinship relation. Although this possibility cannot be ruled out, this tentative proposal of meaning and etymology (‘son’, comparing Hitt. pulla- ‘child, son’) is, as Melchert himself recognizes, very speculative.

402

chapter eleven

potko≤l≤ ? C.Ka 8 If the reading of the final letter is accepted, it is apparently a genitive (of a PN?). p?owk E.Mu 1 PN in nominative. prna∞non E.Th 34 A form in accusative sg.? It seems to agree with another word ending in -n (dm-?-n).

prãidas E.xx 7 A word with s-ending, in agreement with ntros ‘Apollon’, q.v. Tentatively connected by Schürr with Bragx¤dai ‘Branchids’, the priestly family in charge of the sanctuary of Apollo in Didyma, near Milet. Schürr (1998:158).

prpwri∞ E.Th 46 PN in nominative. Apparently a compound name that can be segmented as prp + wri∞. For the first element, cf. perhaps the Lycian name Perpenduberiw (Zgusta KON § 1242–1) or even Carian parpeym-. The second element seems to be a variant of ºyri∞, also present in other compound names (idyri∞-, paryri∞-). For a possible explanation of the alleged use of w instead of y, see p. 105.

psikro≤ E.Me 51 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

403

psma≤k E.Th 11 (psma≤[k]), E.Si 7, E.Bu 4, E.Bu 5 psma≤k≤ E.Si 2, E.Bu 1 psma[≤/“k . . .] E.Me 55 PN in nominative ( psma≤k) and genitive ( psma≤k-≤ ). Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Psmtk, Cammhtixow. Cf. the variant form pisma≤k. psm“kwneit≤ E.Me 5 PN in genitive. Carian adaptation of the Egyptian name Psmtk-‘wj-Njt, literally ‘Psammetichus in the arms of Neith’. Carian and Egyptian forms appear together in the bilingual text E.Me 5. Adiego (1992a:29–30).

psnlo C.Ha 1 On the different possible analyses of this word, see p. 284.

psoir≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. psrkrte E.Th 30 psu≤ol≤ C.Ka 1 PN in genitive. It belongs to the family of names in u≤ol/Ussvllow, but the remaining first element ( ps-) is not clear. psÿ“ [|?] E.AS 7 Reading and segmentation (suggested by Schürr) are very doubtful. See the entry ai[-]iqom for an alternative analysis.

404

chapter eleven

psHÿm[-]≤ E.Me 27 PN in genitive. ptn“e E.Ab 3 PN in nominative. ptnupi E.Me 18a PN in nominative (?) of Egyptian origin: P3-dj-Jnp, Greek Petenoupiw (literally ‘the one whom Anubis has given’ (DNb:27). Schürr (1992:152, n. 9). Ray (1994:204). Ray (ibid.) also offers an alternative Egyptian explanation, starting from *P3-dj-nfr (literally ‘the gift of the good one’), but this name, as he recalls, is not documented in Egyptian.

ptnuq ?i ? E.Ab 26 PN in nominative of Egyptian origin, according to the new reading proposed by Vittmann: ptnuqi would be Egyptian P3-dj-‘nq.t (literally ‘the one whom [the goddess] Anukis has given’, DNb:294), phonetically interpreted as [pe†e‘anùqi]. Vittmann (2001:44). Vittmann does not rule out an alternative reading ptnuti, which also has a good correspondence in Egyptian: P3-dj-(p3)-ntr (literally ‘the one whom the god has given’), Greek Petepnouyiw, DNb:306 (phonological reconstruction: [pe†e(p)nùte)].

pttu≤ E.Me 27 PN in genitive. Tentatively interpreted as an adaptation of an Egyptian name, which is not in fact documented, *P3-dj-t3wy, literally ‘One whom the two lands have given’. Ray (1994:205); Vittmann (2001:58).

carian glossary

405

punm[-]≤ E.Me 65 PN in genitive. It seems to be a compound name with pun- as the first element. See Schürr (2003a:95), who goes a little further and compares it with Lyc. Punamuwe, Ponamoaw (Zgusta KPN § 1288–1), and Punamu(W)aw (KPN § 1288–2, Pamphylia); cf. also Puna-A.A (= *Punamuwa) in cuneiform sources (Laroche LNH: 1050). These latter comparisons depend on a restitution punm[u]≤.

punot2 C.Ka 2 See Adiego (2002) for a connection with Luwic puna-, ‘all’, and for a morphological interpretation as plural genitive.

punw≤ol≤ E.Me 21 PN in genitive. It is the same name as pnu≤ol (and variants, equivalent to Ponussvllow), q.v. puor≤ E.Bu 6 PN in genitive. As according to Vittmann, an Egyptian name adapted in Carian: P3-whr (literally ‘the dog’), Greek Povriw, Pouvriw (DNb:181) pronounced [puhór]. Vittmann (2001:41).

pur?i≤ C.Hy 1a PN in genitive. purmoruos C.Ka 5 p[-]lu≤ E.Ab 33 PN in genitive.

406

chapter eleven

=q C.Hy 1 Connecting particle? It appears after armotrqdos, q.v. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
qan E.Si 2 See the somewhat risky interpretation in Schürr (2000:171) as a word with the meaning ‘dog’ and borrowed from Lyd. *kãn- (also ‘dog’), based on the hunting scene drawn under the graffito E.Si 2.

qanor E.Th 34 Connected with the preceding entry in Schürr (2000:172).

#q#arm≤ E.Me 10 PN in genitive. qarpsi≤ E.Me 36 Ethnic name (less likely to be PN) in genitive. On the structure of the inscription, which suggests an ethnic name, see pp. 267– 271. Note also the suffix -si- or -i- that appears in other possible ethnic names (kidbsi-, q ÿbsli-, yiasi- ylarmi-). Among the possible Carian place names that could be connected with qarpsi- (see Appendix B), Karbasuand/a/, Karpasuand/ a/ is a good candidate.

qarsio[-?] E.Me 7 qdar®ou≤ E.Me 41 PN in genitive. See Adiego (1995:24–25) for an attempted etymological analysis (compared with CLuw. ¢utarlà- ‘slave, servant’; cf. the PNs in Cuneiform sources ›u-da-ar-lá, ›u-du-ur-lá, ›u-u-tar-li, ›u-ut-ra-la-(a“), ›u-ut-ra-li-i“ (Laroche LNH n. 411).

carian glossary

407

qeb≤t E.Th 12 qku E.Si 6 q∞blio≤ E.Ab 40 PN in genitive. qlali≤ E.Me 37 G 2 [q ? ]lalis E.Me 45 PN in genitive (qlali-≤ ) and in ‘s-case’ ([q]lali-s). This name appears in Greek sources as Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw. Adiego (1993a:235)

qorb E.xx 1 PN in nominative. qot2omu C.Kr 1 qrds C.Ki 1, C.Ka 2 Word with a possible ‘institutional’ meaning, given its appearance in two legal texts. Cf. the following entry and also grdso[-]i [. In Blümel-Adiego (1993:94) this is tentatively compared with Hitt. gurta-, ‘castle, citadel, acropolis’ (cf. also the place-name of the Phrygian-Carian borderland Gordio/n/). Melchert (1998:35, n. 2) suggests connecting it with Mil. kridesi, a place-name.

qrdsol“ C.Ka 2 Acc. (or nom.?) pl. of a stem qrdsol-, apparently a noun derived by means of the suffix -ol- from qrds: ‘belonging to the qrds’(?).

408

chapter eleven

Blümel-Adiego (1993:94), Melchert (1998:35). The sequence it appears in, qrdsol“ ait, could be interpreted as ‘they have made them belonging-to-qrds’ or ‘the belonging-to-qrds ones have made.’ (cf. Melchert ibid., Adiego 1998a:22).

qtblem≤ C.xx 1 PN in genitive. Name corresponding to Kotbelhmow (Blümel KarPN:17), Kutbelhmiw (Zgusta KPN § 771, Blümel KarPN:18). Adiego apud Schürr (1992:142), Adiego (1993a:235), Melchert (1993:78).

qtblo E.Th 10 If PN (in nominative), it must be the Carian name adapted in Greek as Kotobalvw. Schürr (apud Adiego 1994a:43). The doubts about its character as PN are the result of the very unclear context in which the form appears (see the remarks in Adiego ibid.).

quq≤ E.Me 17 PN in genitive. It is the Carian name that appears in Greek sources as Gugow. Cf. also the compound names dquq, “rquq. Adiego (1993a:235, 1994a:37). On the possible Anatolian etymology of quq, see p. 334.

qurbo≤ E.Ab 10 PN in genitive. qwsal E.Th 12 qutbe E.Th 8 PN corresponding to the Carian name in Greek sources, Kuatbhw. Adiego (1993a:235), (1994a:37).

carian glossary

409

q ÿblsi≤ E.Me 21 Ethnic name or, less probably, PN. If an ethnic name, it clearly recalls the place name Kublissow (Zgusta KON § 1296, Blümel KarON:171). See somne≤ (name to which q ÿblsi≤ is referred) for the curious coincidence of personal name and ethnic name in the sole example of Svmnhw in the Greek sources. Comparison with the ethnic name (but still taking it as a PN) in Adiego (1993a:235). Analysis as an ethnic name (with the same connection) in Janda (1994:174).

qyrbmudolo C.Eu 2 q ÿri≤ E.Sa 2 PN in genitive. It appears adapted in the Egyptian part of E.Sa 2 as K3rr. For the identification of qÿri≤ with K3rr: Schürr (1992:135), Adiego (1993a:161). Egyptian k3 (written by means of a biconsonantic sign) is used here to reflect a syllabic sound /ku/, so *kurº (Vittmann 1996). Note that in Egyptian a vowel /y/ did not exist, so that the use of /u/ for /y/ seems reasonable. The double r is explained by Zauzich (apud Schürr 1996:68) as a graphic attempt to emphasize that r did sound (the final r was not pronounced in Late Egyptian).

qzali C.My 1 qzali≤ C.My 1 PN in nominative and genitive. Connection with the Carian name of Greek sources Kostvlliw (Adiego 2005:91) is very hypothetical!

q[---]≤ E.Me 10 PN in genitive. rdudmm»≤ E.Th 42

410

chapter eleven

rqemw E.Th 52 rsy E.Lu 2 rtim C.Hy 1a PN in nominative. Cf. the Carian name Artimhw and, more generally, the family of Anatolian names collected in Zgusta KPN § 108): Arteimaw, Arteimianow, Arteimow, Arteimhw, Artimaw, Artimhw, etc. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
r1i C.Ka 4 sa E.Me 26 Demonstrative pronoun in nominative (‘this’), which appears following the word upe ‘stela’: upe sa: ‘this stela’. From PIE *∞o-/*∞eh2- > PA *∞o-/ ∞à- (> Hitt. ka-, CLuw., HLuw. za-). See also san, snn. Adiego (1992a:33). Hajnal (1995[97]:23) suggests that the same form can be recognized in the sequence bid≤lemsa. On these pronominal forms, see pp. 319–320.

sa?awon E.Mu 1 saawon E.Mu 1 san G 1 Demonstrative pronoun in nominative. It corresponds etymologically to Hitt. ka-, CLuw., HLuw. za- ‘this’, see above sa. Adiego (1992a:33). On the final n, see Melchert (1993:79–80) and here on pp. 288, 320.

carian glossary

411

sanuq≤ E.Me 28 PN in genitive. sarl ? E.Me 5 sarni“ C.Ka 2 (2×), C.Ka 5 (sarni[“]) Plural accusative of a stem sarni-. This word (or the wider sequence it appears in) corresponds to Greek proj°nouw in the Kaunos bilingual (C.Ka 5). Frei-Marek (1997:39). There are diverse etymological proposals, none of them definitive: connection to CLuw. “arri ‘above; up; for (?)’ (Frei-Marek, ibid., followed by Hajnal 1997b:164, hard to accept, because *“arni“ would be expected, as they themselves recognize); related to CLuw. zar“iya- ‘safe-conduct, Gastrecht’ or sim. (therefore sarni-, ‘guarantor’, Neumann 1998:29). Schürr (apud Hajnal 1997b:164, n. 35) compares sarni- with Lyd. saretas ‘benefactor(?)’. In Adiego (1998a:22) the equivalence to proj°nouw is seen in the whole sequence sarni[“ ] mdot2 ‘representative of the foreigners’ (with mdot2 [gen. pl.] related to mdayn/mdaÿn/mwdon-, interpreted as ‘foreigner’).

sb E.Me 8b, E.Th 13, E.xx 6, C.Si 2a (2×), C.Ka 2 (8×), C.Ka 5 (8×), C.Kr 1 Coordinative conjunction: ‘and’. When there is interpunction in the text, it always appears attached to the following word, as a sort of proclitic. Cf. Lycian se and particularly, Milyan sebe (both ‘and’). From PIE *∞e (cf. Venetic ke ‘and’), plus a reinforcing particle *-be? For sb = ‘and’, see the explanation already offered in Schürr apud Ray (1990b:129–130). Connection with Milyan sebe: Neumann (1993:296). For se< PIE *∞e: Adiego (1995:31–32).

412

chapter eleven

sdi C.Tr 1, C.Al 1 sdisas C.Ka 1 sdisas ? C.Kr 1 Noun used in funerary contexts (therefore ‘tomb’, ‘stela’ or sim.) The morphological analysis of these forms remains unclear. Cf. the variant form sidi. Connected with PIE *∞ei- ‘to lie’ (Lyc. sije-)?

semw≤ E.Me 16 PN in genitive. seqqejewsk E.Th 4 sidi C.Tr 2 A variant form of sdi, q.v. siral E.Me 49 siyklo≤ C.Ia 3 PN (?) in genitive, skdubrotoz≤ C.My 1 A sequence containing an onomastic formula PN-Ø PN-≤, the main difficulty being the point of segmentation. The best solution seems to be skdu brotoz≤, but other alternatives cannot be dismissed. slaÿ≤ E.AS 6 PN on genitive.

carian glossary

413

sl∞maewm E.Th 34 smdÿbrs C.Ha 1 PN in nominative (of a s-stem) or in s-ending (if the stem is smdÿbr-). The name belongs to the family of nouns in -(d)ybr-/-(d)ÿbr, cf. ardybyr, dÿbr, etc. A comparison with the Carian name in Greek sources Zermenduberow by Blümel (1990:81) is attractive, but the lack of r poses a problem. sm“s[–5–] C.Si 2a sm[–7–]a∞e[ C.Si 2a snn C.Ha 1, C.xx 1 Acc. sg. of the demonstrative pronominal stem sa/san-, q.v. Melchert (1993:79).

sn≤ E.AS 8 sñaidlo C.Si 1 Tentatively interpreted as a verb (aid- ‘they made’, cf. ait) preceded by a pronoun or introducing particles and followed by clitics in Adiego (2000:152), where even an exact correspondence with Lyc. s˜eñnait˜e is proposed.

sñis C.Ka 1 See p. 291 for a possible interpretation as a demonstrative pronoun (related to sa/san-, ‘this’).

414

chapter eleven

som[n ? ]e C.St 1 somne≤ E.Me 21, E.Me 34 PN in nominative (somne if the reading is accepted) and genitive (somne≤ ). Directly comparable to the Carian name in Greek sources, Svmnhw. It is undoubtedly a matter of chance, but it is curious nonetheless to note that somne- is followed in E.Me 21 by a possible ethnic name q ÿblsi-, while the only example of Svmnhw in Greek sources is an individual belonging to the Kublisse›w (inhabitants of Kyblissos), mentioned as witnesses in a treaty between Mylasa and Kindya (Inscription of Mylasa, n. 11 in Blümel’s edition).

sqla E.Si 4 sqlumidun E.Si 4 srton[-]t [. . .?] E.Ab 28 stspñ C.Si 2a sursiabk E.Si 6 suso E.Lu 2 s[--]et≤ E.Me 29 PN in genitive. ≤as C.Eu 1 A variant form of ≤jas (‘tomb’, or similar).

carian glossary

415

≤dun C.Eu 2 ≤emot E.Th 10 ≤en E.Me 18a ≤jas G 1 Noun corresponding to Greek s∞ma in the bilingual inscription G 1. Adiego (1992a:33). For the difficulties of relating ≤jas to the Carian gloss soËa(n), see p. 10.

≤o≤niabkol C.Eu 2 ≤t≤ E.AS 8 ≤ugliq E.Me 5 ≤ugli≤ E.Me 30, E.xx 1 Ethnic name or, less likely, PN, attested at least in genitive (≤ugli≤ ). The exact analysis of ≤ugliq is unclear. If an ethnic name, it can be connected with the Carian place name Souaggela, although the doubts about the precise sound value of 0 g make this identification more difficult. Adiego (2004:310). Connection to Souaggela suggested to me independently by Pérez Orozco and Melchert (both in pers. comm.).

≤umo C.My 1 ≤uni≤ E.AS 8

416

chapter eleven

≤ysñal[ C.St 1 “abd ?aikal E.AS 2 “amow E.Ab 4, E.Ab 5 PN in nominative. It corresponds to Samvuow, Samvow in Greek sources. Adiego (1994a:38). Vittmann (2001:55–57) does not rule out the possibility that “amow-Samv(u)ow could be a ‘Carianised’ form of the Egyptian name Ô3jjm=w (directly attested in Carian as tamou q.v.).

“amsqi[. . .? E.Me 24 “ann C.Ia 3 “anne C.Ia 3 “aoyr∞ri C.Si 2a See Adiego (2000:148–149) for a very hypothetical attempt to connect it with Xrusaor¤w, the oldest name of Stratonikeia.

“arkbiom E.Sa 1, E.Me 56 (“ark[bi/jom . . .?]), C.My 1 PN in nominative. Transcribed as ”3rkbym in the Egyptian part of the bilingual E.Sa 1. Not found in Greek sources (although the form could be confidently reconstructed as *Sarkebivmow). Compound name formed by the adverbial stem “ar- (/gr. Sar-) (= CLuw. “arri, Lyc. hri, Mil. zri; cf. also Hitt. “èr ‘upon’) and the stem kbiom-, also attested as an independent name (see kbjom-, Greek Kebivmow).

carian glossary

417

Curiously, the Greek reconstruction *Sarkebivmow was already given as the possible form corresponding to Egyptian ”3rkbym in Masson-Yoyotte (1956:52), when both the true form “arkbiom behind the Carian letters and the name Kebivmow were still unknown. An initial, and still imperfect transcription of the name appears in Kowalski (1975:90). See also Ray (1981:153). For an analysis of the name: Adiego (1993a:242).

“arnai≤ E.Me 17 “arnajs E.xx 6 PN in genitive (“arnai-≤ ) and in ‘s-case’ (“arnaj-s). It is not clear if the stem can be related to the adverbial stem “ar-. A connection to the Carian name of Greek sources Sarnow is hampered by the doubts about the reading of the name (alternative reading Parnow, see Zgusta KPN:449, n. 6, Blümel KarPN:24) Adiego (1993a:250)

“arnw≤ E.AS 3 PN in genitive. Perhaps formed on the same stem as “arnai-/“arnaj- (see preceding entry). Adiego (1993a:250)

“arpt≤ E.Ab 33 PN in genitive. “arwljat≤ E.Me 3 PN in genitive. A compound formed by “ar- (cf. “arkbiom, “aru≤ol) and wljat- (q.v.). No Greek adaptation of the name has been found to date (a form such as *Sar-uliatow, *Sar-oliatow is the most likely possibility). Adiego (1993a:242–243).

“arur≤ E.Ab 37 PN in genitive.

418

chapter eleven

“aru≤ol E.Me 30, E.Ab 6, E.Ab 30 (“a[ru]≤ol), E.SS 1 PN in nominative. Carian name that appears in Greek sources as Sarus(s)vllow. A compound name formed by Sar- (cf. “arkbiom) and u≤ol (q.v.). Ray (1981:155, 161).

“aru≤[. . .? E.Ab 42 If complete, a PN in genitive. But it is more likely to be an incomplete form of the noun “aru≤ol (see the preceding entry). “asqariod C.Hy 1a “aÿdiq≤ E.Ab 30 PN in genitive. A compound name “a- + ÿdiq, perhaps a variant of the name in the following entry. On this explanation, see pp. 262–263.

“ayriq E.Me 25 PN in nominative. It corresponds to the Carian name from Greek sources, Saurigow. A compound name “a- (~ “ar?) + yriq. For the first element, cf. Sa-ussvllow. The second element is the well-known stem yri∞-/yriq- /ÿdiq-/ÿd∞- (see idyri∞-, paryri∞-, etc.). Adiego (1993a:250), (1994a:44). On this family of names, see pp. 262–263.

“a[--]i≤b?wn E.AS 5 “dtat≤ E.Me 13 PN in genitive.

carian glossary

419

“enurt E.Me 50a PN in nominative. It probably corresponds to the Carian name Sanortow in Greek sources. Adiego (1993a:236), and with some doubts about the identification (1994a:43).

“i“≤ E.Th 35 PN in genitive? “odubr≤ C.Kr 1 PN in genitive. It seems to belong to the family of names in -(d)ybr-/(d)ÿbr-, but in this case u, and not y, is used. Could this name be the Kaunian version of k≤atÿbr (= Lycian Janduberiw)? For a > o, cf. otonosn and the following entry.

“oru≤ C.Ka 3 PN in genitive. Assuming an a > o change (cf. otonosn and the preceding entry), a comparison with the Carian name Sarow could be feasible (for the adaptation of a Carian u-stem in Greek as a thematic one, cf. pau- = Paow).

“rb˚[-]sal E.Th 49 “rquq E.Lu 2 (“?rquq), C.xx 1 “rquq≤ E.Me 43a, E.Me 44a PN in nominative (“rquq) and in genitive (“rquq≤ ). A compound name formed by “r- = “ar-/Sar- (cf. “ar+u≤ol-Sar+ussvllow, “ar+kbiom, “r +wli-) + quq (= Gugow in Greek sources). Adiego (1993a:243). A name †arquq (Adiego 1993a:241, 1994a:35) does not exist: all the alleged examples are actually misreadings of “rquq.

420

chapter eleven

“rwli≤ E.Me 20 PN in genitive. Can be analysed as a compound “r- (cf. “r-quq) + wli-, very probably the same stem behind wliat/wljat (q.v.). Moreover, wlican be directly compared to the Isaurian name Oualiw (Zgusta KPN § 1134–3/4). Cf. also Pisidian Oliw, Zgusta KPN § 1086–1. See Adiego (1993a:243).

“ÿin≤ E.Me 38, E.SS 1 PN in genitive. -ÿin- recalls -yin in [--]ryin (the Carian form of the dynast name Idrieus), where it is analyzed as a form of the ethnic suffix -yn-/-ÿn (see s. v. [--]ryin

tab C.Ka 5 tamosi E.Ab 18, E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21 tamosi≤ E.Ab 20 PN in nominative (tamosi ) and genitive (tamosi≤ ). Vittmann suggests that we can recognise here the Egyptian name Pt˙-ms (literally ‘Ptah is born’), note particularly the old Akkadian adaptation, Ta¢ma““i. Vittmann (2001:43). However, note that there is no further evidence to support pt > t in Carian adaptations of foreign names.

taqbos E.xx 6 PN in s-ending, coordinated with “arnaj-s by means of sb, ‘and’. ta“ubt≤ E.Me 18a PN in genitive. tazomd [ C.Ki 1

carian glossary

421

tbridbd≤ E.Me 42 PN in genitive. tdu≤ol E.Me 24 PN in nominative. It belongs to the u≤ol-family of names, but the first element, td-, is not clear. It is perhaps to be related to ted-, ‘father’? Schürr (2003b:69, n. 1) sugggests considering initial t as a mistake and that instead we should simply recognize here the same name as dw≤ol-.

tebot E.Th 28 [teb%ot], E.Th 44 tebwnqmw E.Th 38 ted E.Me 38 Common noun in nominative: ‘father’. Compare CLuw. tàta/i-, Lyc. tedi-, Lyd. taada- ‘father’. Note the apparent umlaut *a > e as in Lycian, which implies an original stem in -i- or with i-mutation (*tadi- > *tedi- > ted-). Schürr (1996[98], already suggested in 1996a:68), Hajnal (1997a:210).

temazi C.Eu 2 terÿez≤ E.Me 4 PN in genitive. tkrabi≤ E.Me 37 PN in genitive. tksr E.Lu 7

422

chapter eleven

tmonks E.Th 41 tñu≤ C.Hy 1a PN in genitive. The name appears adapted in Greek as Tonnouw in one of the inscriptions that accompanies C.Hy 1. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
tqlow E.Th 32 tqtes E.Me 47 PN in ‘s-case’ (or rather a nominative of an s-stem?). trdy≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive triel≤ E.Me 26 PN in genitive. triqo E.Me 6 PN in nominative. trqdimr C.Ki 1 Sequence that contains the god name trq(u)d-, ‘Tarhunt’ (see following entry and armotrqdos). Neither the internal structure (perhaps it must be segmented into two words trqd imr or trqdi mr) nor the function and meaning (a PN or place name, or the god name proper?) are clear in this case. See Blümel-Adiego (1993:94–95), where possible connections for imrº and mrº are proposed (imrº = CLuw. im(ma)ra/i- [but note that the normal correspondence of this latter word in Carian is (i)b r-!], ºmr = Lyc. mere- ‘laws’).

carian glossary

423

trqude C.Ia 3 God name: trqud- = Hitt. Tar¢u-, CLuw. Tar¢unt-, Lyc. trqqñt-, the Anatolian Storm God. Unclear ending: perhaps a dative? See also trqdimr, armotrqdos. Blümel-Adiego (1993:94). trqude as dative: Adiego (1994a:38, 50). The simplest interpretation is to assume that trqude is the divine name to whom the cratera where C.Ia 3 is inscribed was dedicated, (Blümel-Adiego 1993:95), although the overall context of the inscription is unclear and makes it difficult to give a precise analysis (Melchert 2002:310).

t®∞atar≤ E.Me 34 (t®∞ata[r]≤), E.Me 41 t®∞atr≤ E.Th 5 PN in genitive. The attempt to compare t®∞at(a)r- with Tarhunt- and the Carian place name Tarkondar/a/ (Adiego 1992a:34, 1994a:43; see also Janda 1994: 175, who interprets the word directly as an ethnic name) is hampered by the unsuitability of the sound correspondences, particularly if compared with trq(u)d-, the usual form of Tarhunt- in Carian. The interpretation as an ethnic name, feasible for the examples from Memphis, is questioned by the clear PN (patronym) from Thebes, see p. 269.

tsial C.My 1 (2×) PN in nominative. ttbazi E.Ab 41 ttbazi[≤] E.Me 1 ttubazi E.Ab 25 Feminine (?) PN in nominative (ttbazi, ttubazi ) and genitive (ttbazi[≤]). As suggested by Schürr, an adaptation of the Egyptian name T3-dj(.t)b3st.t (literally ‘the one (fem.) whom (the goddess) Bastet has given), Greek Tetobastiw. See Schürr (1996a), for details about the reading of the inscriptions in question.

424

chapter eleven

tumn E.Sa 1 Accusative of tum-, a Carian adaptation of the Egyptian god name Jtm (Atum)? For this interpretation, see Adiego (1993a:255) and particularly (1995:21–23).

tur[ G 1 Beginning of a PN. It corresponds exactly to the truncated name that appears in the Greek part of the bilingual G 1 (Tur[ ). Adiego (1992a:33).

tusol≤ C.My 1 PN in genitive. The final ol of the stem could correspond in Mylasa to the typical ending -vll/-vld- in Carian names. However, the name hardly can belong to the family of the u≤ol-/Ussvllow names, given the use of s, and not ≤, as would be expected. ty∞[ C.My 1 For a very hypothetical interpretation, see Adiego (2005:92–93) and here on p. 308.

tÿn C.Ha 1 See p. 283.

t[-]rsi C.Si 1 tamou

E.Me 7 PN in nominative, an adaptation of the Egyptian name that appears in the hieroglyphic part of this bilingual inscription as Ô3j-Óp-jm=w (literally ‘may Apis take them’ *[‘i˙pimòw]. But the Carian adaptation in fact corresponds to Ô3j-jm=w or Ô3j-n.jm=w, Greek Tamvw, Yamvw,

carian glossary

425

Samauw, Samv#w, in this case an abbreviated form (phonetically *[‘amòw])

of the abovementioned name (DNb:1348–1349). Ray (1981:58). See Vittmann (2001:55–56) for a discussion of the relationship between tamou and the pure Carian name “amow.

tanai≤

E.Me 7 PN in genitive. Ray suggests that it may be an Egyptian name: *Ô3-nn3-j˙w, literally ‘offspring of the (sacred) cows’. Ray (1994:200). Vittmann (2001:56, n. 87) notes that the name is not attested in Egyptian.

trel

E.Bu 1 w E.Me 13 Complete word, abbreviated form, or a simple mistake? See p. 272. uantrpo E.Ab 12 uantrpu≤ E.Ab 13 PN in nominative and genitive. It is very likely, but not completely certain, that both forms belong to the same paradigm (therefore with an alternation -o / -u≤; the parallel with -e / -i≤ in lÿ∞se/lÿ∞si≤ is striking). uarbe E.Th 1 PN in nominative. uarila[-]os≤ E.Ab 39 Apparently a PN in genitive. w#ar [---]t[------]i[---]≤ E.Me 11a Remains of an onomastic formula N-Ø . . . N-≤.

426

chapter eleven

%wdbo≤kn E.Th 47 wdwn E.Th 13 Cf. owdown[ (E.Th 10). Janda (1994:182–183) observes the striking resemblance of wdwn/owdown[ to the Pisidian sequence oudoun, but this comparison cannot be taken further due to the similarly unclear contexts in which Carian and Pisidian forms appear.

ue E.Me 3, E.Me 5, E.Me 28, E.Me 29 ([ue]), E.Me 42, E.Me 51 ‘Funerary stela’, or similar. It seems to be similar or correspondent to upe/upa, but the precise relationship between the words (if it indeed exists) is not clear. See below s. v. upe about upe/ue connection. As indicated there, Schürr’s hypothesis of a loss of p (upe > ue; Schürr 1992:141; 1993:172) is attractive, but ad hoc.

uejresi E.Si 2 wet≤ E.Me 13 PN in genitive. uiomln C.Ka 5 [ui ? ]omlã C.Ka 2 Cf. also yomln, very likely to be a variant. Probably a verbal finite form, corresponding in some way to Greek ¶doje, ‘It seemed good’, in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. However, the precise analysis remains unclear. An alternative view, suggested by Melchert, is to analyze it as a noun with the meaning ‘decree’. All the analyses take as a starting point the example of the bilingual C.Ka 5, contextually more clear (note moreover that the value of the final letter of the C.Ka 2 example, here transcribed as <ã>, is far from being assured).

carian glossary

427

Frei-Marek (1997:30) propose a third plural person of a past tense with the meaning ‘to decide’, whose subject would be kbidn, interpreted as ‘the Kaunians decided’. Both Hajnal (1997b:151–153) and Neumann (1998:30) suggest that the verb must correctly be ºmln, and try to connect the verbal stem ml- with different Hittite verbs: malai- ‘to approve’ (Neumann), mald- ‘solemnly pronounce, vow’. Similar analysis and etymological connection given in Adiego (2002:20). Eichner’s interpretation (only partially deducible from references apud Tremblay 1998:117, 123) concurs in isolating mln as a verb. He translates kbidn uio mln as ‘il plaît/plaisant à la communauté des Cauniens’ with uio interpreted as a dative sg (‘communauté’). For Melchert’s view, see Melchert (1998:37): kbidn uiomln ‘decree of Kaunos’ (kbidn: place name, plurale tantum, here in genitive). In a supplementary note, Melchert suggests very tentatively a connection of uiomln with CLuw. wayamman-, ‘cry, howl’, cf. also Hitt. wiyài-, ‘to cry’, assuming a semantic development comparable to Lat. proclamatio to ‘proclamation’. However, in Melchert (mdane), Hajnal’s view is preferred: he isolates mln and analyzes it as a preterite third plural from, *mVld-onto, to be related to Hitt. mald-.

uksi E.xx 7 PN in nominative (?) uksmu E.Me 2 wksmu≤ E.Me 36 PN in nominative (uksmu) and genitive (wksmu≤ ). Cf. the Anatolian names Ouajamoaw (Zgusta KPN § 1141–2, Isauria, Cilicia), Ouajamvw (Zgusta KPN § 11141–2, ibid.). This compound name therefore contains as a second element the well-known Anatolian stem muwa-, ‘strength, force’. It is very likely that the individual alluded to could be the same in both inscriptions. Neumann apud Adiego (1993a:236). On the identification of both individuals (both show the same father’s name), see Masson (1976:38), Ray (1982b:187). See here p. 336.

ula[----]ol C.St 1

428

chapter eleven

uliade C.St 2 PN in nominative. Carian adaptation of the Greek name OÈliãdhw, very widespread in Caria, probably due to its resemblance to the purely Carian name wliat (see the following entry). Adiego (1994a:39–40). On the name OÈliãdhw see Masson (1988b).

wliat E.xx 2 wljat E.Th 7 wljat≤ E.Mu 1 PN in nominative (wliat/wljat) and genitive (wljat≤ ). It is the Carian name that appears in Greek sources as Uliatow or Oliatow. Note the compound name “arwljat-. For the identification, see Adiego (1992a:31). The stem of the name has been connected with Hittite walliwalli-, ‘strong, powerful’ (also on the basis of other Anatolian names: Walawala, Walawali, and particularly Carian Oaloalow, about which see Adiego 1993b), cf. Adiego (1993a:238). See here p. 339.

umot2 C.Ka 2 un C.Ka 5 (2×) Tentatively analyzed as an infinitive in Adiego (1998a:22), see here on p. 299. Segmentation in both cases is not guaranteed!

undo[--]tl“ C.Ka 5 Acc. pl. c. of a stem undo[--]tl-. It seems to correspond to Greek eÈrg°taw ‘benefactors’ in the bilingual inscription C.Ka 5. Already proposed in Frei-Marek (1997:38), who added the important observation that the sequence ºtl- could represent a suffix of a nomen agentis comparable to Hitt. -talla-.

carian glossary

429

In Adiego (1998a:22) a segmentation un do[--]tl“ is suggested, taking un as an iteration of un (infinitive: ‘to make’) that appears just before (see preceding entry), so that only do[--]tl“ was the word corresponding to eÈrg°taw.

untri E.Ab 12, E.Ab 13 PN in nominative. wnuti≤ E.Me 31 Genitive. According to Vittmann, this is a title rather than a PN, given the good correspondence to Egyptian wnwtj (*[w6nùti/e] or *[wnùti/e]) ‘hour-observer, horoscoper, astronomer’. Vittmann rightly observes that the absence of an article in the adaptation of the Egyptian title fits well with the Egyptian syntactical practice, consisting of omitting the article when the title precedes the noun that it qualifies (in E.Me 31, wnuti≤ is the first word of the inscription, followed by the personal name kwar≤ ). Vittmann (2001:48–49). See here on p. 278. Vitmann is reasonably cautious in suggesting this interpretation, but the correspondence Carian wnuti = Egyptian wnwtj cannot simply be a matter of chance.

uodrou C.St 2 uodryia[ C.St 2 upa E.Me 13 upe E.Me 17, E.Me 4, E.Me 9, E.Me 22, E.Me 26, E.Me 38, E.Me 43a, E.Me 64a ([. . . u?]pe) wpe E.Me 36, E.Me 41 Common noun in nominative: ‘(funerary) stela’, or ‘tomb’. Its connection with ue, used in similar contexts, is not clear. Perhaps somehow related to Lycian xupa ‘tomb’?

430

chapter eleven

It is clear that upe/upa, independently of its precise meaning, makes reference to the object where the inscription stands (‘funerary stela’), or to its function (‘tomb’): see Meriggi (1980:36), followed by Adiego (1993a:208). E.Me 26 clearly supports this explanation, where upe appears accompanied by the demonstrative sa, ‘this’ (Adiego 1993a:209). Other interpretations (‘son’, Ray 1982b, followed by Kammerzell 1993; ‘I am’, Ray 1990a:72; a demonstrative, Ray ibid.) must be ruled out. Schürr has argued in favour of a generic meaning ‘stela’ instead of ‘tomb’, assuming that E.Me 4 is a ‘stèle de donation’, and that the Carian text does not seem to contain a typical onomastic formula (Schürr 1992:155). However, pace Schürr, this stela has clearly been re-used (there is no connection between the Egyptian and Carian texts), and the Carian inscription poses serious reading problems that do not allow us to identify the type of formula used. For upe/wpe vs. ue, Schürr has proposed a purely phonetic explanation, by resorting to an alleged tendency in Carian to drop p in intervocalic position (Schürr 1993:172; however, the evidence adduced is not convincing).

uqsi E.Me 20 PN in nominative. Perhaps a simple graphical variant of PN uksi-? urm≤ E.Bu 1 wrm≤ E.xx 7 PN in genitive. Note also the “vocalized” variant urom≤ in E.Bu 2, which possibly alludes to the same person as urm≤ in E.Bu 1. On the possible connection of this name to Luw. ura-, ‘great’, an adjective that enters into the formation of Anatolian proper names, see above p. 338.

ur#o E.Th 34 urom≤ E.Bu 2 PN in genitive. See urm≤, wrm≤. urq E.Lu 6

carian glossary

431

ursea∞k E.Bu 6 urs∞le≤ E.Me 15 PN in genitive. It appears transcribed as 3rskr in the Egyptian part of the bilingual inscription E.Me 15. Final º∞le of the stem has led us to imagine a Carian adaptation of a Greek name in -kl∞w (Neumann ers. comm. suggested ÉOrsikl∞w). The use of palatal ∞ for Greek k recalls Lyc. k (also a palatal) in Perikle < Gr. Perikl∞w.

urt E.Th 34 PN in nominative? u≤bzol C.Hy 1a PN in nominative. u≤ol E.Ab 35 u≤ol≤ C.Hy 1a (2×), C.St 2 w≤ol≤ E.Me 12 PN in nominative (u≤ol) and genitive (u≤ol≤/w≤ol≤ ), corresponding to the Carian name that appears as Ussvldow, Ussvllow in Greek sources (Zgusta KPN § 1629–7/8, Blümel KarPN:27); u≤ol- enters in composition with a series of prefixes (pn-u≤ol, “ar-u≤ol, id-u≤ol, etc.) For the identification u≤ol = Ussvllow, one of the most decisive steps in the Carian decipherment, see Ray (1981:160). About the possible etymology of the name, see here p. 344, n. 16.

usot C.Ke 1, C.Ke 2 On the doubts about these inscriptions, see p. 150.

432

chapter eleven

utnu≤ E.Ab 19, E.Ab 21 (u?tnu≤?) PN in genitive. uHbit C.Ka 2 u[. . .]ü≤q E.Th 12 ya C.Ka 8 ÿasd≤ E.Me 46a PN in genitive. Initial ÿasº recalls the ethnic name (?) yiasi-, yjas[i]- ‘Iasean’ (see s. v.); ÿ vs. yi/yj- finds a good parallel in y≤biks vs.- yi≤{∞}biks-. As for ºd-, it can be interpreted as a nt-suffix.

ybrs≤ C.Hy 1a PN in genitive. The stem ybrs- recalls the family of names in -(d)ybr/(d)ÿbr-, particularly smdÿbrs (see pp. 283, 314). It is possible that this indigenous name was identified with the Greek name ÑUbr°aw (Zgusta KPN § 1624), commonly used in Caria, in a process similar to that of wliat-OÈliãdhw. Adiego-Debord-Varinlio
ÿbt C.xx 1 Probably a verb: 3rd singular preterite or present of a verb ÿb- = Lycian ube- ‘to offer’: If preterite, it would be completely equivalent to Lycian ubete, ‘he offered’. If present, it would be from *ube-ti. For this interpretation, see Melchert (1993:78–79). Melchert’s interpretation is followed by, among others, Adiego (1994a:240) and Hajnal (1995[97]). An alternative view was attempted by Janda, who prefers to consider pjdl as the

carian glossary

433

verb in C.xx 1; Janda (1994:179) suggests that ÿbt can be a particle chain or a noun corresponding formally to CLuw. upatit- ‘landgrant’ (< *‘donation’. The Carian word would retain this original meaning). About the possibility that ÿbt can be a present, cf. Hajnal (1995[97]:17).

yiasi E.Me 25 yjas[i≤ ] E.Me 9 Ethnic name (?) in nominative ( yiasi ) and genitive yjas[i≤ ]. Connected with the Carian place name Iasos (Iasow)? Adiego (2004:310) and here p. 270.

yi≤{∞}biks≤ E.Me 46a PN in genitive. If the corrected reading is accepted (see p. 69), it is a variant form of ÿ≤biks, q.v. ylarmit C.Hy 1b Ethnic name (in genitive plural?) referring to the Carian city of Hyllarima. Connection of this word to the place name Hyllarima already noted in Ray (1988:152). For ylarmit as genitive plural with the meaning ‘Hyllarimeans’, see Adiego (2002:17).

ymezus[ C.St 2 ÿn-?-mo E.Sa 1 Cf. ÿnsmsos, although the integration of s between n and m is by no means clear. ynemori≤ E.Me 29 PN in genitive.

434

chapter eleven

ÿnsmsos E.Mu 1 E.AS 3 Possibly a title or adjective in nominative, where a suffix -os can be identified (cf. kbos E.Me 24). yomln C.Ka 4 Perhaps a variant form of uiomln, q.v. ÿpdnmw%d E.Th 4 yri∞ñ C.Si 1 (2×) Final ñ (if the reading is accepted), points to a possible accusative. A possible stem yri∞- would recall the family of names in yri∞-/yriq- /ÿdiq/ÿd∞- (see idyri∞-, paryri∞-, etc.). Can yri∞ñ have any connection with the GN Sinuri? yri≤ E.Th 26 PN in genitive. Cf. pnyri≤ru. Could yri- be related to yri∞-/yriq-?

yrqso≤ C.My 1 (2×) PN in genitive. It corresponds to the name adapted in Greek as Urgosvw. Adiego (2005:90)

ÿrsbe E.Ab 6 Unclear word. Cannot be a PN in nominative, given the context in which it appears (preceded by a PN in nominative (“aru≤ol) and followed by a PN in genitive (pdubi≤ ). Perhaps a title?

carian glossary

435

ÿ≤biks C.xx 2 PN in nominative. Compare yi≤{∞}biks≤. The name is a compound whose second element is biks (cf. piks-, dbiks- and see p. 337 for an etymological explanation). ÿsm E.AS 9 yysmt≤oHa[ E.Ab 27 zidks E.Sa 1 Sequence immediately followed by mdane. Function and meaning unknown (an ‘s-case’ of a PN? A verb?). zmu≤ E.Me 19 PN in genitive. z“ariosã C.Ka 2 Coordinated by means of sb to another word ending in -ã ([-]∞arlanoã). Hd“qedormñs[ C.St 2 H∞it C.Ka 2 Hnmkda[-]aHuq[ C.Ki 1 Horouo C.Ka 5 Function and meaning unknown. In Adiego (2000:144) attention is drawn to the good parallel between ºorouo and Lycian arawa- ‘tax exemption, ét°leia’, but the connection is hampered by the initial H (difficult to separate from orouo, given that Horouo appears immediately after sb, ‘and’).

436

chapter eleven

Hosurz E.Ab 28 [41] 1aitk C.Ka 2 Function and meaning unknown. Perhaps k could be an enclitic element, and the resulting form 1ait º could be compared with ait in the same inscription, for which an analysis as a third plural person verb has been proposed (see ait). 1mali C.Ka 2 (2×) 1orsol“

C.Ka 2 Apparently an accusative plural, coordinated with sarni“ by means of sb. Meaning unknown. ?-˚bjqmqew E.Th 12 Function and meaning unknown. Perhaps we are dealing with more than one word. Note the final ew (see ewm), and the sequence ºkbj º, which recalls the PN kbjom≤, “arkbiom and place name kbidn. ?-ras E.Ab 43 PN in nominative (?)

Acephalic Words [-]aH C.Ka 2 Cf. a similar ending (]maH) in the same inscription. [-]ars E.Ab 36 Apparently a PN in nominative.

carian glossary

437

[-]bdo C.My 1 PN in nominative. No parallels have been established. [-]bi C.Ka 2 Perhaps the same enclitic element that appears twice in the same inscription, see bi. [-]diurt C.Ka 2 [-?]iam≤ E.Me 45 PN in genitive. [-]intnor C.Ka 2 [-]∞arlanoã C.Ka 2 Coordinated by means of sb to another word ending in -ã (z“ariosã). [-]nudrma C.Ka 2 [-]obiokli≤ C.My 1 Onomastic formula consisting of a PN in nominative followed by a PN in genitive, the difficulty being the isolation of the two names. [-]owt≤ E.Me 48 PN in genitive. [-]qo C.My 1 PN in nominative. For the final, cf. plqo-Pellekvw. [-]tmai≤[--] E.Bu 3

438

chapter eleven

[-]untlau[-] E.Ab 22 [--]abrun∞ur[-]“yn“ Hynn C.Ka 2 A sequence of words whose segmentation is not clear. Neumann (1998:26–27) proposes isolating a word ∞ur[-]“yn≤, which he interprets as an ethnic name in plural (with the -yn- ethnic suffix, cf. kbdyn“ ) and connects to the Carian place name Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/ Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/. Although the proposed segmentation is attractive (particularly regarding the ending -yn-“ ), the relation with the mentioned place name is far less compelling; note that the Carian word cannot be read integrally: also the correspondence Car. “ : Greek -nd-/-(n) z- (in the different variants of the name) is not at all satisfactory.

[--]e∞ld E.Si 2 [--] j [-]≤ E.Me 48 Extant letters of a PN in genitive. [--]msal E.Bu 1 Last letters of an initial word in a graffito from Buhen. Final ºsal recalls euml ?bnasal, eypsal, also initial words in Buhen graffiti. See euml?bnasal for a proposed interpretation of ºsal. [--]ryin C.Si 2a PN in nominative. Given the context in which it appears, it must be the Carian name of the dynast Idrieus. It is clear that the Carian form of the name was not totally coincident with the Greek one. One could tentatively complete *[id]ryin and assume a PN formed on the name of the Carian city Idriaw, *idr-, by means of the suffix for ethnic names -yin (cf. kbd-yn-“, mda-yn/mda-ÿn). The resulting meaning, ‘inhabitat of Idrias’, could roughly correspond to the Greek ÉIdrieÊw. Schürr (1992:137–138).

carian glossary

439

[--]Hl∞sasot2 C.Ka 5 The final -ot2 recalls similar endings in this inscription and in C.Ka 2: mdot2, punot2, umot2. [--]w≤ord≤ E.Me 10 Final part of a PN or ethnic name in genitive. For the ending, cf. the ethnic name (or PN) msnord[--] yt2 C.Ka 5 ]a[-]i≤ E.Me 11b Extant letters of a PN in genitive. ]allia E.Ab 30 ]bewmsmnwdiq E.Th 38 A sequence that seems to contain more than one word. We could perhaps isolate a word smnwdiq, probably a PN related to the family of names in yri∞-/yriq- /ÿdiq-/ÿd∞- (Greek -urigow, -udigow) (but note here the apparent use of w). As for ]bewm, it recalls the element ewm present in other graffiti from Thebes (see the corresponding entry). ]btdeo E.Th 14 ]b ?e≤ C.Ia 6 Probably the final letters of a PN in genitive. ]dar1 C.Ka 4 ]i≤ E.Me 57 Final part of a PN in genitive.

440

chapter eleven

]∞≤ E.Me 60 Very likely to be the final part of a PN in genitive. ]latmne≤ C.St 1 PN in genitive. It is possible that the name may be complete. In this case, cf. perhaps the Carian place name Latmow (Zgusta KON § 696, Blümel KarON:173). The segmentation ]la tmne≤ would also be an attractive theory, as well as a comparison of this latter with the Carian PN Tumnhw (Zgusta KPN § 1615, Blümel KarPN:26). ]maH C.Ka 2 Cf. [-]aH in the same inscription. ]no≤ ? C.Ka 7 Last letters of a PN in genitive? ]ois?ur?mlo C.Ka 9 ]pri E.Ab 26 Probably the last letters of a PN in nominative. ]q≤si≤ E.Me 53 Final part of a PN or ethnic name in genitive. ]rbn“a[ E.Si 9 ]r≤wk[-]“ [ E.AS 8 ]r[—]tnit E.Ab 29

carian glossary

441

]sel“ C.St 1 (3×) Very likely to be the final letters of a PN in nominative. ]s≤ E.Me 58 Final letters of a PN (s-stem) in genitive. ]tbe≤ C.Si 1 It seems to be the final part of a word (perhaps a PN?) in genitive. ]tbsms C.Ka 2 ]ub“ÿ C.Di 1 ]uda[ C.Ki 1 ]ue∞l C.Ia 2 ]u≤ E.Me 26 Last letters of a PN in genitive. ]u≤ou≤ C.Ka 4 ]utr[ E.Me 59 ] ybzsdm C.Ki 1 ]zolba∞a[. . .] C.Ki 1

APPENDIX A

CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS IN TRANSCRIPTION

E = Egypt C = Caria (and nearby areas in Lydia and Lycia) G = Greece E = Egypt Sa = Sais Me = Memphis Ab = Abydos Th = Thebes Lu = Luxor Mu = Murwàw Si = Silsilis AS = Abu Simbel SS = Gebel Sheik Suleiman Bu = Buhen xx = Unknown origin E.Sa = Sais E.Sa 1 “arkbiom : zidks mdane : ÿn-?mo | den : tumn

E.Me 3 pikre≤ ue “arwljat≤ msnord≤ E.Me 4 terÿez≤ | upe | nuol+∞[---]sarmrol∞yt E.Me 5 psm“kwneit≤ | ue | naria≤ | ≤ugliq | sarl? E.Me 6 triqo : parma≤≤ ∞i klorul ∞i E.Me 7 tamou tanai≤ qarsio[-?]

E.Sa 2 pdnejt qÿri≤ ∞i E.Me = Memphis E.Me 1 ttbazi[≤] | Ñiub[a]Ωi≤ | aor[≤] E.Me 2 uksmu | lkor≤ | mrsi≤

E.Me 8 a. paraeym : armon ∞i b. para!eym : sb polo E.Me 9 arli“≤ : upe : arlio [m≤] ∞i : yjas[i≤] E.Me 10 œårm≤ : q[---]≤ ∞i : p∂uüi≤ mno≤ [mw]don≤ ∞[i ---]w≤ord≤ ∞i

444

appendix a

E.Me 11 (a) wår[---]t[------]i[---]≤ | mdaÿn (b) [--15--]a[-]i≤ | mdaÿn E.Me 12 pjabrm | w≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i kbjom≤ | m[no≤] E.Me 13 “dtat≤ | upa | w | wet≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 14 irow | pikarm≤ | mwdon!≤ E.Me 15 arli“≤ urs∞le≤ kidbsi≤ E.Me 16 irow | pikra≤ ∞i semw≤ | mno≤ mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 17 “arnai≤ upe | quq≤ bem≤ ∞i mdaÿn E.Me 18 (a) ta“ubt≤ kuari≤bar | ≤en niqau≤ ptnupi (b) idmuon≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i E.Me 19 pnu≤ol zmu≤ ∞i

E.Me 20 uqsi | “rwli≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 21 punw≤ol≤ : somne≤ qÿblsi≤ ∞i E.Me 22 artay≤ : upe : [. . . E.Me 23 ap[---]ws a[rb]ikarm≤ ∞i E.Me 24 tdu≤ol kbos | “amsqi[. . .? E.Me 25 “ayriq | parpeym≤ ∞i yiasi E.Me 26 [. . .]u≤ | upe sa | triel≤ | mrsi≤ E.Me 27 irow≤ : psHÿm[-]≤ pttu≤ : mno≤ E.Me 28 sanuq≤ | ue | pntmun≤ ∞i mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 29¡ s[--]et≤ | [ue] | ynemori≤ | mwdon≤ E.Me 30 “aru≤ol pleq≤ ∞i : ≤ugli≤ E.Me 31 wnuti≤ | kwar≤ mHm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ [∞]i

carian inscriptions in transcription E.Me 32 iturow≤ | kbjom≤ | ∞i en | mw[d]on≤ ∞i

E.Me 44 (a) apmen “rquq≤ kojol ∞i (b) mwton≤ ∞i

E.Me 33 (a) idmns | myre≤ ∞i | mdayn ∞i (b) idmns | myre≤ ∞i

E.Me 45 [q?]lalis [?]iam≤ ∞i alos ∞arnos

E.Me 34 me®≤ | somne≤ | t®∞ata[r]≤ E.Me 35 ntokris | dw≤ol≤ | mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 36 wksmu≤ | wpe | lkor≤ ∞j qarpsi≤

E.Me 46 (a) ÿasd≤ | yi≤{∞}biks≤ ∞i (b) mwdon≤ ∞i E.Me 47 tqtes | paraibrel≤ ∞i | mn[o-?]

E.Me 37 qlali≤ | [. . .] tkrabi≤

E.Me 48 [--]j[-]≤ [-]owt≤ ∞i : msnord≤

E.Me 38 “ÿin≤ | upe | arie?≤ ∞i ted

E.Me 49 loubaw | siral | pnld≤wl

E.Me 39 [. . .]s? | ar∞ila≤ mno≤

E.Me 50 (a) “enurt (b) p∞simt≤ ∞i

E.Me 40 plqo | pikrm≤ ∞i | mwdon≤ ∞i

E.Me 51 arli““ | psikro≤ ue

E.Me 41 |? or≤ | wpe | qdar®ou≤ | t®∞atar≤ E.Me 42 arjom≤ : ue : mwsat≤ : ∞i : mwdon≤ : ∞i tbridbd≤ : ∞i E.Me 43 (a) lÿ∞si≤ | upe | “rquq≤ ∞i | ksolb≤ (b) arliom≤ | mno≤ ∞i

E.Me 52 [. . .] ardybyr≤ | md[. . .] E.Me 53 [. . .]q≤si≤ E.Me 54 [. . .] mrsj[. . .] E.Me 55 [. . .] psma[≤/“k . . .]

445

446

appendix a

E.Me 56 [. . .] “ark[bi/jom . . .?]

E.Ab 3 ptn“e | ibarsi≤

E.Me 57 [. . .]i≤ ∞i

E.Ab 4 “amow ltari≤

E.Me 58 [. . .]s≤ ∞i

E.Ab 5 “amow ltari[≤]

E.Me 59 [. . .]utr[. . .]

E.Ab 6 “aru≤ol | ÿrsbe | pdubi≤

E.Me 60 [. . .]∞≤

E.Ab 7 plat | pals≤

E.Me 61 [. . .]i

E.Ab 8 plat pals≤

E.Me 62 [. . .]≤[. . .]

E.Ab 9 plat pals≤

E.Me 63 (a) idyes≤ (b) m [?

E.Ab 10 piubez qurbo≤

E.Me 64 (a) [. . .u?]pe : pd[ (b) [. . .]mi

E.Ab 11 ≤? / [. . .]it

E.Me 65 u[. . .]m | punm[-]≤ | mudo[n]≤ E.Me 66 ---].[..u][. . .]p[-]n[---

E.Ab 12 untri uantrpo E.Ab 13 untri | uantrpu≤

E.Ab = Abydos

E.Ab 14 abrq∞[. . .?

E.Ab 1 pisiri

E.Ab 15 pdubez or≤

E.Ab 2 panejt iarja≤

E.Ab 16 nprosn≤

carian inscriptions in transcription E.Ab 17 pa[-]in[-]t≤ E.Ab 18 tamosi | inut≤ E.Ab 19 tamosi utnu≤ E.Ab 20 ninut | tamosi≤

E.Ab 30 bid≤lemsa : “a[ru]≤ol : “aÿdiq≤ [. . .]allia : bsis E.Ab 31 ∞aye E.Ab 32 ∞arr≤ E.Ab 33 “arpt≤ | p[-]lu≤

E.Ab 21 to[-]a[---]l tamosi u?tnu≤?

E.Ab 34 dbkrm [-]kb?[

E.Ab 22 [-]untlau[-]|

E.Ab 35 u≤ol | mi∞≤≤ kdûsi≤

E.Ab 23 be≤ol

E.Ab 36 [-]ars, ∞[-]urb≤

E.Ab 24 [. . .] arli“

E.Ab 37 “arur≤

E.Ab 25 ttubazi kattÿri≤

E.Ab 38 piew

E.Ab 26 [. . .]pri | ptnuq?i?

E.Ab 39 uarila[-]os≤

E.Ab 27 yysmt≤oHa[

E.Ab 40 ialli | q∞blio≤

E.Ab 28 Hosurz | srton[-]_[. . .?] (or: . . . +t[-]nota/rs | za/rusoH/l?)

E.Ab 41 ttbazi kt?tri≤

E.Ab 29 [. . .]r[--]tnit

E.Ab 42 “aru≤[..? E.Ab 43 ?-ras

447

448

appendix a

E.Th = Thebes E.Th 1 uarbe E.Th 2 dtÿbr | kbokt≤ k≤atÿbr E.Th 3 pla?t

E.Th 13 dbiks | kbjoms | wdwn | sb a≤b≤t ewm E.Th 14 ]q[. . .]btdeo E.Th 15 Very uncertain reading! E.Th 16 ∂saml-?-?-” (vacat) dy “a

E.Th 4 dokmmpint seqqejewsk | mqtjq ÿpdnmwd.

E.Th 17 ku

E.Th 5 dÿbr | t®∞atr≤

E.Th 18 t n

E.Th 6 bebnd

E.Th 19 dbikrm

E.Th 7 wljat

E.Th 20 orbá ˚ r i“

E.Th 8 qutbe

E.Th 21 mmn∞al

E.Th 9 kudtubr

E.Th 22 mwk | te

E.Th 10 a?q≤baq ewm ≤emot qtblo owdown[. . .]mwarudk≤o mlane

E.Th 23 bebi

E.Th 11 psma≤[k] [? | nm[ mplat | o[ E.Th 12 ?-˚bjqmq ewmlane qeb≤t | u[. . .]ü≤q | qwsal | mqabaewleqo“osk)ioms

E.Th 24 kow[?-?] E.Th 25 ktmno E.Th 26 brsi yri≤

carian inscriptions in transcription E.Th 27 pnw≤ol | mlqi≤

E.Th 40 pnu≤ol

E.Th 28 bejeym | teb”t K beb)int ken

E.Th 41 tmonks

E.Th 29 ]ke

E.Th 42 rdudmm»≤ E.Th 43 p

E.Th 30 bebint | psrkrte | mumn“tnse-? »ßw˚n

E.Th 44 dquq | ewmlane | tebot | gkem≤

E.Th 31 Very uncertain reading!

E.Th 45 krwß

E.Th 32 tqlow

E.Th 46 prpwri∞ kblow≤

E.Th 33 ∞lbiks≤

E.Th 47 *wdbo≤kn ewá¬å»e ˚[

E.Th 34 sl∞maewm | urt | kwri≤ | prna∞non | dm-?-n | maãtnor | qanor | ur”

brsi

E.Th 35 lÿ∞se | “i“≤ | mlan[-?] E.Th 36 \ or≤ E.Th 37 ktmn E.Th 38 ]bewmsmnwdiq tebwnqmw E.Th 39 krws | ko“m≤

449

E.Th 48

E.Th 49 bal ewlane | “rb˚[-]sal | E.Th 50 pn-? E.Th 51 p E.Th 52 plqodse | ewm-?-?-?-? | rqemw | k-?[ E.Th 53 dr“≤iem E.Lu = Luxor Temple

450

appendix a

E.Lu 1 ds-?

E.Si 5 betkrqit[-- . . .]

E.Lu 2 rsy suso “?rquq [. . .?

E.Si 6 bÿta“ | sursiabk | dr[- . . .] qku

E.Lu 3 Very uncertain reading! E.Lu 4 ?-?-[-]ms[-]ry-?-? E.Lu 5 b?s?ui∞am | oã? E.Lu 6 | urq E.Lu 7 tksr (or: tasr)

E.Si 7 psma≤k E.Si 8 bij≤≤pe E.Si 9 [. . .]rbn“a[-- . . .] E.Si 10 ∞?mpi E.Si 11 dmo“bqs E.AS = Abu Simbel

E.Mu = Murwàw E.Mu 1 p?owk | wljat≤ | ÿnsmsos saawon sa?awon

E.AS 1 par≤olou [. . .]oe

E.Si = Silsilis

E.AS 2 “abd?aikal

E.Si 1 ∞iqud | marariso[-. . .]

E.AS 3 pisma“k | “arnw≤ | ÿnsmsos

E.Si 2 [--]e∞ld | wa | psma≤k≤ | uejresi | qan | kolt | kowrn[. . .?

E.AS 4 a∞akowr | emsglpn | b[. . .] pisma[“/≤k . . .]

E.Si 3 irasa | n[-]eakrnanb

E.AS 5 pnyri≤ru | iÿkr≤ | “a[--]i≤b?wn

E.Si 4 [. . .]K bebint | sqlumidun | sqla

E.AS 6 platt slaÿ≤ ∞i

carian inscriptions in transcription E.AS 7 naz ∞i∞ | bÿ“ | esak?dow“ | mÿqudem | pisma≤k | bebint | mo | ne | psÿ≤[|?] ai[-]iqom

451

E.Bu 6 eypsal puor≤ | aor≤ | ursea∞k ∞i E.SS = Gebel Sheik Suleiman

E.AS 8 nid≤kusas | meÿqak | sn≤ | ≤t≤ | ≤uni≤ | k“mmsm[. . .] [. . .]r≤wk[-]“[ E.AS 9 ÿsm [? E.Bu = Buhen E.Bu 1 [--]msal | ar[®]i“ | psma≤k≤ | urm≤ | ankbu“ | trel kdou≤ E.Bu 2 euml?bnasal | ar®i“ pdtom≤ urom≤ | ankbu“

E.SS 1 n≤n[-]s“|“aru≤ol pneit|“ÿin≤ parÿd∞≤ E.xx = Unknown origin E.xx 1 qorb | isor≤ ∞i | ≤ugli≤ E.xx 2 wliat E.xx 3 ionel≤ E.xx 4 pduba E.xx 5 ow∞meb≤t

E.Bu 3 [-]tmai≤[--]

E.xx 6 “arnajs | sb taqbos

E.Bu 4 psma≤k ibrsi≤

E.xx 7 ntros : prãidas or“a nu mdane : uksi wrm≤

E.Bu 5 psma≤k C = Caria (and transitional neighboring areas of Lydia and Lycia) Tr = Tralles (Lydia-Caria) Al = Alabanda (-Eski Çine) Hy = Hyllarima Eu = Euromos

St = Stratonikeia My = Mylasa Si = Sanctuary of god Sinuri near Mylasa

452

appendix a

Kn = Kindye Ki = Kildara Ha = Halikarnassos Di = Didyma (Ionia) Ia = Iasos Ke = keramos Ka = Kaunos Kr = Krya (Lycia) xx = Unknown origin C.Tr = Tralles (Lydia-Caria border) C.Tr 1 sdi amt[ pau≤ art{ }mon C.Tr 2 an sidi artmi pau≤ parãaq? C.Al = Alabanda and surroundings C.Al 1 (Eski Çine) sdi a[-]mob[ C.Eu = Euromos C.Eu 1 ≤as : ktais idyri∞≤ : mn[os?] C.Eu 2 omob ∞i : temazi ≤dun : ≤o≤niabkol armon qyrbmudolo manon C.Kn = Kindye C.Kn 1 pareÿs C.Hy = Hyllarima

C.Hy 1 (a) “asqariod dymda muot armotrqdosq brsi ari“≤ brsi≤ mane : u≤ol≤ rtim u≤ol≤ pur?i≤

u≤bzol tñu≤ brsi≤ pau mane≤ ybrs≤ (b) kdu≤opizipususot mol“ msot ylarmit C.My = Mylasa C.My 1 idrayridsemdbq mol“ ty∞[ tsial tusol≤ : moi m[-]sao[ banol paruos≤ : p?au paryri∞≤ qzali obrbi≤ : tsial obrbi≤ banol yrqso≤ : paryri∞ psoir≤ [-]bdo pnu≤o≤ : myze trdy≤ “arkbiom qzali≤ : ≤umo kbdmu≤ skdubrotoz≤ : pau ∞toi≤ [-]qo idyri∞≤ : ksbo idu≤ol≤ [-]obiokli≤ : ∞toi yrqso≤ C.Si = Sancutary of Sinuri near Mylasa C.Si 1 adymd“ : yri∞ñ : t[-]rsi : [. . .?] tbe≤ (vacat) yri∞ñ : binq : sñaidlo C.Si 2 (a) [--]ryin ∞tmño≤ : sb ada ∞tmño≤ eri : pisñoi mda : pñmnn≤ñ : pda∞m≤uñ ∞i “aoyr∞ri mt∞elã ñmailo mda lrHñ : stspñ vacat sm“s[--5--] sb añmsñsi mda sm[--7--]a∞e[ ∞[--8--]tuñdñ[ ñe-?-[

carian inscriptions in transcription (b) pim[. . .] Ha?[. . .]

limtaoa | [ om

C.Ki = Kildara

C.Ia 2 ]ue∞l | ∞ob[

C.Ki 1 [. . . . . . .(.)]zolba∞a[. . (.)] kil[ [. . .]uda[. . .] trqdimr qrds tazomd[ kilarad[-]ybzsdmHnmkda[-]aHuq[ iasoum C.St = Stratonikeia C.St 1 ]sel“ a[--]a[----]om≤ ]som[n?]e brsi≤ ula[----]ol ]latmne≤ ≤ysñal[ ] ari“ maqly≤[ ]sel“ piks[ ]sel“ p[

C.Ia 3 ?] are“ | “anne mlne | siyklo≤ | “ann | trqude | ∞lmud [? C.Ia 4 n[. . .] pr[. . .] is[. . .] C.Ia 5 baqgk[. . .] C.Ia 6 [. . .]b?e≤

C.St 2 u≤ol≤ uodrou u[ mute≤ ymezus[ ∞diye≤ uodryia[ uliade pidaru[ mañ“qaraH≤rl-?-[ dar“qemorms[ Hda“qedormñs[

C.Ke = Keramos

C.Ha = Halikarnassos

t

C.Ha 1 smdÿbrs | psnlo | md orkn tÿn | snn

C.Ka = Kaunos

C.Di = Didyma (Ionia) C.Di 1 ]ub“ÿ C.Ia = Iasos C.Ia 1 ]la

453

C.Ke 1 usot

C.Ke 2 uso-

C.Ka 1 sñis : sdisas : psu≤ol≤ mal≤ : mno≤ C.Ka 2 [ui?]omlã qrds grdso[-]i[ [-]r sb a∞mnnartnyr obsmns[ [-]∞arlanoã sb z“ariosã i∞[ [-]nudrma ∞yrpai sarni“ sb u[ [-]aH punot2 otr“ bi sb a∞tmsk[m

454

appendix a

[-]d bi 1aitk ouor gdb“laã1_i[-] [-] sarni“ sb1orsol“ sb uHbit [-]bi qrdsol“ ait 1_mali H∞it [-]intnor ∞yrapai≤ umot2 oba [-]diurt obsmsmñ1 ñ ouor mt1 yr [--]abrun∞ur[-]“yn“Hynn sb vacat [------------------]tbsms 1mali [ [-------------------]maH sb an[ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ba vacat C.Ka 3 “oru≤ ann ibrs≤ C.Ka 4 [. . .]u≤ou≤ ibrsdr[-] [. . .]a yomln1 r_i [. . .]dar1_ idym“ C.Ka 5 kbidn uiomln i[---] inis drual nik[--] lan lysiklas[-?] otonosn sb lys[ikl] an lysikratas[-?] otonosn sarni[“] mdot2 un sb undo[--] tl“ kbdyn“ sb b2o[--] ol“ otr“ sb a∞t[ms]kmt absims sb [---] yt2 oru sb a∞t[----] bu∞y[-----]i[-----]i [--]≤ un moa[-]lboror [--]Hl∞sasot2 ort tab sb ort[-] sb Horouo bi mslmnlia purmoruos mnos aitusi C.Ka 6 or C.Ka 7 ]no≤? (or rather: ]noñ?)

C.Ka 8 potko≤l≤? aba?d? ya C.Ka 9 [. . .]ois?ur?mlo C.Kr = Krya (Lycia) C.Kr 1 qot2omu sdisa m?n≤ “odubr≤ sb mno≤ knor noril?ams

or rather: sn≤ “odubr≤? or rather: norimams?

C.xx = Unknown origin (presumably from Caria) C.xx 1 “rquq | qtblem≤ | ÿbt | snn | orkn | ntro | pjdl? C.xx 2 ÿ≤biks not : alosd ∞arnosd : jzpe mdane C.xx 3 akymyduÿeryl[vacat]d C.xx 4 kdu≤ol“ C.xx 5 kdu≤ol“ G = Greece G 1 (Athens) ≤jas | san tur[ G 2 (Thessalonike) qlali≤ | k?[

APPENDIX B

CARIAN GLOSSES

êla ‘horse’ bãnda ‘victory’

Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. ÉAlãbanda: ÉAlãbanda, pÒliw Kar¤aw (. . .) kt¤sma d¢ KarÚw ∑n , épÚ toË paidÚw aÈtoË klhye›sa toË gennhy°ntow épÚ KallirrÒhw t∞w Maiãndrou, metå n¤khn flppomaxikÆn, ka‹ klhy°ntow ÉAlabãndou, ˜ §sti katå tØn Kar«n fvnØn flppÒnikow. êla går tÚn ·ppon, bãnda1 d¢ tØn n¤khn kaloËsin.

Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. ÑUlloÊala: ÑUlloÊala, d∞mow Kar¤aw (. . .) êla går ofl Kçrew tÚn ·ppon ¶legon, …w ka‹ prÒteron e‡rhtai.

g¤ssa ‘stone’

Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. MonÒgisa MonÒgisa , < pÒliw Kar¤aw > (. . .) g¤ssa går tª Kar«n fvnª l¤yow •rmhneÊetai. ka‹ nËn toÁw plak≈deiw ka‹ malak≈deiw l¤youw g¤ssa l°gousi. kÒon ‘sheep’

Scholia ad Il. XIV, 255: tÚ d¢ prÒbaton kÒon (ms. ko›on) ofl Kçrew Ùnomãzousin, ˜yen K«w ≤ poluyr°mmvn. Cf. Eustathius, ad. Hom. Il. XIV, 255: K«w (. . .) fas‹ d¢ toÁw Kãraw oÏtv kale›n tå prÒbata, ˜yen ka¤ ı n∞sow K«w …w poluyr°mmvn.

g°la ‘king’ soËa or soËan ‘tomb’

Stephan of Byzantium, s. v. Souãggela: Souãggela, pÒliw Kar¤aw, ¶nya ı tãfow ∑n toË KarÒw , …w dhlo› ka‹ toÎnoma. kaloËsi går ofl Kçrew soËan tÚn tãfon, g°lan d¢ tÚn basil°a.

1

Reading mãnda in the two best manuscripts of Stephan.

APPENDIX C

CARIAN NAMES IN GREEK SOURCES

A. Place Names (§: Zgusta KON) Aba § 2–1. Agan/a/ § 8. Aggvr/a/ § 65 Agorhsow § 10. Adhssow § 17–3. Ayumbra § 25. Alabanda § 37–4. Alikarnassow § 44–7. Alinda § 44–11. Alkizv § 45. Allianoi § 44–4. Allvss/ow/ § 50–2 Amnist/ow/ cf. § 820, Blümel

KarON:165. Amow § 60. Amuzvn, Amuzvn/a/ § 61–1. Amunand/a/ § 61–2. Andanow § 66–3. Anyemi § 71. Apodes[ Blümel KarON:165. Arara § 85–16. Ardur/a/ § 90–6. Arissoullh Blümel KarON:165. Arlai/a/ § 95–1. Arlissow § 95–2. Armel/a/ Blümel KarON:165. Armokodvka § 96–1. Arnaso/w/ § 97–3. Arpasa Lat. Harpasa § 98. Artoub/a/ § 100–2. Asshsow § 108–3. Babein § 122–3. Bargasa (var. Pargasa, Bargaza)

§ 135–1. Bargulia (later var. Barbulia) § 135–2. Barkok≈mh Blümel (KarON:166). Boll- § 158.

Bridaw § 173. Bubassow, Boubassow, Bubastow, Boubastow § 177. Bvnitv § 159–2. Bvrand/a/ § 181. Gerga § 202–1. Gordio/n/ § 215–3. D°dmasa § 250. Didassai § 263. Dundason § 281. Enn/a/ § 297. Eorma § 298. Erezow § 302–1. Ermapilow § 305–1. Yaruai § 335. Yasyar/a/ § 336. Yembrihmow, Yembrimow § 338. Yemhs(s)ow, Yemissow § 339–1. Yigrow § 343. Yudonow § 351. Yuhssow § 352–1. Yumbria § 353–3. Yussanouw § 355. Yvdasa Blümel (KarON:167). Iasow § 358. Idriaw § 363. Iduma § 364–1. Imbrow § 373–1. Io.d- § 378. Kaduih § 403–2. Kalbisso/w/ § 413. Kalunda § 414–2. Kandasa § 426–2. Kandhb/a/, Kendhb/a/ § 428 (s. v. Kanduba). Kanhbion § 430. Kaprima § 436.

carian names in greek sources Karbasuand/a/, Karpasuand/a/

§ 439–5. Karoura § 452–2. Karu/a/ § 454–3. Karuanda § 454–1. Kasa § 455–2 (s. v. †Kasaio/n/). Kasar/a/ § 455–7. Kastabo/w/ § 458–1. Kasvk/a/ § 461–1. Kasvlaba § 461–2. Kasvsso/w/ § 461–4. Ka.nar/a/ § 423–6. Kebialea § 471. Kelimara Blümel (KarON:169). Kemhsso/w/ Blümel (KarON:169). Kendhbocorow § 477. Kenendvlab/a/ § 479. Keni- § 480. Kepranow § 481. Keraskord/a/ § 486. Kecaro/w/ § 496–1. K¤dram/a/ § 501. Kildar/a/, Killar/a/ § 510. Kinduh, later var. Kunduh § 518–1. Kisariw § 522. Koarbvnd/a/ § 538–1. Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/ Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/ § 538–2. Kodap/a/ § 541. Kodouvka § 544. Kozanata § 547. Koliorg/a/, Kolierg/a/ § 552. Koloura § 558–1 (not in Blümel!). Komurion § 658. Komvond/a/ § 568. Kond- Blümel (KarON:170). Konodvrkond/a/ § 575. Korell/a/ § 581. Kormoskvn/a/ § 583–4. Korrit/a/ § 589. Kostobalo/w/, Kvstobalo/w/ § 662. Kot- Blümel (KarON:171). Kot/a/ § 593–1. Kourb/a/ § 607. Crusa § 631. Kruassow § 632–2. Kuarda § 635.

457

Kubassow § 636. Kubim/a/ § 639–1. Kubisyih § 639–2. Kubliss/ow/, hublis/ow/ § 1396. Kullandow § 645–1. Kumniss/ow/ § 646. Kumvr/a/ § 647–2. Kuogrissiw § 649. Kuon § 652–2. Kuprand/a/ Blümel (KarON:172). Kurbasa § 651–2. Kuw § 652–1. Kushr/a/ § 653–1. Kusshliw § 653–2. Kvrai/vn/ § 659. Labara § 665. Labraunda (var. Larabiunda, Labranda, Labrainda, Labrauunda, Labrenda, Lambraunda Labraenda)

§ 666. Lagina, Lageina § 670 Lagnvk/a/ § 671. Laras/a/ § 688–2. Larb/a/ § 689. Latmow § 696. Leibo/w/ (rather a person or god name)

§ 704. Leukoid/a/ Blümel (KarON:173). Lec- (epiclesis ZeÁw Lecunow, Lecinow.

cf. also Lepsia, a Carian island) § 706. Lhcimandow (different variants for the inhabitants’ name: Lefsimãnioi, Lefs¤mandoi, LefsimandÇew, LefsumandÇew, LhcimandÇew) § 707. Lidh § 712–1. Lobold/a/ § 716. Lor.os/a/ § 720. Lurisso/w/ § 731. Lvm/a/ § 736. Lvndarg/a/ § 737. Lvndokvmh Blümel (KarON:173). Lvr/a/ § 738. Lvruma § 739. Lvsso/w/ § 740. Madnas/a/, M°dmasow, Medmassa/

Mednassa § 748. Mali/a/ § 756–2.

458

appendix c

Masanvrada § 782. Massvn/a/ § 787. Mastaura § 788. Maunn/a/, Maiunn/a/ § 793. Messaba § 804–1. Mhyasai § 806. Milhtow § 809. Mniesu/a/ § 819. MÒboll/a/, Mogola, Mvgla § 822. Mokold/a/ § 828. Monnara pl § 832. Monogissa § 833. Mosoun/a/ § 842–1. Mugissow § 858. Mudon- § 859. Muhss/ow/ § 863. Mulas(s)a (very late form: Milasa)

§ 861–1. Mundow § 862. Murshl/a/ § 866–1. Mursileia § 866–2. Mvss/on/ § 871. Naras/a/ § 885–3. Narisbar/a/ § 886. Naruandow § 888. NinÒh § 898–1. Nouik/a/ Blümel (KarON:175). Jerasso/w/ § 907. Ogond/a/ § 912. Ol/a/, Oul/a/ § 925. Oloss/iw/ § 930–2. Olumo/w/ § 932. Omb/a/ § 934. Ondoura § 935. Orbhla § 938–4. Oryondouvk/a/ § 941. Orsubli/a/ Blümel (KarON:176). Orsvll/a/ § 950. Otvrkond/a/ § 958. Ouasso/w/ § 966. Palgosvlda § 996. Panamara § 1000. Pandaj/a/ § 1001–2. Parableia (Parablia?) § 1005. Parembvrd/a/ § 1007. Parkall/a/ § 1009. Parpar- § 1012.

Pasand/a/, Pasada § 1015. Passala § 1018. Patarous/a/ § 1022–3. Pedanass/ow/, Pedanass/ow/ § 1028,

1059–2. Peig°lasow § 1031. Peldek-ìt- § 1035. Phgasa § 1053–1. Phdasa, Pidasa § 1054–1. Piginda § 1058–1. Pidvssow, Pidossus § 1059–2. Pisymoi § 1065. Pisiliw § 1066–1. Pisuh § 1066–4. Pitaon, Pitaium § 1067–3. Pladas/a/, Platas/a/ § 1068, 1072. Plamow § 1070. Plarasa § 1071. Pluar/a/ § 1080. Poluara § 1083–1. Pounomou/a/ § 1093–1. Prinassow § 1101–1. Proposs/ow/ Blümel (KarON:178). Pruondr- Blümel (KarON:178). Purindow § 1114–1. Purnow § 1114–2. Pustow § 1116. Salei/a/ § 1148–2. Salmakiw § 1150–1. Samn/h/ § 1153. Samulia § 1152–2. Saranso/w/ § 1165–2. Sasanda § 1176–2. Siana § 1261–1. Sikim/a/ Blümel (KarON:178). Sind/a/ § 1219–2. Sindhssow § 1219–4 Sinuri § 1222. Solo/a/ § 1244–1. Solvn/a/ § 1244–3. Sparz/a/ § 1255. Suana § 1261–1. Suaggela, Souaggela, Sfaggela (later Yeaggela, Theangela) § 1261–2. Suarbeu[ § 1262. Suista § 1267. Surna § 1272.

carian names in greek sources Svbala § 1274. Svssow Blümel (KarON:179). Tabai § 1277–1. Tabarniw § 1277–5. Talagr/a/ § 1284. Tapass/oi/ § 1294. Taramptow § 1295. Tarban/a/ § 1297–1. Tarbetv (?, or rather a personal name?)

Blümel (KarON:179). Tarkondar/a/ § 1299. Tarm/ow/ (?, or rather a personal

name?) § 1300. Tezhra (?, or rather a personal name?)

§ 1310. Teleseitiw § 1312. Telmhssow, Telmessow, Telmissow, Telemessow, Telmisum § 1314. Temoesso/ow/ Blümel (KarON:180). Tendhba § 1318. Termera, Telmera, Termera § 1320–2. Terssvgass/ow/ Blümel (KarON:181). Tnussow § 1347. Traldeiw, Tralleiw, Trallis § 1361–1. Trara § 1362. Trobaliss/ow/ § 1368. Truban/a/ § 1374. Tuennesso/w/ § 1379. Tumnhssow § 1384–5. Tumnow § 1384–4.

459

Ualvka § 1393. Uarbesu/a/ § 1394. Ubliss/ow/ § 1396. Ugas(s)ow 1397. Udai, Kudai § 1398–2. Udis(s)ow § 1398–4. Uyubir/a/ § 1400. Uissow § 1402. Ulim/a/ § 1404–1. Ullarima § 1404–2. Ullouala § 1404–3. Umess/ow/ § 1405. Urvmow, Kurvmow, Eurvmow, Eurvpow

§ 1412. Usarbid/a/ § 1414. Ussome[ Blümel (KarON:182). Utarm/ow/ Blümel (KarON:182). Xalkhtvr, Xalkhetorew Blümel

(KarON:182). Vlasha § 1443. Vndr/a/ § 1444. Vnzvssuaso/w/ § 1445. Vspraonno/w/ § 1447. ]akondia Blümel (KarON:182). ]eadovka § 1450. ]erra Blümel (KarON:182). ]hvka § 1457. ]kermu.ion Blümel (KarON:182). ]nirea Blümel (KarON:182).

B. Personal Names (§; Zgusta KPN) Aba, Abaw, Abbaw § 1–1/2/3/5. Abersi § 5. Ada § 15–1. Ayuasiw § 128. Akarmomeldvw § 27. Aktadhmow § 38–1. Aktauassiw § 38–2. Aktaussvllow § 38–3. Alasta § 42–1. Alganiw § 44. Alleaw § 52–3. Amiaw, Ammiaow, Ammh, Ammin, Ammeiaw,

etc. § 57.

Andarsvw § 59–4. Appa, Apfia, Apfiaw, Apfion, Apfianow, Afia, Afion, Affion, etc. § 66. Apoukvw § 79. Arbhs(s)iw § 85–2/3. Arduberow § 86–6. Ariauow § 89–2. Aridvliw § 89–4. Arlissiw § 95–1/2. Arlivmow § 95–3. Arris(s)iw § 106–1/2. Arshliw § 107–12. Artaow Blümel (KarPN:11).

460

appendix c

Arthumow § 109. Artimhw Arteimhw § 108–4/6. Artuassiw, Aryuassiw § 110–1/2. Aruassiw § 111. Arvsiw Blümel (KarPN:11). Atthw § 119–10. Beryaw § 162–1. Berrablviow Blümel (KarPN:11). Boivmow § 178–4. Bruajiw, Bruassiw § 196–1/2. Brvlvw § 197. Geiw § 210–3. Glouw § 224. Gugow Blümel (KarPN:12). Dandvmow § 251. Daru . . . ow § 254. Deibow § 264. Dersvmanhw Blümel (KarPN:12). Dersvw Blümel (KarPN:12). Dersv . . . tiw § 275. Ekamuhw Blümel (KarPN:12). Ekatomnvw (more recent variants: Ekatomnvn, Ekatomnow) § 325–1/2/3. Ejamuhw § 340–2. Ermapiw § 355–21. Zermeduberow (var. Jermedurow)

Blümel (KarPN:13). Zonzolow § 390. Yekuilow § 417. Youw Blümel (KarPN:14). Yualdiw § 438. Yussow § 445–1 Ibanvlliw § 450. Idagugow § 451–4. Idakow § 451–5. Idbelaw Blümel (KarPN:14). Ideghbow Blümel (KarPN:14). Idmamu . . . ow § 452–6. ÉIdrieÊw § 453. Idubl[ § 454. Idussvllow Blümel (KarPN:15). Il[.]uthw § 1678. Imbarhldow § 467. Imbarsiw, Imbras(s)iw § 469–3/4/5. Imbrhw § 469–9. Innivn § 471–8. Indow § 473–1.

Isedum.xow § 485. Isemenda . . . ow § 486. Iublhsiw § 494. I . . . uagow § 1679. Kay.divn § 1680. Kakraw § 509–1. Kalbalaw § 512. Karama . . . ow § 531. Karjaw § 539. Karreiw § 540–3. Karusvldow § 544. Kasballiw § 546. Kasbvlliw § 545. Kashsiw § 547–1. Kaifenh § 558. Kbondiassiw § 566. Kbvdhw § 567–1. Kebivmow Blümel (KarPN:16). Keldnassiw § 573. Kemptuw § 575. *Kendhbhw § 576–9. Ketambissiw § 593. Kindacow (KarPN:16). Kinjimow § 617. Kit.essvw (KarPN:16). Koboldvow (KarPN:16). Koibilow § 652–1. Koidvw § 653. Kolaldiw, Kulaldiw (KarPN:17). Koldobaw § 660. Kolvldow § 661. Kondalow § 676–1. Kondmalaw § 676–2. Kondo[ § 676–5. Korollow (KarPN:17). Korriw § 686–3. Koshtiow (KarPN:17). Kosinaw § 703. Kostvlliw § 705. Kotbelhmow (KarPN:17) cf. Kutbelhmiw. Kotobalvw (KarPN:17). Kouldoiw § 727. Kourvn § 737–5. Ktouboldow § 761. Kuaremow § 764. Kuatbhw § 765. Kulaldiw (KarPN 18) cf. Kolaldiw.

carian names in greek sources Kutbelhmiw § 771. Kutpiw § 772. Kvbhw § 774–1. Kvglvw § 775. Latarshw § 799. Lugdamiw § 834. Lujhw § 836. Makow § 848–1. Malosvow (KarPN:18). Manhw § 858–1. Manitaw § 864–1. Mareuw § 873–6. Marow § 873–13. Massarabiw § 880–2. Matiw § 882–6. Mausvllow § 885–1–6. Memakow Blümel (KarPN:19). Metebiw Blümel (KarPN:19). Mindrvn § 921. Minnaw, Minnion, Minniw, Minnh, Minnivn, Minnow, etc. § 922. Miskow/Miskvw § 929–2. Mohnnow § 941. Moiw § 942. Mokollhw § 944–1. Molhw § 946–1. Monnhw § 959. Mosraiow Blümel (KarPN:19). Mouzeaw § 980–2. Naduw § 1008a. Nana, Nanh, Nanaw, Nannh, Nannion, Nanniw, Nannixow, Nannow, Nannv, etc. Narbaw § 1013. Neterbimow Blümel (KarPN:20). Nonnh, Nonnow, etc. Nutar Blümel (KarPN:20). Nvtrassiw Blümel (KarPN:20). Oaloalow § 1134–2 (cf. Adiego 1993b). Oa3a3iw § 1145–8. Obrokaw Blümel (KarPN:20). Oletaw § 1085–1. Oliatow § 1085–2 Olohtow Blümel (KarPN:20). Opinaw § 1096–2. Ordomaw § 1104–3. Oridhumiw Blümel (KarPN:20). Ortassiw § 1114–2.

461

O(?sa)rthumow § 1114–3. Oseaw § 1121. Ouvkhw § 1180. Pagadow § 1186. Paktuhw § 1193. Patkuvlliw Blümel (KarPN:21). Paktuiskow Blümel (KarPN:21). Panablhmiw § 1197–3. Panamuhw § 1197–6. Panuassiw § 1198. Paow Blümel (KarPN:21). Papaw, Papiaw, Papow, etc. § 1199. Paparivn § 1200–2. Paraskvw § 1203–3. Paraudigow § 1203–5. Paraussvllow, Paraussvldow, Parussvldow § 1203–6/8. Pargistaw § 1205. Parmumiw Blümel (KarPN:22). Parnow § 1207. Paruv § 1212–2. Paruinna § 1212–1. Passidhrow § 1219. Pedvldow § 1232. Pelaow Blümel (KarPN:22). Peldemiw, Peldemvw

§ 1234–1. Peldhkow § 1234–2. Pel(l)ekvw § 1234–3/4. Pelkisiw § 1235. Perbilaw § 1239. Perignaw/Petignaw § 1241. Phdisaw § 1249. Pigassvw Blümel (KarPN:22). Pigrhw § 1255–6. Pijvdarow § 1263–3. Pirvmiw § 1266. Pisindhliw § 1268. Pisku[ Blümel (KarPN:23). Pis.nvw Blümel (KarPN:23). Pitakolow (not †Gitakolow, Zgusta

§ 221!) Blümel (KarPN:23). Pittaw § 1270–1. Plouw § 1277–1. Ponmoonnow Blümel (KarPN:23). Ponusvllow § 1189. Pormounow Blümel (KarPN:23).

462

appendix c

Purkeaw/Purkehw Saggotbhriw Blümel (KarPN:23). Saggvw § 1369. Samassiw § 1361. Sampaktuhw, Sambaktuw § 1364–1. Samvow § 1367–1. Samvuow § 1367–2. Sanamvw Blümel (KarPN:24). Sanortow § 1371. Sarow § 1377. Saruassiw Blümel (KarPN:24). Sarussvllow § 1378–1/2. Saskow/Saskvw § 1381. Sassvmow § 1379–6. Saurigow Blümel (KarPN:24). Sausvllow Blümel (KarPN:24). Seikilow § 1390. Semeuritow Blümel (KarPN:25). Senurigow Blümel (KarPN:25). Seskvw § 1410–1. Sesvlhw § 1411. Sibilvw § 1416–1. Siduatow Blümel (KarPN:25). Sidulhmiw § 1422. Silbow § 1426. Skoaranow Blümel (KarPN:25). Spareudigow § 1466. Sueskurebow § 1477. S[u]s[k]h[w] (?)Blümel (KarPN:25). Suskvw § 1486. Svmnhw Blümel (KarPN:25).

Tarmow Blümel (KarPN:25). Tarv § 1515–2. Tata, Tatarion, Tataw, Tateiw, Tath, Tatia, Tatiaw, Tation, etc. § 1517. Tausaw § 1520. Tendessiw § 1534. Territow § 1538. Tiaimow § 1533. Tobororow § 1577. Tounobow § 1592. Totoliw § 1598. Trus(s)hw § 1608. Truvlhw/Truvlow § 1609. Tumnhw/Tumnow § 1615. Uarkelaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uyesmaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uyhw Blümel (KarPN:26). Uliatow § 1627. Urgaw Blümel (KarPN:26). Urgilow Blümel (KarPN:26). Urgosvw Blümel (KarPN:26). Ussaldow Blümel (KarPN:26). Ussaldvmow/Usseldvmow § 1629–4/6. Ussiw § 1629–1. Ussisiw § 1629–2. Ussvihw/Ussviow § 1629–3. Ussvldow, Ussvllow, Ussvlow

§ 1629–7/8. Xasbvw Blümel (KarPN:27). Xhramuhw (cf. § 1639).

Acephalic Forms (Blümel KarPN 27–28) ]alvldow ]anvrremow ]ketaw ]kokvw ]ldoudhw ]llv[do]w ]omvliw ]ramow ]rgigougou

]rouessiw ]ruassiw ]teieow ]toldiw ]uassiw ]ujki ]vldow ]vllow ]vrlemiw

carian names in greek sources

463

River Names Idumow Tischler (1977:66). Indos, (var.) Lindow (an erroneus

form?) Tischler (1977:67) cf. KON § 375. Kalbiw Tischler (1977:69). Kenivw (var. Kinevw) Tischler (1977:78). Kitvn (var. Keitvn) Tischler (1977:80–81) Kubersow Tischler (1977:85–86), KON § 639–4).

Maiandrow Tischler (1977:93–94), Cf. KON § 752. Marsuaw Tischler (1977:96–97). Morsunow Tischler (1977:102). Salmakiw (a source) Tischler (1977:128).

Telmedius(?) Tischler (1977:143–144) Timelhw, Teimelhw Tischler (1977:143, 148). Cf. KON § 1338. Ubando/w/ Tischler (1977:64) Cf. KON § 1395.

God Names in Literary Sources ÖImbramow, var. ÖImbrasow (= Hermes; St. Byz. s. v. ÖImbrow, Scholia vetera in

Theogoniam v. 338, and Eustathius, Commentarii ad Iliadem XIV, 281)

Mãsariw (= Dyonisus; St. Byz. s. v. Mãstaura) ÉOsog«a (= Zenoposeidon; Strabo XIV,

659, Pausanias VIII; 10, 4).

APPENDIX D CONCORDANCES

A. Present book

Former editions

EGYPT Sais E.Sa 1 E.Sa 2

MY L MY M

Memphis E.Me 1 E.Me 2 E.Me 3 E.Me 4 E.Me 5 E.Me 6 E.Me 7 E.Me 8 E.Me 9 E.Me 10 E.Me 11 E.Me 12 E.Me 13 E.Me 14 E.Me 15 E.Me 16 E.Me 17 E.Me 18 E.Me 19 E.Me 20 E.Me 21 E.Me 22 E.Me 23 E.Me 24 E.Me 25 E.Me 26 E.Me 27 E.Me 28 E.Me 29 E.Me 30 E.Me 31

MY A MY B MY D MY E MY F MY G MY H MY K M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7 M 8 M 9 M 10 M 11 M 12 M 13 M 14 M 15 M 16 M 17 M 18 M 19 M 20 M 21 M 22 M 23

E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

M 24 M 25 M 26 M 27 M 28 M 29 M 30 M 31 M 32 M 33 M 34 M 35 M 36 M 37 M 38 M 39 M 40 M 41 M 42 M 43 M 44 M 45 M 45a M 46 M 47 M 47a M 47b M 48 M 48a M 48b M 48c M 48d M 49 Abusir Kammerzell *180

concordances Abydos E.Ab 1 E.Ab 2 E.Ab 3 E.Ab 4 E.Ab 5 E.Ab 6 E.Ab 7 E.Ab 8 E.Ab 9 E.Ab 10 E.Ab 11 E.Ab 12 E.Ab 13 E.Ab 14 E.Ab 15 E.Ab 16 E.Ab 17 E.Ab 18 E.Ab 19 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 24 E.Ab 25 E.Ab 26 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 27 E.Ab 28 E.Ab 29 E.Ab 30 E.Ab 31 E.Ab 32 E.Ab 33 E.Ab 34 E.Ab 35 E.Ab 36 E.Ab 37 E.Ab 38 E.Ab 39 E.Ab 40 E.Ab 41 E.Ab 42 E.Ab 43

Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab

1 F 2a F 2b F 3b F 3c F 4 F 5a F 5b F 5c F 6 F 7 F 8a F 8b F 9 F 10 F 11 F 12 F 13a F 13b F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 18 F 19 F 20 F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 21 F 22 F 24 F 25 F 26a F 26b F 27 F 28 F 29 F 8 Y 9 Y 15 Y 26 Y 27 Y 28 Y 29 Y 34 Y

465

Thebas E.Th 1 E.Th 2 E.Th 3 E.Th 4 E.Th 5 E.Th 6 E.Th 7 E.Th 8 E.Th 9 E.Th 10 E.Th 11 E.Th 12 E.Th 13

Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th Th

Luxor E.Lu 1 E.Lu 2 E.Lu 3 E.Lu 4 E.Lu 5 E.Lu 6 E.Lu 7

G G G G G G G

Murwàw E.Mu 1

¥aba (1971), nº 196

Silsilis E.Si 1 E.Si 2 E.Si 3 E.Si 4 E.Si 5 E.Si 6 E.Si 7 E.Si 8 E.Si 9 E.Si 10 E.Si 11

Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si

Abu Simbel E.AS 1 E.AS 2 E.AS 3 E.AS 4 E.AS 5

47 ” 48 ” 49 ” 50 ” 51 ” 52 ” 53 ” 54 ” 55 ” 56 ” 57+58 ” 59 ” 60 ”

19 21 22 23 24 25 26

39 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

F F F F F F F F F F F

AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 AS 4 + Lepsius Kar 4 AS 5

appendix d

466 E.AS E.AS E.AS E.AS

6 7 8 9

Buhen E.Bu 1 E.Bu 2 E.Bu 3 E.Bu 4 E.Bu 5 E.Bu 6

AS 6 AS 7 AS 8 Lepsius Kar 2

M M M M M M

Gebel Sheik Suleiman E.SS 1 72 F Unknown origin, likely to be from Egypt E.xx 1 MY C E.xx 2 MY I E.xx 3 MY a E.xx 4 MY b E.xx 5 MY c E.xx 6 4 ” E.xx 7 Lion

50 51 52 53 54 55

CARIA Tralles C.Tr 1 C.Tr 2

D 1 D 2

Stratonikeia C.St 1 C.St 2

D 12 36*

Alabanda and surroundings C.Al 1 D 13

Halikarnassos C.Ha 1 33*

Euromos C.Eu 1 C.Eu 2

Didyma C.Di 1

21*

Iasos C.Ia 1 C.Ia 2 C.Ia 3 C.Ia 4 C.Ia 5 C.Ia 6 C.Ia 7

20a* 20b* 38a* 38b* 47* 48* Berti-Innocente 2005

Keramos C.Ke 1 C.Ke 2

39a* 39b*

Kaunos C.Ka 1 C.Ka 2 C.Ka 3 C.Ka 4 C.Ka 5 C.Ka 6

D 14 D 16 28* 30* 44* 45*

Kindye C.Kn 1 Hyllarima C.Hy 1

Mylasa C.My 1

D 3 D 8

D 6

D 7 + AdiegoDebordVarinlio
Blümel-Kızıl 2004

Sinuri C.Si 1 C.Si 2

D 9 D 10

Kildara C.Ki 1

D 11

concordances

467

C.Ka 7 C.Ka 8 C.Ka 9

46* 49* 50*

C.xx 3 C.xx 4 C.xx 5

40* 41a* 41b*

Lycia C.Kr 1

D15

Greece G.1 G.2

D 19 42*

Unknown origin, likely to be from Caria C.xx 1 34* C.xx 2 35* B. Former editions ➝ Present book For the Egyptian inscriptions the order adopted in Meier-Brügger (1979b) is followed here. EGYPT Abu Simbel (Masson 1979) AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 AS 4 AS AS AS AS

5 6 7 8

E.AS 1 E.AS 2 E.AS 3 E.AS 4 (+ Lepsius Kar 4) E.AS 5 E.AS 6 E.AS 7 E.AS 8

Buhen (M = Masson 1978) M 50 E.Bu M 51 E.Bu M 52 E.Bu M 53 E.Bu M 54 E.Bu M 55 E.Bu

1 2 3 4 5 6

Gebel Sheik Suleiman (F = Friedrich 1932) GSS 72 F E.SS 1 ‘Pharaonic objects’ (MY = Masson-Yoyotte 1956) MY A E.Me 1 MY B E.Me 2

MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY MY

C D a b c E F G H I K L M

E.xx 1 E.Me 3 E.xx 3 E.xx 4 E.xx 5 E.Me 4 E.Me 5 E.Me 6 E.Me 7 E.xx 2 E.Me 8 E.Sa 1 E.Sa 2

‘Leningrad Isis’ (” = ”evoro“kin 1965) 4 ” E.xx 6 ‘Lion’ (Masson 1976) Lion

E.xx 7

Memphis-Saqqara (M = Masson 1978) M 1 E.Me M 2 E.Me M 3 E.Me M 4 E.Me M 5 E.Me

9 10 11 12 13

appendix d

468 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45a 46 47 47a 47b 48 48a

E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

M 48b M 48c M 48d M 49 Abusir Kammerzell (1993) *180

E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me E.Me

61 62 63 64 65

E.Me 66

Silsilis (F = Friedrich 1932) Si 39 F E.Si 1 Si 53 F E.Si 2 Si 54 F E.Si 3 Si 55 F E.Si 4 Si 56 F E.Si 5 Si 57 F E.Si 6 Si 58 F E.Si 7 Si 59 F E.Si 8 Si 60 F E.Si 9 Si 61 F E.Si 10 Si 62 F E.Si 11 Thebes (” = ”evoro“kin 1965) Th 47 ” E.Th 1 Th 48 ” E.Th 2 Th 49 ” E.Th 3 Th 50 ” E.Th 4 Th 51 ” E.Th 5 Th 52 ” E.Th 6 Th 53 ” E.Th 7 Th 54 ” E.Th 8 Th 55 ” E.Th 9 Th 56 ” E.Th 10 Th 57–58 ” E.Th 11 Th 59 ” E.Th 12 Th 60 ” E.Th 13 Abydos (F = Friedrich 1932) (Y = Yoyotte apud Meier-Brügger 1979) Ab 1 F E.Ab 1 Ab 2a F E.Ab 2 Ab 2b F E.Ab 3 Ab 3a F excluded

concordances Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab

3b F 3c F 4 F 5a F 5b F 5c F 6 F 7 F 8a F 8b F 9 F 10 F 11 F 12 F 13a F 13b F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 18 F 19 F 20 F 14 F 15 F 16 F 17 F 21 F 22 F 23 F 24 F 25 F 26a F 26b F 27 F 28 F 29 F 30 F 8 Y 9 Y 15 Y 26 Y 27 Y 28 Y 29 Y 34 Y

E.Ab 4 E.Ab 5 E.Ab 6 E.Ab 7 E.Ab 8 E.Ab 9 E.Ab 10 E.Ab 11 E.Ab 12 E.Ab 13 E.Ab 14 E.Ab 15 E.Ab 16 E.Ab 17 E.Ab 18 E.Ab 19 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 24 E.Ab 25 E.Ab 26 E.Ab 20 E.Ab 21 E.Ab 22 E.Ab 23 E.Ab 27 E.Ab 28 excluded E.Ab 29 E.Ab 30 E.Ab 31 E.Ab 32 E.Ab 33 E.Ab 34 E.Ab 35 excluded E.Ab 36 E.Ab 37 E.Ab 38 E.Ab 39 E.Ab 40 E.Ab 41 E.Ab 42 E.Ab 43

Luxor (ESS 1998) G 19 G 21 G 22 G 23 G 24 G 25 G 26

469

E.Lu E.Lu E.Lu E.Lu E.Lu E.Lu E.Lu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Caria and other Locations D 1 C.Tr 1 D 2 C.Tr 2 D 3 C.Eu 1 D 4 excluded D 5 excluded D 6 C.Kn 1 D 7 C.Hy 1 D 8 C.Eu 2 D 9 C.Si 1 D 10 C.Si 2 D 11 C.Ki 1 D 12 C.St 1 D 13 C.Al 1 D 14 C.Ka 1 D 15 C.Kr 1 D 16 C.Ka 2 D 17 excluded D 18 coin legends D 19 G.1 20a* C.Ia 1 20b* C.Ia 2 21* C.Di 1 22* excluded 23* excluded 24* excluded 25* excluded 26* excluded 27* excluded 28* C.Ka 3 29* excluded 30* C.Ka 4 31* excluded 32* excluded 33* C.Ha 1 34* C.xx 1

appendix d

470 35* 36* 37* 38a* 38b* 39a* 39b* 40* 41a* 41b* 42* 43* 44* 45* 46* 47*

C.xx 2 C.St 2 excluded C.Ia 3 C.Ia 4 C.Ke 1 C.Ke 2 C.xx 3 C.xx 4 C.xx 5 G.2 excluded C.Ka 5 C.Ka 6 C.Ka 7 C.Ia 5

48* 49* 50* 51* BelliGusmani 2001 [rock inscription from Labraunda] Innocente 2002 [‘tegola di Iasos’] BlümelKızıl 2004 BertiInnocente 2005 Adiego-DebordVarinlio
C.Ia 6 C.Ka 8 C.Ka 9 excluded

excluded excluded C.My 1 C.Ia 7 C.Hy 1[+D 7]

APPENDIX E

COIN LEGENDS IN CARIAN Koray Konuk

The following catalogue aims to include all known coins bearing letters in the Carian script.1 These coins form an integral part of the written record, and, in spite of their small size, they are of great importance, as they throw light on various aspects of Carian society and its language in particular. The material, collected over several years, comes from a variety of sources.2 While many coins are without a provenance, some have been found locally and are today housed near their find spots in museums and private collections. This may provide useful information for their attribution which in many cases remains a difficult matter. Our purpose here, however, is to focus on the legends and questions of attributions are only very briefly discussed, especially when specific studies are available. The catalogue presents first coins which can be ascribed to a mint, then coins whose attribution remains uncertain. Coin legends are obviously related to inscriptions, but there are significant differences between them. Each coin issue was produced in thousands of specimens, even if today only a handful, in some cases one or two specimens, are extant. They were struck with dies which had to be individually engraved in negative. The engraver cut the mirror-like image of the design (type) and the letters on the die which, when struck on a piece of metal, appeared in positive. Working in negative could result in confusion in the direction and position of the letters. Carian was inscribed in either direction, though more often from

1 Much of the discussion and many of the attributions presented here and elsewhere were first made public in a paper read at the Royal Numismatic Society in January 1996 and entitled ‘Carian Coin Legends’ (hereafter ‘1996 RNS paper’), of which this is an extended and updated version. I am very grateful to Professor Ignacio Adiego for kindly including this appendix in his book and for his useful comments, and to Richard Ashton for improving my text. 2 For nearly 70 years, Robinson 1939 remained the only comprehensive study of coin legends in Carian (listing fewer than a dozen examples). Not only has our understanding of Carian dramatically increased, but our documentation has also quadrupled.

appendix e

472

left to right, especially on later inscriptions, and it is not always clear whether on coins the right-to-left direction was meant or was simply the result of the engraver’s confusion. In the description of the obverse and reverse of each coin, legends are first transcribed between brackets as they appear on the coin. When needed, questions pertaining to the direction and reading of the legends are discussed. One specimen has been cited to illustrate each variety. I have tried to select the best preserved specimen, which is not necessarily the one illustrated in standard catalogues. The weight is followed, when known, by the die-axis. All coins are silver unless otherwise indicated.

I. Mints Mylasa For detailed discussion and attribution to Mylasa, see Konuk (forthcoming [a]). The mint of Mylasa was first suggested in my 1996 RNS paper and appeared in print in Konuk (1998a:22–26) in which the last two letters of M5 (my) were read as the beginning of the ethnic of Mylasa in Carian. See also SNG Kayhan, 833–840. All silver fractions are on the Milesian standard. M1 M Obv. Forepart of lion left; on its shoulder, O; below, one foreleg left. Rev. Two rectangular punches applied separately, one of which has M1 (m). Lydian (Persic) standard stater; c. 500 B.C. Weber, 6448 (11.13g) = Naville 14 (1929), 378. The Lydian-weight lion forepart issues were quite prolific and rank among the earliest coinages of Caria. Their attribution is debated, Kaunos and Mylasa have been suggested (for an overview, see Konuk 2000a:172 and Konuk forthcoming [a]). Several phases can be observed which span the second half of the sixth century B.C. M1 comes late in the sequence of minting and is linked to the issues which have various signs on the shoulder of the lion. These are not letters but linear devices. M1 (m), engraved in one of the two rectangular punches, is attested on a few dies and, although the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, it does not

coin legends in carian

473

appear to be a random mark. Subsequent issues attributed to Mylasa carry letters only sporadically (see below), and most of its early coinage is uninscribed. If M was intended as a Carian letter, it would represent the earliest occurrence of the initial of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa. M2 M Obv. Head of lion left; below, one foreleg left; dotted circle. Rev. Bird standing left, wings open; below left, M2 (m); all within incuse square. Tetartemorion; c. 500–450 B.C. Klein (1999:no 499) (0.24g) = Hauck & Aufhäuser 18 (2004), 250 = Hirsch 187 (1995), 423. This issue, of which three specimens are known to me (one is a probable die duplicate in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 1–20–78 [0.24g, 12H], the other is in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum [0.29g; 12H]; for a similar but anepigraphic early example, see SNG Kayhan, 939), is to be linked to a substantial series of Milesian-weight tetartemoria of the same type but later style (e.g. SNG Kayhan, 940–948; many are housed in the archaeological museums of Milâs and Bodrum). These have been traditionally attributed to Miletos on the basis of the weight standard and obverse type. This early issue, however, depicts the lion in a very different way. Here, as on the Kayhan specimen, the lion’s head has a straightforward posture (as on M1), whereas on Milesian issues, the lion is depicted as a forepart with its head turned back and the foreleg reversed. The lion’s forepart evolved on later issues and came to be modelled on the Milesian type. In this case there is no doubt that M2 (m) represents the initial of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa. M3 M Obv. Forepart of roaring lion right, head turned back; below, reversed foreleg; linear outline of its back between jaws. Rev. Facing head of a lion with its forelegs on either side, in upper right corner, M3 (m); all within incuse square. Tetartemorion; c. 450–420 B.C. Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 3–26–91 (0.35g; 07H).

474

appendix e Also part of an extensive series, only a handful of inscribed specimens is known. Among these a variety of the same early style has with a smaller M standing next to the middle of the right foreleg of the lion (Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 10–7–91 [0.45g; 06H]). As on the previous example, M3 (m) stands for the initial of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa.

M4 m Obv. As last. Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing; in right field, M4 (m); all within shallow round incuse. Tetartemorion; c. 420–390 B.C. Künker 62 (2001), 129 (0.20g). A variety features the letter in the left field (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (0.28g; 06H). For later issues, see M9 and M10 below. M4 is the early phase of a coinage which ends with the tetartemoria in the name of the satrap Hekatomnos inscribed EK and EKA (see below). M5 V mW Obv. As last. Rev. Facing head of a lion with its forelegs on either side; below, M5 (w my); all within incuse square. Hemiobol; c. 420–390 B.C. SNG von Aulock, 7807 (0.42g) = Troxell (1984:n° 1A). The style of this coin looks later than M3 (same type). M, m and m are the same letter in the Carian alphabet (m). The next letter is somewhat problematic. Adiego suggests that W was V in the alphabet of Mylasa. If that is the case, the occurrence of both letters in the same legend calls for an explanation. Even though the new inscription found near Mylasa (Kırca<ız) does not include the letter W, M5 proves that it was part of the city’s alphabet. Two explanations spring to mind: either these letters are not the same and therefore have different values, or V is not a letter but a trident as suggested by Troxell (1984:250). When the trident explanation was proposed (Troxell considered mW to be Greek letters), it seemed the most likely solution, as the Carian letter V was unknown in that shape (apart from the rare occurrence of V at Sinuri and Kildara) and no evidence existed at that time that it

coin legends in carian

475

was part of the alphabet of Mylasa. However, tridents are not normally depicted on coins in such a simple way with mere strokes (as with a letter): there is usually some ornamentation (arrow-like tips of the tines, often volutes departing from the base of the shaft) even when the size is minute. Moreover, the occurrence of Ú and V on M6–M10 below in the same position on the reverse strongly suggests that V is a letter, for Ú is definitely a Carian letter, even though it is not attested on the new inscription from Kırca<ız. I would be tempted to suggest that Ú is a variant of V, the former being perhaps an earlier form of the latter. If so, the value of Ú (w) would represent the same value for V. Finally, what is the value of W which is also absent from the new inscription? The suggestion that W and V are the same letters cannot be maintained on the basis of M5. Adiego gives W, a rather common letter, the value y. The two letters mW (my) would thus plausibly represent the first two letters of the Carian ethnic of Mylasa (Konuk 1998a:23). For a discussion of V and a possible attribution to Hyssaldomos, see M9 below. M6 V Obv. As last. Rev. As last but M6 (w); the incuse is round. Hemiobol; c. 420–390 B.C. Pfeiler (1962:20, 2) = Konuk (1998:223, 130). M7 Ú Obv. As last. Rev. As last but M7 (w). Hemiobol; c. 420–390 B.C. Private collection (0.51g; 09H). M8 Ú Obv. As last but M8 (w) on lion’s muzzle. Rev. As last but anepigraphic. Hemiobol; c. 420–390 B.C. Muharrem Kayhan collection, MK1231 (0.50g; 03H). The position of Ú on the lion’s muzzle reminds one of the Milesiantype tetrobols, diobols and obols of the Carian satrap Hekatomnos which have on the lion’s muzzle the Greek letters EKA, EK and E respectively. For a possible attribution to Hyssaldomos, see M9.

appendix e

476

M9 Ú Obv. As last. Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing; in the lower right field, M9 (w); all within shallow round incuse. Tetartemorion; c. 420–390 B.C. Private collection (0.23g; 12H). The letter is sometimes placed just below the facing head (e.g. New York, ANS, 1980.23.5 [0.22g] = Troxell [1984:no 2A], M9 misdiscribed as a trident). These tetartemoria are distinguished by a different reverse type. Tetartemoria of the same types but later style were struck by Hekatomnos who put the Greek letters EKA or EK in place of Ú or V. In Konuk 1998a: 22–26, I suggested that Ú and (M5–M6 and M10) V (w) might also be the initial of the name of a Carian dynast preceding Hekatomnos. His father’s name is Hyssaldomos and an attribution to him is quite likely. M10 V Obv. As last. Rev. Young male head (Apollo?) facing, turned slightly left; in the lower left field, M10 (w); all within round incuse. Tetartemorion; c. 420–390 B.C. New York, ANS, 1983.53.464 (0.23g; 12H) M11 Ú Obv. As last. Rev. Male head (Apollo?) right; in the lower left field, M11 (w); all within shallow round incuse. Hemitetartemorion; c. 420–390 B.C. Private collection (0.14g; 10H). Kasolaba? For a likely attribution to the mint of Kasolaba, see Konuk (forthcoming [b]). Given the wide time-span during which these coins were issued, probably over a century, the legend is bound to refer to an ethnic rather than a dynast. M20 and M21 bear three letters: a9o (azo), which at first glance are difficult to match with an ethnic. A large number of these coins occur in the collections of the archaeological museums of Milâs and Bodrum, and several find spots have been recorded, which fall in the area between Mylasa and Halikarnassos. By studying

coin legends in carian

477

the Athenian Tribute Lists and the recently discovered inscription from Sekköy, Descat (1994:66–68) demonstrates that the city of Kasolaba ought to be located in that area. The reading azo shows a remarkable similarity to the Greek ethnic of Kasolaba. The omission of a guttural initial in the Carian legend should not be surprising since examples of ethnics like Kyromos / Hyromos / Euromos, Kydai / Hydai and Kyblissos / Hyblissos in the same district testify that such variations were frequent. Kasolaba is the Greek transcription of a Carian ethnic whose native spelling remains uncertain. It has been suggested, however, that ksolbz (ksolb≤ ) found in an inscription from Egypt (E.Me 43) may have been the genitive form of Kasolaba in Carian. Whether or not this is the case, the coins suggest that the Carian ethnic started with azo. It would not be far-fetched to expect that a new Greek inscription with the form Hasolaba may one day come to light. All coins are Milesian-standard hemiobols. M12 3 6 Obv. Head of ram right. Rev. Young male head left; to the left, M12 (az); all within incuse square. Private collection (0.43g; 09H); c. 450–400 B.C. M12 and M13 show a distinctive archaic style; the deep incuse square of the reverse also indicates an early issue. The initial letter, a on later issues, takes a rather odd shape on these early examples. M13 4 5 Obv. As last. Rev. Young male head right; to the right, M13 (az); all within incuse square. SNG Keckman, 865 (0.29g; 06H) = Troxell (1984:no 8); c. 450–400 B.C. M14 3 “ Obv. As last. Rev. Young male head right; to the right, M14 (az); all within incuse square Hauck & Aufhäuser 15 (2000), 206 (0.52g); c. 450–400 B.C.

478

appendix e The shape of the initial letter establishes a link between the first phase of this coinage and the later issues (M15 onwards).

Same types from the next coin onwards unless otherwise indicated: Obv. Head of ram right. Rev. Young male head right; on either side, M15 (za); M16 (za); M17 (za); M18 (az); M19 (az); M20 (azo); M21 (azo); all within square or round incuse. M15 8 A Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 31–9–85 (0.42g; 01H). Only the incuse square variety is known. The letter on the right also has the shape M on a specimen in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (0.43g; 12H). There is also a specimen with Q in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 9–19–91 (0.51g; 12H). M16 8 l Private collection (0.34g; 02H). This specimen has a round incuse. The letter on the right also has the shape À on a specimen in SNG Keckman, 870 (0.46g; 09H; a die-duplicate is in the Ashmolean, Oxford). M17 9 a Muharrem Kayhan collection, MK 1236 (0.49g; 06H). The incuse on the Kayhan specimen is square; the round variety is also attested (e.g. SNG Keckman, 869 [0.46g; 09H]). A variety with 8 is known (SNG Keckman, 877 [0.39g; 03H]). M18 a 9 New York, ANS (0.41g; 06H) = Troxell (1984:no 9B). On M18–M21, when the shape of the incuse can be determined, it is circular, and on some very shallow. M19 a (obv.) a 9 (rev.) Obv. Head of ram right; below, M19 (a). Private collection (0.36g; 10H).

coin legends in carian

479

M20 a 9o SNG Kayhan, 997 (0.38g; 12H). M21 a 9o Obv. Persian hero-king right, in running-kneeling position, holding dagger in the right hand and bow in the left; groundline. London (BM), CM 1999–10–7–1 (0.34g; 6H). Keramos For the attribution to Keramos, see Konuk (2000), based on the convincing attribution to Keramos by Ashton (1998) of a slightly earlier coinage of the same types bearing the Greek letters KE. M22 kBo Obv. Bull standing right. Rev. Dolphin leaping right; below, M22 (kbo). AE chalkous; c. 400 B.C. Private collection (1.05g; 04H) = Konuk (2000: no 2). An obverse variety of this type has the forepart of the bull (Konuk 2000: no 1). M22 (kbo) is the beginning of the Carian ethnic of Keramos. M23 _NW (obv.) luo (rev.) Obv. Bull standing right; in front, M23 ( jy or kse). Rev. Dolphin leaping right; underneath, M23 (kbo). AE chalkous; c. 400 B.C. SNG Kayhan, 804 (0.91g; 09H) = Konuk (2003:no 74) = Konuk (2000:no 5). The reverse legend of M23 is upside-down. In the present form, the letters resemble a Greek delta, an upsilon and an omicron. The most likely explanation is a mistake made by a Greek diecutter who, working in negative on the die, was led into error by his mother-tongue. The variety with the obverse legend (which might be Greek) appears to fall at the end of the series after which Carian legend chalkoi were superseded by Greek legend chalkoi.

appendix e

480 Kaunos

For a detailed discussion of this coinage, see Konuk (1998b). The definite attribution to Kaunos was first presented in my 1996 RNS paper. It was based on the reading of the coin legends with the new values given to the Carian script. The initial of the ethnic on M24 and M25 (k) and the subsequent legends (M26–M28) giving a second letter (b), resulted in kb which is the beginning of the native name of Kaunos: Kbid-, known from the Lycian version of the trilingual inscription of the Letôon. In summer 1997, the discovery of a bilingual inscription in Kaunos (C.Ka 5) gave for the first time the ethnic of Kaunos in Carian and the first two letters on the new inscription were the same as on the coin legends. The earliest coinage of Kaunos is anepigraphic and spans the period c. 490–450 B.C. M24 (k), the first occurrence of the beginning of the Carian ethnic of Kaunos, appears towards the middle of the fifth century B.C. The use of Carian ends with the chalkoi in c. 370 B.C.; these are followed by chalkoi bearing the first three letters the ethnic of Kaunos in Greek. The following coins are Aeginetic standard staters unless otherwise indicated. M24 k Obv. Female deity (Iris?) with curved wings and outstretched hands flying left, looking right; holding a kerykeion in right hand and a wreath in left. Rev. Granulated patterns on either side of triangular baetyl; above left, M24 (k); all within incuse square. Paris, BN, 703 (11.76g; 09H) = Konuk (1998b:no 90a) (c. 450–430 B.C.). Variants with the granulated patterns in the shape of stylised birds (Konuk 1998b:no 95 [c. 430–410 B.C.]) or bunches of grapes are known (Konuk 1998b:no 96 [c. 430–410 B.C.]). M25 k n Obv. As last. Rev. Bunch of grapes on either side of triangular baetyl with M25 (n) in its centre; above left, M25 (k); all within incuse square.

coin legends in carian

481

London, BM (11.27g; 12H) = Konuk (1998b:no 99bisx) (c. 430–410 B.C.). n (n) is added to a die in whose original state the baetyl was anepigraphic. M26 k 5 Obv. As last. Rev. M26 (kb) flanking triangular baetyl; all within incuse square. Sotheby 27 Oct. 1993 (Zürich), 694 (11.57g) = (Konuk 1998b:no 100h) (c. 410–390 B.C.). Variants with the granulated patterns in the shape of stylised birds (Konuk 1998b:no 95 [c. 430–410 B.C.]) or bunches of grapes are known (Konuk 1998b:no 96 [c. 430–410 B.C.]). M27 k 5 J Obv. As last. Rev. M27 (kb J) flanking triangular baetyl; all within incuse square. Lanz 38 (1984), 272 (11.56g; 07H) = Konuk (1998b:no 110c) (c. 410–390 B.C.). It is uncertain whether the third and final sign ( J) is an actual letter. The use of this sign as a letter is not attested in Carian inscriptions where it is sometimes used as a dividing stroke. There is however another coin legend (M33) which includes the same sign. As with M33, its final position in the legend raises the possibility that it was used as a letter and not as a separation mark. For further discussion, see M33 below. M28 k 5 Obv. Head of Apollo three-quarter facing right or left, with on some dies, chlamys fastened at neck. Rev. M28 (kb) flanking sphinx seated left. AE chalkous. Künker 61 (2001), 67 (1,27g); Konuk (1998b:no 118) (c. 390–370 B.C.). M29–M30 have been tentatively attributed to Kaunos: see Ashton (2003:39–40).

appendix e

482

M29 k Obv. Bunch of grapes. Rev. M29 (k) within circle of dots. 1/16th (?) Aeginetic stater; c. 400–350 B.C. Terzian collection (0.48g; 02H) = Ashton (2003:39, 1). M30 k Obv. Corngrain within circle of dots. Rev. M30 (k) within circle of dots. 1/32nd Aeginetic stater; c. 400–350 B.C. Ashton collection (0.35g; 02H) = Ashton (2003:39, 2b). Telmessos M31 i F Obv. Head of Athena left in Attic helmet; in front, linear device l; dotted circle. Rev. Heracles fighting left with club, left foot placed on rock; along the right edge, erbbinna in Lycian characters; on either side of Herakles, M31 (i t) all in incuse square with dotted border. Light Lycian standard stater; c. 420 B.C. Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung (7.87g) = Babelon 1910:n° 385. This stater of the Lycian dynast Erbbina, part of his regular issues from Telmessos, is the only example to bear a legend in Carian. Various readings based on the changing values given through the years to the letters have been proposed (er, ir, i“ and finally it). New evidence from the bilingual inscription from Kaunos has led Adiego (1998b:58–60) and Meier-Brügger (1998:45) to give F the value t. They wonder whether i might not stand for the initial of Erbbina in Carian and t for the initial of Telmessos (Telebehi in Lycian). But the legend may also be transliterated as ti and stand for the first two letters of the same ethnic.

coin legends in carian

483

II. Uncertain Mints Mint A M32 £c¢ ñÌ Bg Obv. Naked male figure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in the kneeling-running position advancing left, head and legs left, trunk frontal, left arm raised and right arm lowered; groundline. Rev. Bull standing right; above and below, in two lines, M32 (dta / ñibr); all within incuse square. Aeginetic standard stater; c. 450–400 B.C. London, BM, CM 1934–0611–4 (11.62g; 09H). For a detailed discussion of M32, see Konuk forthcoming (c). Only one specimen of this type is known and, according to Robinson (1939:270), was reportedly obtained near Fethiye (Telmessos). The orientation of letters suggests a reading from right to left. The last letter, partly erased, is ñ (ñ) rather than z (≤), even though the latter is a more common ending used for indicating the genitive form. The transliteration should thus be atd / rbiñ. As an independent word, rbiñ shows a striking similarity with Erbbina, the Lycian dynast who minted at Telmessos c. 420–400 B.C. (see previous coin). Mint B All the following coins are Aeginetic standard staters unless otherwise indicated. M33 J P sN Obv. Naked male figure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneelingrunning position advancing left, head and legs left, right arm raised and left arm lowered; above right wing, {; dotted groundline. Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back; above its back, { dividing M33 (J?psg); dotted groundline; all within incuse square. London, BM (11.68g; 09H) = Robinson (1936:pl. 14, 8); c. 450 B.C.

484

appendix e There is an obverse variant with the winged male figure advancing right (Robinson 1936: no 11). I consider { to be a linear device, perhaps even an object rather than a monogram of the letters Uo or z. On some contemporary issues from a different mint (Troxell 1979:pl. 31, 35), { is depicted much like an object decorated with dots. J is omitted on the following examples, suggesting that it is the last sign of the legend which, therefore, is read from right to left (gsp J ?). The meaning of the last sign ( J) is problematic. Its sole function on Carian inscriptions is to separate words, and it is never used as a letter. The two other legends in which J appears are M36–M37 and M27. In the case of M36–M37, our sign may well have served its normal function of separating words, but for M27, this explanation can hardly be valid since it is the last sign of the legend, as it is in the present example. For M27 it is tempting to consider J as the equivalent of a Greek iota because this is the very sound which comes after kb (for kbid ), although it must be admitted that I is used as the third letter of kbi in the bilingual inscription from Kaunos. To sum up, M27 and M33 compel us to accept J as a letter even though its absence as a letter from inscriptions remains puzzling. As the sign J only appears on coin legends, it may well be a direct influence of coin engravers being more familiar with engraving Greek legends (see also M23). It is worth noting here that the letter P was known solely on coins until 2004, when a new inscription found at Hyllarima revealed for the first time the letter B on an inscription from Caria, albeit with a different value.

M34 °s0 Obv. Naked male figure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneelingrunning position advancing right, head and legs right, left arm raised and right arm lowered; above left wing, {; groundline. Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised; above its back, M34 ( psg); underneath legend, small {; dotted groundline; all within incuse square. Paris, BN (11.64g; 11H); c. 450 B.C. The more angular shape of ° is further confirmation that this letter is a variant of p with a 90° rotation. There is a reverse variant which shows the lion with both forepaws standing on the goundline (Robinson 1936:4, 9ter).

coin legends in carian

485

M35 s0 P Obv. Naked male figure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in kneelingrunning position advancing right, head and legs right, left arm raised and right arm lowered; above left wing, {; groundline. Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised; above its back, { and M35 (sg / p) whose third letter is in the lower left corner; all within incuse square with dotted frame. New York, ANS, 67.152.457 (11.78g; 09H); c. 450 B.C. M36 ? s N_ J s?d Obv. Naked male figure, with wings at shoulder and heel, in the kneelingrunning position advancing right, head and legs right, trunk frontal, left arm raised and right arm lowered; above left wing, {; dotted groundline. Rev. Lion standing left with head turned back, right forepaw raised; above its back, { dividing M36 (bsj|sbd ); all within incuse square with dotted frame. Paris, BN (11.72g; 12H); c. 450 B.C. There is an obverse variety with the male figure advancing left (Robinson 1936:pl. 14, 16). M36 links the old winged male / lion type to the new issues with lion forepart / male head type with a different legend. The right-to-left direction proposed for previous coins is also suggested for this coin by the orientation of the two instances of ?; hence M36 should be transliterated as dbs|jsb. The orientation of d does not help much since it is inconsistent between M36 and M37. M37 £Hs J N_sH Obv. Forepart of lion right, jaws open; both forelegs visible. Rev. M37 (dbs|jsb) vertically in front of wreathed male head left; behind neck, {; all within incuse square. Stater: New York, ANS, 63.35.1 (11.18g; 07H); triobol: SNG Kayhan, 979 (2.93g; 11H); obol or corroded diobol?: Peus 212 (2000), 276 (1.29g). c. 430–400 B.C. On the New York stater, first published by Thompson (1966:8), the first and penultimate letters are clearly H, not (as on M36) ?. All recorded triobols are die-duplicates and feature H as the first letter and ? as the penultimate. M37 must of course be the same

appendix e

486

legend as M36. Perhaps the coin engraver was confused by the orientation of these letters and turned ? into H, which would make it readable in both directions, although it remains puzzling that ? was not rendered { to be consistent with M36. For a similar confusion, see M23 above. Mint C M38 7 Obv. Head of lion three-quarter facing left, within linear circle. Rev. Head of bull left; behind neck truncation, M38 (z or symbol); all within round incuse. Milesian standard hemiobol; c. 400–350 B.C. Muharrem Kayhan collection (0.42g; 10H). It is uncertain whether the sign on the bull’s neck is a character or a symbol (linear device), because a variety of the same series (Hirsch 221 [2002], 267; another specimen from different dies: Hirsch 226 [2003], 1421) carries another sign (h) which is clearly a linear device of a type encountered on other non-Carian issues (e.g. SNG Kayhan, 744). There is also a variety of M38 without any letter or symbol (SNG Kayhan, 990). put 1L M39 z Obv. Head of lion three-quarter facing left, within linear circle. Rev. Head of bull three-quarter facing left; above, put (put); behind neck truncation, L (h); below, z (≤ ); on the neck, 1 (z or symbol); all within shallow round incuse. Milesian standard hemiobol; c. 400–350 B.C. Muharrem Kayhan collection (0.49g; 03H). All known specimens of M39 are off-flan and lack the letter h on the right edge of the coin (e.g. SNG Keckman, 862; Klein 1999: n° 503). The Kayhan specimen is the only one known to me with a full legend. The direction of the legend follows the shape of the coin: puth≤. The last letter (≤ ) is used in Carian to indicate the genitive form. We may interpret the legend as (the coin of ) putl, most probably the name of a local dynast. The reverse is flat

coin legends in carian

487

without any trace of an incuse; this would place M39 after M38 in the sequence of issues. Mint D Types as follows unless otherwise indicated. Obv. Forepart of bull left. Rev. Forepart of bull left; below its head, M40 ( p); M41 (s); M42 (db); M43 (∞); M44 (∞); all within incuse square. All coins are Milesian standard diobols, apart from M46 which is a Milesian standard obol. M40 p Paris, BN, fonds général 3292 (2.14g) = Babelon (1910:no 1789 [listed under Samos]), pl. CL, 12 = Troxell 1984:no 12A. M41 s Hirsch 55 (1967), 2175 (2.19g) = Cancio (1989:83). M42 }_ Cahn 60 (1928), 858 (2.01g) = Troxell (1984:256, 12B). _

is another example of a Carian letter used on a coin which is otherwise only attested in inscriptions from Egypt (see above, M32). The orientation of letters suggests a right-to-left reading which would give the transcription bd.

M43 x Private collection (2.16g; 12H). The style of M43 is later than the preceding examples. M44 X Obv. Confronted foreparts of two bulls, their horns crossed. Rev. As last, M44 (∞). SNG Kayhan, 958 (2.10g; 12H).

appendix e

488

M45 ux Obv. As last, but later style; heads of bulls three-quarter facing, horns not crossed. Rev. Forepart of bull left; above its head, M45 (u∞ ); all within incuse square. London, BM (2.12g; 08H) = Six (1890:239, 42; pl. 17, 9). The transcription ∞u is confirmed by M43 and M44 where ∞ is the initial. The variety with the two bull foreparts was a prolific coinage, especially in its early phase which is anepigraphic and features the bull foreparts in profile with their horns crossed as if the letter x was meant. Since other letters are attested (see above), it is uncertain whether X, x or ux should be regarded as the first letters of an ethnic. But if the letter x can be construed from the crossed horns, a Carian ethnic beginning with ∞ and ∞u such as Kydai / Hydai and Kyblissos / Hyblissos is an attractive possibility; see Konuk (2003:n° 69). M46 ^ Obv. Forepart of bull left. Rev. Head of bull left; below, M46; all within incuse square. Milesian standard obol. SNG Kayhan, 974 (1.14g; 03H). It is uncertain whether ^ is a character or a linear device (symbol). It is otherwise unknown. Mint E M47 ¥ Obv. Bearded head right. Rev. Forepart of bull left; on its shoulder, M47 ( y); all within incuse square. Private collection (1.24g; 12H); c. 400 B.C. M48 ! Obv. As last. Rev. Forepart of bull left; in lower left corner, M48 ( y); all within incuse square. Paris, BN (1.59g; 12H) = Babelon (1910:n° 2494); c. 400 B.C.

coin legends in carian

489

M49 Ú Obv. Male head right; wreathed? Rev. Forepart of bull left; on its neck, M49 ( y). Berlin, Staatliche Museen—Münzkabinett, gift T. Wiegand 1354/ 1931 (1.10g; 04H); c. 400 B.C. Winzer’s attribution of this series to the mint of Mylasa under Hekatomnos by interpreting M48 and M49 as the Greek initial of his name and taking the bearded head on the obverse as his portrait is speculative (Winzer 2005:13.1). The different orientations of the letter, especially M47, suggest Carian and not Greek. There is also an early variety with the same type without letter (private collection, 0.68g; 09H). The length of time needed for the stylistic change from the early issue to M49 suggests a civic coinage rather than a dynastic. Mint F M50 oul or luo Obv. Forepart of lion right, head turned back; to the right, M50 (oul or luo). Rev. Square punch mark. Aeginetic standard stater; c. 500 B.C. Paris, BN (11.71g). The legend on this series has been long regarded as Greek. It has usually been read as ouB (BMC Ionia, xxxiv) or oBu (Six 1890: 223). The former reading prompted an attribution to a dynast of Miletos, the latter to the town of Olymos in Caria. Either reading depends upon whether the legend is meant to be read from the inside or the outside. As Head rightly points out in BMC Ionia, a reading from the outside is extremely rare on archaic coins, which undermines Six’s attribution to Olymos. However, Head’s attribution to a dynast of Miletos is no longer satisfactory in view of the recorded provenances which clearly point to a mint further south in Caria. In my 1996 RNS paper, I suggested that the legend should be regarded as Carian. The occurrence of this series in early hoards such as the Santorini find (IGCH 7) points to a date of c. 500 B.C. When Carian staters of Aeginetic standard bear a legend in the fifth century B.C., it is usually in the Carian

appendix e

490

script. My reading of the third letter (the lowest on the coin) is l, not B; the horizontal stroke, even though a little erased, being clearly visible. We would thus have oul for oul. This conclusion has also been reached by I{ık (2003:124–126) who proposes the same reading. oul may be linked to personal names like Ouliades (Herodotos 5, 37 mentions one Oliatos ruler of Mylasa, c. 500 B.C.) or Oulios. When the legend is read from the outside, there is a puzzling similarity with M22 and M23 which give the beginning of the ethnic of Keramos in Carian. At this stage, an attribution to Keramos would be premature, but this may change with future finds. One should not exclude, however, a retrograde reading which is rather common on early Carian coins. We would have luo (luo). Mint G M51 orou Obv. Forepart of winged human-headed bull right. Rev. Female head right; behind, M51 (orou); all within incuse square with dotted frame. Aeginetic standard hemidrachm (triobol) and trihemiobol; c. 450–400 B.C. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (2.87g; 06H); trihemiobol: private collection (1.25g). M52 orou Obv. Sphinx seated right. Rev. Female head right; behind, M52 (orou); all within incuse square with dotted frame. Aeginetic standard; obol; c. 450–400 B.C. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (1.00g; 06H). For a detailed discussion of Mint G, see Konuk (forthcoming [d]). The legends of M51 and M52 are usually regarded as Lycian and are attributed to a dynast by the name of Uvug or Uwug. A Lycian origin, however, is far from certain. First, the weight standard is clearly Aeginetic with half staters (same type as M51 but anepigraphic) weighing c. 5.80g. That standard was quite widespread among Carian mints active in the fifth century B.C. Lycia, on the other hand, had its own weight systems and is not known to have ever used the Aeginetic standard. Another argument against a Lycian origin is the obverse type of a winged human-headed bull, a very unusual iconography for Lycia. On the other hand,

coin legends in carian

491

the depiction of the sphinx on M52 is very close to that of the contemporary coins of Kaunos, see Konuk (1998b:119). The style and the particular care given to the striking are also features not typical of Lycian mints. A further important piece of evidence to support a Carian origin is the occurrence of several of the half staters (mentioned above) in an unpublished hoard from Caria dating to the middle of the fifth century B.C. which included a variety of Carian coins (e.g. from Kaunos, Knidos, uncertain mints). Coins of Caria and Lycia did not usually circulate together and it is no surprise therefore that not a single coin from Lycia is reported in the hoard. All in all, the cumulative weight of evidence points to a mint in Caria, orou being the name of a Carian dynast of the second half of the fifth century B.C. Mint H M53 i Obv. Persian hero-king right, in kneeling-running position, holding transverse spear and bow. Rev. Ship’s prow left; on its rail, M53 (i ). AV Persian daric, c. 450–400 B.C. Paris, BN, collection de Luynes (8.25g) = Six (1890:pl. 17, 13) = Babelon (1910:pl. 97, 24). For a brief discussion of this unique daric, see Konuk (2000a:179). The tentative attribution to Salmakis near Halikarnassos, first suggested by Six and followed by myself, appears now to be unfounded. It was based on an incorrect association with bronze coins which turned out to be from the Cypriot mint of Salamis. According to the typology established for darics and sigloi, the Persian heroking holding spear and bow is type IIIb which ends c. 400 B.C. Mint I

M54

M54 Obv. Boar advancing left; above, M54; double groundline; dotted border. Rev. Triskeles ending with duck’s heads; floral ornament growing from central ring; around, kuprlli in Lycian; all within dotted border incuse square.

492

appendix e Lydian (Persic) standard stater; c. 450 B.C. Paris, BN (10.85g) = Babelon (1910:no 253). The reverse legend is clearly Lycian and names the dynast Kuprlli as the issuer. The five-character legend of the obverse is, on the other hand, quite problematic. It has been variously transcribed but a better preserved specimen from the same pair of dies (SNG von Aulock, 4156; 10.70g) has allowed some precision in the reading of the legend. The right-to-left direction is suggested by the orientation of the letters. Mørkholm-Neumann (1978:no M 301a) described the obverse as Carian with a question mark, while others have not hesitated in recognising Carian: e.g. Durnford (1991) (his reading of M54 as the Carian ethnic of Xanthos is no longer tenable as some of the letter values he used are not accepted today), Cau (1999). The only other instance of Carian being used on a Lycian issue is M31 listed above. On close examination the first character cannot be o as previously thought but is probably d (g) a character form already encountered on some varieties of M33. The second letter S may be “ as seen on the alphabet of Hyllarima. The letter _ is not attested in the Carian alphabet, but it may be a form of g (r). the letter K is quite difficult to interpret; it may be a form of k (k) or l (l )? The last letter may be ¢ (a). All in all, there are far too many uncertainties over M54 to even describe it as Carian, and at this stage, I prefer not to speculate on the various ways of transcribing it. The weight standard appears to be Lydian (Persic), which has as its stater a double siglos weighing slightly less than 11.00g. This is exceptional for Kuprlli and Lycian mints in general which struck coins in their own local standards. The decision to use the Lydian standard may well have something to do with the obverse legend.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations ABSA = The Annual of the Britisch School at Athens. AArch = Acta Archeologica Acta Ant. Hung. = Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. AC = L’Antiquité Classique. AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung. AGI = Archivio Glottologico Italiano. ANSMN = American Numismatic Society Museum Notes. ArOr = Archiv Orientální. ASBW = Archiv für Schreib- und Buchwesen. ASNP = Annali della Scuola Superiore Normale di Pisa. BB = Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen. BCH = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique. BiOr = Bibliotheca Orientalis. BMC Caria = B. V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in The British Museum, Greek Coins of Caria, Cos, Rhodes, & c., London, 1897. BMC Ionia = B. V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in The British Museum, Greek Coins of Ionia, London, 1892. BSL = Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris. BzN = Beiträge zur Namenforschung. Cahn = Adolph E. Cahn, Frankfurt a. M. CFC = Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. CNG = Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster, Pa (USA)—London (UK). Colloquium Caricum = W. Blümel – P. Frei – C. Marek (eds.), Colloquium Caricum. Akten der internationalen Tagung über die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos 31.10–1.11.1997 in Feusisberg bei Zürich = Kadmos 37 (1998). Decifrazione del cario = M. E. Giannotta et alii (eds.), La decifrazione del cario, Roma, 1994. DNb = E. Lüddeckens – H. J. Thissen (eds.), Demotisches Namenbuch, Wiesbaden, 1980. Eothen = F. Imparati (ed.), Eothen. Studi di storia e di filologia anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Firenze, 1988. EpAnat = Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift für Epigraphik und historische Geographie Anatoliens. Fs. Bloesch = Zur griechischen Kunst. Hansjörg Bloesch zum 60. Geburtstag am 5. Juli 1972, Bern, 1973. Fs. Friedrich = R. von Kienle et alii (eds.), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August 1958 gewidmet, Heidelberg, 1959. Fs. Grumach = W. Brice (ed.), Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Agais. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach, Berlin, 1968. Fs. Neumann I = J. Tischler (ed.), Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift G. Neumann, Innsbruck, 1982. Fs. Neumann II = M. Fritz – S. Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für G. Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, Graz, 2002. Fs. Oberhuber = W. Meid – H. Trenkwalder (eds.), Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients, K. Oberhuber zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, Innsbruck, 1986. Gs. Kretschmer = H. Kronasser (ed.), MNHMHS XARIN. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, Wien, 1956–1957 (I–II). Hauck & Aufhäuser = Hauck & Aufhäuser Privatbankiers, Munich.

494

abbreviations and bibliography

Hirsch = Münzhandlung Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, Munich. HS = Historische Sprachforschung. IF = Indogermanische Forschungen. IGCH = M. Thompson – O. Mørkholm – C. M. Kraay (eds.), An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New York, 1973. InL = Incontri Linguistici. IstMitt = Istanbuler Mitteilungen. JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society. JCS = Journal of Cuneiform Studies. JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies. KarON see Blümel (1998a). KarPN see Blümel (1992). KlF = Kleinasiatische Forschungen, Weimar, 1927–1930. KON see Zgusta (1984). KPN see Zgusta (1964). Künker = Fritz Rudolph Künker Münzenhandlung, Osnabrück. KZ = Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. Lanz = Numismatik Lanz, Munich. LNH see Laroche (1966). MH = Museum Helveticum. MM = Münzen und Medaillen AG, Basel. MSS = Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Naville = Naville & Ars Classica, Lucerne. NC = Numismatic Chronicle. NDH see Laroche (1947). OLZ = Orientalische Literaturzeitung. Or = Orientalia. Commentarii periodici Pontificii Instituti Biblici Nova Series. ÖJh = Jahreshefte des österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes. Peus = Dr. Busso Peus Nachf., Münzhandlung, Frankfurt a. M. PP = Parola del Passato. PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. RALinc = Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Serie VIII. RE = Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue Bearbeitung unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen; herausgegeben von Georg Wissowa, Stuttgart, 1894–1963. REA = Revue des Études Anciennes. REG = Revue des Études Grecques. RHA = Revue Hittite et Asianique. RPh = Revue de Philologie. SEAP = Studi di Eggitologia e di Antichità Puniche. SM = Schweizer Münzblätter. SMEA = Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. SNG Kayhan = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Turkey 1, The Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Istanbul-Bordeaux, 2002. SNG Keckman = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Finland, The Erkki Keckman Collection in the Skopbank, Helsinki, part I Karia, Helsinki, 1994. SNG von Aulock = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: Sammlung von Aulock, 18 fascicules, Berlin 1957–1981. TA1 see Laroche (1957). TA2 see Laroche (1961). TSBA = Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. VJa = Voprosy Jazykoznanija. Weber = L. Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins formed by Sir Hermann Weber M.D., vol. 3, London, 1929.

abbreviations and bibliography

495

WO = Die Welt des Orients: wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes. ZDMG = Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bibliography Adiego, I.-J. (1990a) “Deux notes sur la langue et l’écriture cariennes”, Kadmos 29, 133–138. (1990b) Studia Carica. Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, y su relación con la familia lingüística anataolia indoeuropea, Doctoral dissertation, Barcelona. (published as microfilm). (1992a) “Recherches cariennes: essai d’amélioration du système de J. D. Ray”, Kadmos 31, 25–39. (1992b) “Glosses i pseudoglosses càries en fonts gregues”, in: J. Zaragoza – A. González Senmartí (eds.), Homenatge a Josep Alsina. Actes del Xè Simposi d’Estudis Clàssics, Tarragona 28–30 de novembre del 1990, I, Tarragona, 51–54. (1993a) Studia Carica. Investigaciones sobre la escritura y lengua carias, Barcelona. (1993b) “Sobre OALOALON SGDI 5727.d30”, Kadmos 32 (1993), 173–174. (1994a) “Les identifications onomastiques dans le déchiffrement du carien”, Decifrazione del cario, 27–63, “Considerazioni conclusive”, ibid. 239–240. (1994b) “El nombre cario Hecatomno”, CFC (Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos) n. s. 4, 247–256. (1994c) “Genitiu singular en lici i protoluvi”, Anuari de Filologia. Studia Graeca et Latina 17, 11–33. (1995) “Contribuciones al desciframiento del cario”, Kadmos 34, 18–34. (1996) “Comentarios a la nueva lectura de la inscripción caria 28*”, Kadmos 35, 160–163. (1998a) “La nueva bilingüe greco-caria de Cauno y el desciframiento del cario”, Aula Orientalis 16 (1998), 5–26. (1998b) “Die neue Bilingue von Kaunos und das Problem des karischen Alphabets”, Colloquium Caricum, 57–79. (2000) “La inscripción greco-caria de los Hecatómnidas en el santuario de Sinuri”, Kadmos 39, 133–157. (2002) “Cario de Cauno punoO”, Aula Orientalis 20, 13–20. (2004) “Los alfabetos epicóricos anhelénicos de Asia Menor”, in: P. Bádenas de la Peña – S. Torallas Tovar – E. R. Luján – M. Á. Gallego (eds.), Lenguas en contacto: El testimonio escrito, Madrid, 299–320. (2005) “La nueva inscripción caria de Milasa”, Kadmos 44, 81–94. Adiego, I.-J. – Debord, P. – Varinlio
496

abbreviations and bibliography

Belli, P. – Gusmani, R. (2001) “Una nuova iscrizione rupestre presso il Santuario di Labraunda in Caria”, PP 56, 33–41. Bengston, H. (1954–55) “Skylax von Karyanda und Herakleides von Mylasa”, Historia 3, 302–305. Benveniste, E. (1931) “Noms cariens”, RHA I. 2, 52–57. Bernand, A. – Aly, A. (1959?) Abou-Simbel, inscriptions grecques, cariennes et sémitiques des statues de la façade, Le Caire, Centre de documentation égyptologique, Collection scientifique. Bernand, A. – Masson, O. (1957) “Les inscriptions grecques d’Abu Simbel”, REG 70, 1–46. Berti, F. – Innocente, L. (1998) “Due nuovi graffiti in alfabeto cario da Iasos”, Colloquium Caricum, 137–142. (2005) “Graffito cario su piede di coppa attica”, Bollettino dell’Associazione Iasos di Caria, 11, 20–21. Bertoldi, V. (1948) “Souangela, Tomba del Re”, PP 3, 5–11. Blümel, W. KarON: see (1998a). KarPN: see (1992). (1988) “Epigraphische Forschungen in der Region von Mylasa”, in: VI Ara{tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara 23–27 Mayıs 1988, 261–264. (1990) “Zwei neue Inschriften aus Mylasa aus der Zeit des Maussollos”, EpAnat 16, 29–43 Taf. 12. (1992) “Einheimische Personennamen in griechischen Inschriften aus Karien”, EpAnat 20, 7–34. (1993) “SGDI 5727 (Halikarnassos): eine Revision”, Kadmos 32, 1–18. (1994) “Über die chronologische und geographische Verteilung einheimischer Personennamen in griechischen Inschriften aus Karien”, Decifrazione del cario, 65–86. (1996) “Epigraphische Forschungen im Westen Kariens 1994”, in: XIII Ara{tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 261–264. (1998a) “Einheimische Ortsnamen in Karien”, EpAnat 30 (1998), 163–184. (1998b) “Karien, die Karer und ihre Nachbarn in Kleinasien”, Colloquium Caricum, 163–173. (2005) “Problematische Lesungen in der karischen Inschrift aus der Region von Mylasa”, Kadmos 44, 188. Blümel, W. – Adiego, I.-J. (1993) “Die karische Inschrift von Kildara”, Kadmos 32, 87–95. Blümel, W. – Kızıl, A. (2004) “Eine neue karische Inschrift aus der Region von Mylasa”, Kadmos 43, 131–138. Bockisch, G. (1969) “Die Karer und ihre Dynasten”, Klio 51, 117–175. Bohl, F. M. (1932–33) “Inschriften mit unbekannter Schrift aus der Leidener Sammlung”, AfO 8, 173–174. Boisson, C. (1994) “Conséquences phonétiques de certaines hypothèses de déchiffrement du carien”, Decifrazione del cario, 207–232.

abbreviations and bibliography

497

Bork, F. (1930) “Die Schrift der Karer”, ASBW 4, 18–30. (1931) “Die Sprache der Karer”, AfO 7, 14–23. Brandenstein, W. (1934a) “J F X C in den epichorischen Alphabeten Kleinasiens”, Klio 27, 69–73. (1935a) “Karische Sprache” in: Pauly-Wissowa, RE Supplementband VI, col. 140–146. (1936) “Streifzüge . . . Zwei Karische Ortsnamen”, Glotta 25, 32–35. Brixhe, C. (1996) Review of Decifrazione del cario in: BSL 91/2, 214–221. Cancio, L. (1989) “A New Satrapal Coin of the KIM—EKA Series”, SM 156, 83. Carruba, O. (1998) “Zum Stand der Entzifferung des Karischen”, Colloquium Caricum, 47–56. (1999a) “Bildungen karischer Ethnika”, SMEA 41/2 (1999), 175–180. (1999b) “Ar/w/wazuma”, Kadmos 38, 50–58. (2000) “Der Name der Karer”, Athenaeum 88, 49–57. Cau, N. (1999a) “La legenda caria su una serie monetale del dinasta Kuprlli”, Studi Ellenistici 12, 9–17. (1999b) “Una nuova lettura di alcune leggende monetali carie”, Kadmos 38, 43–49. (2003) “Nuovi antroponimi indigeni nelle iscrizioni greche della Licia di età ellenisticoromana”, Studi Ellenistici 15, 297–340. Deroy, L. (1955) “Les inscriptions cariennes de Carie”, AC 24, 305–335. (1959) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: Or 28, 101–102. Descat, R. (1994) “La géographie dans les listes de tributs attiques: Lepsimandos et Kasôlaba en Carie”, ZPE 104, 61–68. (1998) “La carrière d’Eupolemos, Stratège macédonien en Asie Mineure. Appendice: Note sur une inscription caro-grecque de Caunos”, REA 100, 167–190. Dorsi, P. (1979) “Le glosse carie”, InL 5, 27–35. Dressler, W. (1966–67[68]) “Karoide Inschriften im Steinbruch von Belevi”, ÖJh 48, 73–76. Durnford, S. (1991) “An instance of the Lycian name for Xanthos in Carian script”, Kadmos 30, 90–92. Eilers, W. (1935) “Das Volk der karka in den epichorischen Alphabeten Kleinasiens”, OLZ 38, 201–213. (1940) “Kleinasiatisches”, ZDMG 94, 189–233. Eichner, H. (1994) “Zur Entzifferung des Karischen”, Decifrazione del cario, 167–170. Erbse, H. (1986) “Zu der Ilias-Scholien (Curae secundae II)”, Hermes 114.4, 385–398. ESS (= Epigrahic Survey Staff ). (1988) Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, volume 2: The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications).

498

abbreviations and bibliography

Faucounau, J. (1980) “Réflexions sur le déchiffrement des inscriptions cariennes”, Klio 62.2, 289–305. (1984) “A propos de récents progrès dans le déchiffrement de l’écriture carienne”, BSL 79/1, 229–238. (1989) “A propos de la lecture des inscriptions cariennes”, Kadmos 28, 174–175. (1994) “Remarks on the Carian Alphabet of Sinuri”, Decifrazione del cario, 233–236. Franklin, N. (2001) “Masons’ Marks from the Ninth Century B.C.E. Northern Kingdom of Israel. Evidence of the Nascent Carian Alphabet?”, Kadmos 40, 107–116. Frei, P. – Marek, C. (1997) “Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Eine zweisprachige Staatsurkunde des 4. Jh.s v. Chr.”, Kadmos 36, 1–89. (1998) “Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Ein neues Textfragment”, Colloquium Caricum, 1–18. (2000) “Neues zu den karischen Inschriften von Kaunos”, Kadmos 39, 83–132. Friedrich, J. (1931) “Zu den kleinasiatischen Personennamen mit dem Element muwa”, Kleinasiatische Forschungen I, 359–378. (1932) Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, Berlin. (1952) “Karer in Numidien?”, Or 21, 231–233. (1965) “Ein wohl kleinasiatisches Tontäfelchen mit unbekannter Schrift”, Kadmos 3, 156–169. Georgiev, V. I. (1960) “Der indoeuropäische Charakter der karischen Sprache”, ArOr 28, 607–619. (1966) Introduzione alla storia delle lingue indoeuropee (= Incunabula graeca 9), Roma. (1975) “Ein Versuch zur Deutung der griechisch-karischen bilinguis”, Kadmos 14, 64–67. (1981) Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages, Sofia. [210–214]. Gérard, R. (2005) Phonétique et morphologie de la langue lydienne, Louvain-la-Neuve. Goetze, A. (1954) “The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as shown by its Proper Names”, JCS 8, 74–81. Gosline, S. L. (1992) “Carian quarry markings on Elephantine Island”, Kadmos 31, 43–50. (1998) “Quarry, Setting and Team Marks: the Carian Connection”, Journal of Ancient Civilizations, 13, 59–82. Gusmani, R. (1967) Review of ”evoro“kin (1965) in: AGI 52, 79–84. (1975) Neue epichorische Schriftzeugnisse aus Sardis (1958–1971) = Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph 3, Cambridge, Mass. (1978) “Zwei neue Gefässinschriften in karischer Sprache”, Kadmos 17, 67–75. (1979a) Review of Masson (1978) in: Paideia 34, 220–223. (1979b) “Spunti per la decrittazione di segni carii”, InL 5, 193–197. (1982) “Zum Karischen”, Fs. Neumann I, 193–197. (1986) “Die Erforschung des Karischen”, Fs. Oberhuber, 55–67. (1988) “Karische Beiträge”, Kadmos 27.2, 139–149. (1990) “Karische Beiträge II”, Kadmos 29.1, 47–53. (1994) “Kritisches und Autokritisches zu den Entzifferungsversuchen”, Decifrazione del cario, 115–120.

abbreviations and bibliography

499

Hajnal, I. (1996) Die Entzifferung unbekannter Schriften: Drei Fallstudien—ein Szenario?, Bern. (1995[97]) “Das Vokalsystem des Karischen: Eine provisorische Bestandsaufnahme”, Die Sprache 37, 12–30. (1997a) “«Indogermanische» Syntax in einer neuerschlossenen anatolischen Sprache: Die karische Partikel -xi”, in: E. Crespo – J. L. García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, Madrid-Wiesbaden, 193–217. (1997b) “Die karisch-griechische Bilingue 44* aus Kaunos: ein erster Augenschein”, Kadmos 36, 141–166. (1997c) “Definite nominale Determination im Indogermanischen”, IF 102, 38–73. (1998) “, Jungluwisches‘ *s und die karische Evidenz: Versucheiner dialektologischen Klärung”, Colloquium Caricum, 80–108. Hanfmann, G. M. A – Masson, O. (1967) “Carian Inscriptions from Sardis and Stratonikeia”, Kadmos 6, 123–134. Hegyi, D. (1998) “The Cult of Sinuri in Caria”, Acta Ant. Hung. 38, 157–163. Heubeck, A. (1959a) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: Gnomon 31, 332–336. (1967–68) Review of Otkup“‘ikov (1966) in: IF 72, 331–333. (1974) Review of Zauzich (1972) in: BiOr 31, 95–97. Hornblower, S. (1982) Mausolus, Oxford. Houwink Ten Cate, Ph. H. J. (1961) The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period (= Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui 10), Leiden. de Hoz, J. (2004) “De cómo los protogriegos crearon el griego y los pregriegos lo aprendieron”, in: P. Bádenas de la Peña – S. Torallas Tovar – E. R. Luján – M. Á. Gallego (eds.), Lenguas en contacto: El testimonio escrito, Madrid, 35–56. Innocente, L. (1992) “Stato delle ricerche sul cario”, Vicino Oriente 8/2, 213–222. (1992a) “Concordanze delle iscrizioni carie”, SMEA 30, 25–87. (1994) “Note epigrafiche”, Decifrazione del cario, 101–110. (1995) “The Oxford Paracarian Inscription”, Kadmos 34, 149–154. (1997) Review of Adiego (1993) in: Or 66, 116–117. (2002) “Tegola di Iasos”, Kadmos 41, 179–180. I{ık, C. (1998) “Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kaunos bis zur Entdeckung der Bilingue”, Colloquium Caricum, 183–202. Ißık, E. (2003) Frühe Silberprägungen in Städten Westkleinasiens, Saarbrücken. Janda, M. (1994) “Beiträge zum Karischen”, Decifrazione del cario, 171–190. Jeffery, L. H. (1961) The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford. (1964[65]) “Old Smyrna: Inscriptions on sherds and small objects”, ABSA 59, 39–49, pl. 5–8. Jordan, H. (1968) Review of Otkup“‘ikov (1966) in: OLZ 63, 125–130.

500

abbreviations and bibliography

Jucker, H. – Meier, M. (1978) “Eine Bronzephiale mit karischer Inschrift”, MH 35, 104–115. Kalinka, E. (1901) Tituli Asiae Minoris, vol. I Tituli Linguae Lyciae lingua lycia conscripti, Wien. Kammenhuber, A. (1969b) “Karer, Karia, Karische Sprache”, K. Ziegler – W. Sontheimer (eds.), Der Kleine Pauly III, Stuttgart, col. 118–121. Kammerzell, F. (1990) Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in Ägypten, Diss. Göttingen. (1993) Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in Ägypten, Wiesbaden. Klein, D. (1999) Sammlung von griechischen Kleinsilbermüzen und Bronzen, Nomismata 3, Milan. Konuk, K. (1998a) The Coinage of the Hekatomnids of Caria (unpublished Oxford University D. Phil. Diss.). (1998b) “The Early Coinage of Kaunos”, in: R. Ashton – S. Hurter (eds.), Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 197–223, pl. 47–50. (2000a) “Influences et éléments achéménides dans le monnayage de la Carie”, in: O. Casabonne (ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et histoire, Istanbul, 171–183. (2000b) “Coin evidence for the Carian Name of Keramos”, Kadmos 39, 159–164. (2003) Karun’dan Karia’ya, Muharrem Kayhan Koleksiyonundan Erken Anadolu Sikkeleri. From Kroisos to Karia, Early Anatolian Coins from the Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Istanbul. (forthcoming [a]) “The Early Coinage of Mylasa”, NC. (forthcoming [b]) “Kasolaba, a New Mint in Karia?”, in: S. Drougou – E. Ralli (eds.), Essays in Honour of Ioannis Touratsoglou, Athens. (forthcoming [c]) “Erbbina en Carie?”, in: F. de Callatay¨ et alii (eds.), Liber amicorum Tony Hackens, Louvain-la-Neuve. (forthcoming [d]) “Orou, dynaste de Carie”, in: P. Brun (ed.) Anatolica, mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Debord, Bordeaux. Kowalski, Th. (1975) “Lettres cariennes: essai de déchiffrement de l’écriture carienne”, Kadmos 14, 73–93. Kretschmer, P. (1896) Einleitung in der Geschichte der griech. Sprachen, Göttingen. (1929) “Eine neue karische Inschrift”, KlF 1, 318–320. (1954) “Zu der karischen Zeile der SÁma-Inschrift aus Athen oben S. 67”, Glotta 34, 160. Laroche, E. LNH see (1966). NDH see (1947). TA1 see (1957). TA2 see (1961). (1947) Recherches sur les noms des dieux hittites, Paris. (1957) “Notes de toponymie anatolienne”, Gs. Kretschmer II, 1–7. (1961) “Etudes de toponymie anatolienne”, RHA XIX.69, 57–98. (1966) Les noms des hittites, Paris. Laumonier, A. (1933) “Notes sur un voyage en Carie”, Revue archéologique II, 31–55. (1934) “Inscriptions de Carie”, BCH 58, 291–380. (1958) Les Cultes indigènes de Carie, Paris.

abbreviations and bibliography

501

Leclant, J. (1951) “Fouilles et travaux en Egypte, 1950–1951”, Or 20, p. 474; pl. LXIV, 37–38. (1960) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: RPh, 339–340. Legrain, G. (1905) “Inscriptions from Gebel Abou Gorâb”, PSBA 27, 129. Levi, D. – Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1961–62 [1963]) “Nuove Iscrizioni di Iasos”, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene vol. 39–40, 573–632. Loprieno, A. (1995) Ancient Egyptian, Cambridge. Martin Cary, J. (1991) “Carian in Egypt: the Demotic evidence”, Kadmos 30.2, 173–174. Masson, O. (1953) “Textes cariens d’Egypte I”, RHA XII (55) 32–38 and pl. XII–XIV. (1954) “Epigraphie asianique . . . L’épigraphie carienne”, Or 23, 439–441. (1959a) “Notes d’anthroponymie grecque et asianique”, BzN 10, 159–170. (1959b) “Documents énigmatiques à inscription pseudo-chypriote et pseudo-carienne”, Fs. Friedrich, 315–321 (1967) “L’ostrakon carien de Hou-Diospolis Parva (38 Friedrich)”, Fs. Grumach, 211–217, pl. XX. (1969) “Les Cariens en Egypte ”, Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie 56, nov. 1969, 25–36. (1973) “Que savons-nous de l’écriture et de la langue des Cariens?”, BSL 68/1, 187–213 (1973[74]) Review of Zauzich (1972) in: Kratylos 18, 38–43. (1974) “Notes d’épigraphie carienne”, Kadmos 13, 124–132. (1973[75]) “Un nouveau fragment d’inscription carienne de Kaunos”,” Anadolu 17, 123–131. (1975) “Le nom des Cariens dans quelques langues de l’antiquité”, Mélanges linguistiques offerts à E. Benveniste, Paris, 407–414. (1976) “Un lion de bronze de provenance égyptienne avec inscription carienne”, Kadmos 15.1, 80–83. (1977) “Notes d’épigraphie carienne III–V”, Kadmos 16, 87–94. (1977[78]) “Karer in Ägypten”, Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, col. 333–337. (1978) Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqâra and Buhen, Egypt Exploration Society, London. (1979) “Remarques sur les graffites cariens d’Abou Simbel”, Hommages à la mémoire de S. Sauneron II, Le Caire, 35–49. (1988a) “Noms cariens à Iasos”, in: Eothen, Firenze, 155–157. (1988b) “Le culte ionien d’Apollon Oulios d’après des données onomastiques nouvelles”, Journal des Savants, Juillet–Décembre 1988, 173–183. (1991) “Anatolian Languages”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History 2a ed. vol III, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B. C., Cambridge. 666–676, Bibl.: 855–860. (1994a) “Les inscriptions cariennes du tombeau de Montuemhat (Thèbes), ” Decifrazione del cario, 191–194. (1994b) “La grande inscription grecque d’Abou-Simbel et le nom probablement carien Peleqos”, SMEA 34, 137–140. (1994c) Review of Adiego (1993a) in: BSL 89/2, 185–186. (1995) Review of Kammerzell (1993) in: Kratylos 40, 172–177. (unpublished [1994]) “Le carien: état de la question”, Communication du 18 juin 1994, Société de Linguistique de Paris.

502

abbreviations and bibliography

Masson, O. – Yoyotte, J. (1956) Objets pharaoniques à inscription carienne, Le Caire. Meier-Brügger, M. (1976) “Zum karischen Namen von Kaunos”, MSS 34, 95–100. (1978) “Karika”, Kadmos 17, 76–84. (1979a) “Karika II–III”, Kadmos 18, 80–88. (1979b) “Ein Buchstabenindex zu den karischen Schriftdenkmälern aus Ägypten”, Kadmos 18, 130–177. (1980a) Review of Masson (1978) in: Gnomon 52, 383–384. (1980b) “Karisch. Eine Bestandsaufnahme”, XX. Deutscher Orientalistentag 1977 in Erlangen (= ZDMG Suppl. IV), 88–90. (1981) “Eine weitere ,parakarische‘ Inschrift?”, Kadmos 20, 76–78, pl. I–III). (1983) “Die Karischen Inschriften”, in: Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches II, Part 4, Stockholm. (1994) “Ein neuer Blick nach zehn Jahren”, Decifrazione del cario, 111–114. (1998) “Zu den Münzlegenden von Kaunos”, Colloquium Caricum, 42–46. Melchert, H. C. CLL = Melchert (1993b). DLL = Melchert (2004). (1993) “Some remarks on new readings in Carian”, Kadmos 32.2 (1993), 77–86. (1993b) Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Chapel Hill. (1994) Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam-Atlanta. (1998) “Carian mdoVun ‘we have established’”, Colloquium Caricum, 33–41. (2002) “Sibilants in Carian”, in: Fs. Neumann II, 305–313. (2003) Chapters 1, 2, 5 of H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden-Boston. (2004) A Dictionary of the Lycian Language, Ann Arbor. (mdane) “Carian mdane”, unpublished paper (1999). Mentz, A. (1940) “Schrift und Sprache der Karer”, IF 57, 265–280. Meriggi, P. (1963) “Karisch ÉIt≈ana, hier. het. itapana-”, Kadmos 2, 73. (1966) “Zur neuen ‘para-karischen’ Schrift”, Kadmos 5, 61–102. (1967) “Zum Karischen”, Fs Grumach, 218–228. (1978) “Sulla scrittura caria”, ASNP, Cl. di Lett. e Fil. serie III, vol. VIII, 3, 791–803. (1980) Review of Masson (1978) in: BiOr 37, 33–37. Metzger, I. R. (1973) “Eine geometrische Amphora im Rätischen Museum in Chur”, Fs. Bloesch, 74–77 Meyer, G. (1886) “Die karier. Eine ethnographisch-linguistische untersuchung”, BB 10, 147–202. Mørkholm, O. – Neumann, G. (1978) Die lykischen Münzlegenden, Göttingen. Mørkholm, O. – Zahle, J. (1976) “The Coinages of the Lycian Dynasts Kheriga, Kherêi and Erbbina. A Numismatic and Archaeological Study”, AArch 47, 47–90. Murray, M. A. (1904) The Osireion at Abydos, London. Nahm, W. (1969) “Neue Lesungsvorschläge zur Grotthus-Tafel”, Kadmos 8, 58–73. Naumann, R. – Tuchelt, K. (1963/1964) “Die Ausgrabung in Südwesten des Tempels von Didyma 1962”, IstMitt 13/14, 16 ss. [pl. 25: Carian graffiti from Didyma].

abbreviations and bibliography

503

Neumann, G. (1961) Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Wiesbaden. (1969a) “Eine neue karische Inschrift aus Chalketor”, Kadmos 8, 152–157. (1969b) “Lykisch”, in: Handbuch der Orientalistik 1 Abt., 2. Bd. 1–2 Abschn., Lief. 2, 358–396. (1978) “Spätluwische Namen”, KZ 92, 126–131. (1984) “Zum Namen des Cheramyes von Samos”, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft Neue Folge, Band 10, 41–43. (1988) “Beobachtungen an karischen Ortsnamen”, in: Eothen 183–191. (1993) “Zu den epichorischen Sprachen Kleinasiens”, in: G. Dobesch – G. Rehrenböck (eds.), Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre Kleinaisatische Kommission der Österreichichesn Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 289–296. (1994) “Zur Nebenlieferung des Karischen”, Decifrazione del cario, 15–25. (1998) “Sprachvergleichendes zur Kaunos-Bilingue”, Colloquium Caricum, 19–32. Nicholls, R. V. (1971) “Recent Acquisitions by the Fitzwillian Museum, Cambridge”, Archaeological Reports for 1970 –71, 75–76, no 26, fig. 16. Ö<ün, B. (1998) “Warum Kaunos?”, Colloquium Caricum, 175–182. Otkup“‘ikov, J. V. [OÚÍÛÔ˘ËÍÓ‚, ˛. ‚.] (1966) KapuÈcÍue ̇‰nucu AÙpuÍu. èp‰‚‡pumeθÌ˚e pÂÁyÎmam˚ ‰e¯uÙpÓ‚Íu. [Carian Inscriptions of Africa. Preliminary results of a decipherment], Leningrad. (1968) “O· ÓÚÌÓ¯eÌËË ÍapËÈcÍÓ„Ó aÎÙa‚ËÚa Í ÍpËÚÓ-ÏËÍeÌcÍÓÏy Ë ÍËÔpcÍÓÏy cËÎÎa·ap˲ [On the connection of the Carian alphabet with the Creto-Mycenaean and Cypriot syllabary]”, Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia-1967, Roma, 426–432 and 433–437 [abstract in Italian: “Sul rapporto dell’alfabeto cario con il sillabario cretese-miceneo e cipriota”]. (1989) “K‡pËÈcÍËÈ Ë „pe˜ÂcÍËÈ flÁ˚Í. „eÌeÚ˘ÂcÍËe Ë ÂÚÌÓ-ÍyθÚypÌ˚ ÓÚÌÓ¯ÂÌËfl [Carian and Greek language. Genetic and ethno-cultural connections]”, Klio 71, 66–69. Paribeni, R. (1936) “Etimologie dalla lingua dei Cari (?)”, Rivista di Fiologia Classica 64, 292–293. Pedley, J. G. (1974) “Carians in Sardis”, JHS 94, 96–99. Petrie, W. M. F. (1901) Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898–1899, London. Pfeiler, B. (1962) “Zur Münzkunde von Milet”, SM 46, 20–22. Pisani, V. (1967) Review of ”evoro“kin (1965) in: Paideia 22, 420–424. Poetto, M. (1984) “Nuove monete carie”, Kadmos 23, 74–75. Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1948) “Cari in Libia”, PP 3, 15–19. (1974) “Un’epigrafe caria in Persia”, Gururàjamañjarikà (Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci) I, Napoli, 163–166. (1985[86]) “Cari in Iasos”, RALinc vol. XI, fasc. 5–6, 149–155. Ray, J. D. (1981) “An approach to the Carian script”, Kadmos 20.2, 150–162. (1982a) “The Carian Script”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 208, 77–90.

504

abbreviations and bibliography

(1982b) “The Carian inscriptions from Egypt”, JEA 68, 181–198. (1983) Review of Masson (1978) in: JEA 69, 194–195. (1985) “The Carian coins from Aphrodisias”, Kadmos 24.1, 86–88. (1987) “The Egyptian approach to Carian”, Kadmos 26.1, 98–103. (1988) “Ussollos in Caria”, Kadmos 27.2, 150–54. (1990a) “An Outline of Carian Grammar”, Kadmos 29, 54–83. (1990b) “A Carian Text: The Longer Inscription from Sinuri”, Kadmos 29, 126–132. (1990c) “The names Psammetichus and Takheta”, JEA 76, 196–199. (1994) “New Egyptian Names in Carian”, Decifrazione del cario, 195–206. (1998) “Aegypto-Carica”, Colloquium Caricum, 125–136. Robert, L. (1945) Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa Première partie: les inscriptions grecques, Paris. (1949) “Décret d’une syngeneia carienne au sanctuaire de Sinuri”, in: L. Robert, Hellenica VII, 59–68. (1950) “Inscriptions inédites en langue carienne”, in: L. Robert, Hellenica VIII, section I, 5–22, fig. 1–2, pl. I–VI, VII–X, XXVIII–XXX. (1950b) “Le carien Mys et l’oracle du Ptôon (Hérodote, VIII, 135)”, in: L. Robert, Hellenica VIII, section I, 23–38. (1957) “Deux inscriptions d’Iasos”, REG 70, 362–375. Robinson, E. S. G. (1936) “A Find of Archaic Coins from South-West Asia Minor”, NC 5/16, 1–16. (1939) “Coin-Legends in Carian Script”, Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler, Manchester, 269–275. Rochette, B. (1997–98) “La langue des Cariens à propos de B 867”, Glotta 74, 227–236. Roos, P. (1972) The Rock-Tombs of Caunus, I The Architecture (= Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 34; 1), Göteborg. (1985) Survey of rock-cut chamber-tombs in Caria, Part 1: South-eastern Caria and the Lyco-Carian borderland, 9, Göteborg. }ahin, M. Ç. (1973[75]) “Lagina’dan (Koranza) iki yeni yazıt” / “Two New Inscriptions from Lagina (Koranza)”, Anadolu 17, 178–185 (Turkish) / 187–195 (English). (1976) The political and religious structure in the territory of Stratonikeia in Caria, Ankara. (1980) “A Carian and three Greek inscriptions from Stratonikeia”, ZPE 39, 205–213. Salmeri, G. (1994) “I Greci e le lingue indigene d’Asia Minore: il caso del cario”, Decifrazione del cario, 87–99. Sapir, E. (1936) “kÊbda a Carian Gloss”, JAOS 56, 85. Sayce, A. H. (1874) “The Karian Inscriptions”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, second series, 10, 546–564. (1887[92] = 1893) “The Karian language and inscriptions”, TSBA 9.1, 112–154. (1895) “The Karian and Lydian inscriptions”, PSBA 17, 39–43. (1905) “Lydian and Karian inscriptions”, PSBA 27, 123–128 Lám. I–II. (1906) “An inscription of S-ankh-ka-ra. Karian and other inscriptions”, PSBA 28, 171–177 (1908) “Karian, Aramaic, and Greek graffiti from Heshân”, PSBA 30, 28–29. (1910) “Karian, Egyptian and Nubian-Greek inscriptions from the Sudan”, PSBA 32, 261–268.

abbreviations and bibliography

505

Säflund, G. (1953) “Karische Inschriften aus Labranda”, Opuscula Atheniensia I, 199–205. Schweyer, A.-V. (2002) Les Lyciens et la mort. Une étude d’histoire sociale, Paris. Schmaltz, B. (1998) “Vorhellenistische Keramikimporte in Kaunos—Versuch einer Perspektive”, Colloquium Caricum, 203–210. Schmitt, R. (1978[79]) Review of Masson (1978) in: Kratylos 23, 98–104. (1980) “Karer”, in: Reallexikon der Assyrologie und vorderasiatischen Archeologie V, 423–425. Schürr, D. (1992) “Zur Bestimmung der Lautwerte des karischen Alphabets”, Kadmos 31, 127–156 (1991–1993) “Imbr- in lykischer und karischer Schrift”, Die Sprache 35.2, 163–175. (1993) “Zu ]NAPOUKV SGDI 5727.b4”, Kadmos 32, 172–173. (1996a) “Bastet-Namen in karischen Inschriften Ägyptens”, Kadmos 35, 55–71. (1996b) “Zur karischen Felschinschrift Si. 62 F”, Kadmos 25, 149–156 (1996c) “Zur karischen Felsgrabinschrift von Kaunos (28*)”, Kadmos 25, 157–159. (1996[98]) “Karisch ‘Mutter’ und ‘Vater’”, Sprache 38, 93–98. (1998) “Kaunos in lykischen Inschriften”, Colloquium Caricum, 143–162. (2000) “Lydisches III: Rund um lydisch ,Hund‘”, Kadmos 39, 165–176. (2001a) “Zur Inschrift nr. 50 von Kaunos und zum karischen Namen von Keramos”, Kadmos 40, 61–64. (2001b) “Karische und lykische Sibilanten”, IF 106, 94–121. (2001c) “Zur karischen Inschrift auf dem Genfer Kultgegenstand”, Kadmos 40, 117–126. (2002) “Karische Parallelen zu zwei Arzawa-Namen”, Kadmos 41, 163–167. (2003a) “Zur karischen Inschrift der Stele von Abusir”, Kadmos 42, 91–103. (2003b) “Zum Namen des Flusses Kalbis bei Kaunos in Karien”, HS 116, 69–74. ”evoro“kin, V. I. [ò‚ÓÓ¯ÍËÌ, Ç. à.] (1962) “ä‡ËÈÒÍËÈ ‚ÓÔÓÒ [The Carian problem]”, VJa 1962.5, 93–100. (1963) “O ıÂÚÚÓ-ÎÛ‚ËËÒÍÓÏ ı‡‡ÍÚÂ ͇ËÈÒÍÓ„Ó flÁ˚͇ [On the Hittite-Luwian character of the Carian Language]”, VJa 1963.3, 83–84. (1964a) “On Karian”, RHA XXII 74, 1–55. (1964b) “Aegyptisch-karische Inschrift am Sockel einer Isisstatuette (Leningrader Staatsermitage)”, RHA XXII 74, 57–65 and pl. I–IV. (1964c) “Zur karischen Schrift und Sprache”, Kadmos 3, 72–87. (1964d) “Karijskij jazyk; sovremennoe sostojanie de“ifrovki i izu‘enija” [La lengua caria; el estado actual del desciframiento y la investigación] Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoznanija, Moskva, 18–39. (1965) àÒÒΉӂ‡ÌËfl ÔÓ ‰Â¯ËÙÓ‚Í ͇ËÈÒÍËı ̇‰ÔËÒÂÈ [Studies on the decipherment of the Carian inscriptions], Moskva. (1968a) “Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der kleinasiatischen Buchstabenschriften”, Kadmos 7, 150–173. (1968b) “Karisch und Lykisch”, Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia1967, Roma, 462–472. (1968c) “Karisch, Lydish, Lykisch”, Klio 50, 53–69. (1969a) “Zu den ‘späthethitischen’ Sprachen”, XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag-1968, Würzburg = ZDMG Supplem. I. Wiesbaden, 250–271. (1969b) “Zur Erforschung der kleinasiatischen Onomastik”, 10. Internationaler Kongress für Namenforschung II, Vienna, 341–350. (1977) “Zu einigen karischen Wörtern”, MSS 35 117–130. (1982–83) “Über den Lautwert des karischen Buchstaben y”, InL 8, 71–78. (1984[86]) “Verbesserte Lesungen von karischen Wörtern”, InL 9, 199–200. (1988) “Carian proper names”, Onomata 12, 497–505.

506

abbreviations and bibliography

(1991) “On Carian Language and Writing”, Perspectives on Indo-European Language Culture and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgard C. Polomé. vol. I (= Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Number 7). 116–135. (1992) “On Carian Language and Writing”, Newsletter for Anatolian Studies Vol. 8/1, 3. (1994) “Carian – Three decades later”, Decifrazione del cario, 131–166. Shafer, R. (1961) Review of Masson-Yoyotte (1956) in: RHA XIX. 68, 39–40. (1965) “A break in the Carian Dam”, AC 34, 398–424. Six, J. P. (1890) “Monnaies grecques inédites et incertaines”, NC, 185–259. Snodgrass, A. M. (1964) “Carian armoures. The Growth of a Tradition”, JHS 84, 107–118. Spiegelberg, W. (1928) “Eine Ichneumonbronze mit hieroglyphischer und karischer Inschrift”, OLZ 21, 545–548. Steinherr, F. (1950–51) “Zu den neuen karischen Inschriften”, Jahrbuch der kleinasiatische Forschung 1, 328–336 (1955) “Der karische Apollon”, WO 2, 184–192. (1957) “Der Stand der Erforschung des Karischen”, Proceedings of the twenty-second Congress of Orientalists . . ., Istanbul, 1951, Leyde, 44–49. Stoltenberg, H. L. (1958a) “Neue Lesung der karischen Schrift”, Die Sprache 4, 139–151. (1958b) “Die karische Grabinschrift von Kaunos”, AC 27, 108–109. (1959) “Deutung karischer Inschriften”, ArOr 27, 1–4. Sundwall, J. (1911) “Zu den karischen Inschriften und den darin vorkommenden Namen”, Klio 11, 464–480. (1913) Die einheimischen Namen der Lykier nebst einem Verzeichnisse kleinasiatischer Namenstämme [= Klio 11, Beiheft], Leipzig. Thompson, M. (1966) “Some Noteworthy Greek Accessions”, ANSMN 12, 1–18. Tischler, J. (1977) Kleinasiatische Hydronimie. Semantische und morphologische Analyse der griechischen Gewässernamen, Wiesbaden. (2001) Hethitisches Handwörterbuch, Innsbruck. Torp, A. (1903) Die vorgriechische Inschrift von Lemnos = Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Skrifter, hist.-fil. Kl. 1903, 4. Tremblay, X. (1998) “Controversa Carica”, Colloquium Caricum, 109–124. Treu, M. (1954) “Eine griechisch-karische Bilingue und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte der karischen Schrift”, Glotta 34, 67–71. Troxell, H. (1979) “Winged Carians”, in: O. Mørkholm—N. M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology, Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Wetteren, 257–268.

abbreviations and bibliography

507

(1984) “Carians in Miniature”, in: A. Houghton – S. Hurter (eds.), Festschrift für / Studies in honor of Leo Mildenberg, Wetteren, 249–257, pl. 40. Tuchelt, K. (1970) Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma (= Istanbuler Forschungen 27), Berlin. Tzanavari, K. – CHRISTIDIS, A.-Ph. (1995) “A Carian Graffito from the Lebet Table, Thessaloniki”, Kadmos 34, 13–17. van den Hout, T. (1999) “-ms(-): a Carian Enclitic Pronoun?”, Kadmos 38, 31–42. Varinlio
(1964a) Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague. (1964b) Anatolische Personennamensippen, Prague. (1968) Review of ”evoro“kin (1965) in: ArOr 36, 153–154 (1970) Neue Beiträge zur kleinasiatischen Anthroponymie, Prague. (1984) Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, Heidelberg.

TABLE I THE CARIAN ALPHABET

Nº (Masson) 1

3 4 5(+41) 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24(+2) 25 26(+8) 27 28 29+30 31 32 33(+34) 35(+36) 37 38 39 40(+23?) 42 43–44–45 46 1

Letters A1

Transcription

a A ~ À (E ) dDG l W ù VV r R L 2 L qQ b5B mM o tT f F S òT _ s H uU ñ xX nN p p (¯) zZ IíÎÏyìYI ee w kK & vÚ 0 8? 199 % j_ _1 c C / O? 6 Ø ® 4 B &? b? ÿ

d l y r l q b m o t “ s ? u ñ ∞ n p ≤ i e ÿ k d w g z Δ j ? t / t2? ® b b2?

Notes

a

(formerly ù/ü)

(formerly x)

(formerly w) (formerly ú) (formerly z) (formerly í)

Note that, for the sake of simplicity, the letters are given in a left-to-right directionality, which in some cases is not actually documented (for example, ® is only attested as ç in right-to-left directionality).

TABLE II CARIAN SIGNS IN COIN LEGENDS

Letters 6 5 [ A l (!) a M Q À

a

B u (!) 5 } H(!)

b

£d_ gr l W¥ L Mm« o tF s u n ñ xX z iÌ p°P k l (!) VÚ N0 T 3489 71 c J ^

M12–21, M32

M22–23, M26–28, M32, M36–37, M41 d M32, M36–37, M42 r M32, M51–52 l M50 y (or rather w?) M5, M23, M47–48 l M39 m M1–5 o M20–21, M50–52 t M31, M39 s M33–37, M42 u M39, M45, M50–52 n M25 ñ M32 ∞ M43–45 ≤ M39 i M31–32, M53 p M33–35, M39–40 k M22–30 w (or rather y?) M5–M11, M49 g(?) M33–35 j M23, M36–37 z M12–21 (z or symbol?) M38–39 t M32 letter or M27, M33, M36–37 separation mark letter or symbol? M46

510

table ii Linear devices

o l { h 7 1 (or letter?) ^ (or letter?)

M1 M31 M33–35 M38 M38–39 M46

INDICES1

1. Ancient Proper Names Carian Proper Names in Indirect Sources In Egyptian 3rskr 19, 47, 194, 195, 243, 248, 250, 431 Jr“3 42, 47, 194, 248 Jrym3 42, 194, 248 K3rr 33, 198, 244, 266, 409 Prjm 41, 188, 194, 195, 242, 248, 249 ”3rkbym 32, 191, 194, 195, 248, 250, 251, 416, 417 In Akkadian Lu-uk-“u 380 In Greek Aba 340, 349 Abaw 340 Abbaw 340 Ada 13, 140, 236, 245, 340, 349 Adaw 340 Aktadhmow 330 Aktauassiw 242, 330, 338 Aktaussvllow 330, 378 ÉAlãbanda 8, 11, 12 Alasta 349 Alikarnassow 255, 351 Amiaw 340 Ammiaow 340 Andarsvw 246, 262, 333, 363 Androsvw 246, 262 Appa 340 Arbhs(s)iw 334 Arduberow 245, 255, 283, 333, 353 Ardur/a/ 333 Ariauow 354 Aridvliw 354 Arlissiw 196, 248, 250, 255, 341,

354, 355, 356 355 248, 343, 355

Arlissow Arlivmow

1

For Carian words, see Chapter 11.

Arrissiw 135, 221, 248, 305, 354, 356 Artaow 255, 356 Arthumow 255, 356, 393 Artimhw 356, 410 Aryuassiw 356 Aryuassiw 356 Babein 246 Bãrgasa/Bãrgaza 246 BargÊlia 246 Beryaw 246 Berrablviow 246 Bolli.evn 246 Boivmow 246 Br¤oula 246 Bridaw 246 Bruajiw/Bruassiw 246 Brvlow 246 BubassÒw 246 Bvnitv 246 Bvrand/a/ 246 Gugow 198, 237, 244, 260, 326, 330,

334, 408, 419 Dandvmow 246 Daru..ow 246 D°dmasa 246 Deibow 246 Dersvmanhw 246 Dersvw 246, 363 Dersv . . . tiw 246 Didassai 246 D¤duma 246 DÊndason 246 Ekamuhw, Ejamuhw 330 Ekatomnvw 140, 237, 238, 243, 249,

255, 289, 375, 378 Ermapiw 255, 331, 339 Zermenduberow 413 Yuagg°l/a/ 12 Yussvllow 330, 362

512

indices

Iasow 270, 433 Ibanvlliw 360 Idagugow 237, 238, 239, 244, 245, 330,

334, 361 Idriaw 308, 438 Iduma 367, 368 *Idurigow 368 Idussvllow 245, 330, 361, 362, 367,

368 Imbarhldow 198, 262, 330, 335, 393 ÖImbramow (var. ÖImbrasow) 8, 308, 335 Imbarsiw 236, 247, 250, 255, 262, 335,

360, 366 Imbras(s)iw

236, 247, 250, 255, 262, 335, 341, 360, 361, 366 ÖImbrow 8, 299, 335, 367 Karbasuand/a/ 406 Karusvldow 330 Kasbvlliw 334, 374 Kasvlãba 237, 238, 243, 245, 375 Kbondiassiw 334 Kbvdhw 334, 371 Kebivmow 33, 236, 237, 238, 243, 245, 249, 330, 334, 343, 371, 416, 417 Kildar/a/, Killar/a/ 141, 236, 243, 248, 373 Kinduh 255, 269, 373 Koar(r)end/a/, Koarenz/a/ Koaranz/a/, Kvra(n)z/a/ 438 Kolaldiw 238, 239, 244, 256, 315, 407 Konodvrkond/a/ 332 Kostvlliw 251, 409 Kotobalvw 244, 408 Kotbelhmow 198, 236, 238, 244, 245, 255, 343, 408 Kuatbhw 309, 408 Kubliss/ow/, Kublisse›w 238, 245, 255, 269, 409 Kulaldiw 238, 239, 244, 248, 315, 407 Kuròmew 338 Kutbelhmiw 160, 198, 236, 238, 244, 245, 255, 343, 408 Latmow 440 Lujhw 182, 248, 255, 380 Manhw 236, 381 Mareuw 335 Marow 335 Masanvrada 237, 238, 239, 245, 249, 250, 269, 307, 332, 333, 385 Masanvradow 333, 385 Massarabiw 332, 339 Massariw 332 Massvn/a/ 332 Mãstaura 8

Maussvllow 330 Minnaw 340 Moiw 384 MonÒgissa 8 MÒtulow 336 Mouzhaw 251, 336, 387 Mundow 386 Nana 13, 340 Nanaw 340 Nannixow 340 Nannow 340 Nannv 340 Naras/a/ 333, 387 Narasow 262 Narbaw 333 Narisbara 387 Naruandow 333, 387 Neterbimow 238, 332, 339, 343, 347 Nonnow 340 Nutar 332 Nvtrassiw 332 Jrmedurow 255, Oaloalow 339, 428 Oa3a3iw 242 Oliatow 237, 243, 330, 339, 428 Ordomaw 333 Osogva 8, 169 Otvrkond/a/ 332 Panablhmiw 330, 338 Panamara 335, 338 Panamuhw 330, 336, 338, 357 Panuassiw 242, 330, 338, 340 Paow 395, 419 Papaw 340 Papiaw 340 Pãrgasa 246 Par(a)ussvllow 236, 330, 340, 393,

394 Paraudigow

236, 238, 263, 330,

394 Parnow 417 Paruv 394 Parembvrda 333, 340 Pedanass/ow/ 336 Pedvldow 337 Peigelasow 337 Pel(l)ekvw, Peleqow 237, 238, 293,

399, 437 Peldhkow 236, 238, 400 Phdasa 336 Pigassvw 337 Piginda 337 Pigrhw, Pikrhw 31, 236, 243, 244, 248,

255, 337, 345, 397 Pidasa 336

indices Pidossus 337 Pijvdarow 337, 399 Ponmoonnow 140, 238, 239, 249, 255,

303, 330, 336, 338, 401 197, 237, 238, 243, 249, 330, 338, 401, 405 Pormounow 303, 336, 338 Pounomoua 336, 338 Samul¤a 336 Samv(u)ow 141, 310, 416 Sanortow 419 *Sarkebivmow 33, 416, 417 Sarnoj 417 *Sar-oliatow 417 Sarow 419 Saruassiw 242, 330, 338, 340 *Sar-uliatow 417 Sarussvllow 196, 236, 250, 263, 330, 340, 418, 419 Saskvw 175 Saurigow 237, 263, 289, 308, 330, 340, 418 Saussvllow 263, 330, 340, 418 Semeuritow 263 Senurigow 263, 289, 330 Seskvw 175 Sinuri 434 Skoaranow 255 Souãggela 8, 11, 20, 238, 251, 269, 277, 415 Ponussvllow

513

Spareudigow 255, 263 Svmnhw 236, 237, 249, 255, 409, 414 Tãbai 9 Tarkonda[ 255 Tarkondar/a/ 332, 423 Tata 340 Tatarion 340 Tataw 340 Territow 357 Tonnouw 237, 238, 239, 243, 249, 250,

422 Tralle›w, Tralde›w 18 Tumnhw 440 TumnhsÒw 9 Tur[ 164, 197, 288, 424 Uliatow 36, 237, 243, 330, 339,

428 Ñ`Ullãrima

196, 200, 238, 240,

257 `ÑUlloÊala 8 Urgosvw 237, 244, 255, 434 huròmew 338 Urvmow 338 Ussaldvmow 240 Usseldvmow 240 Ussvllow, Ussvldow 135, 141, 183,

195, 196, 237, 305, 310, 330, 344, 362, 403, 424, 431 Xasbvw 326, 334, 374 Xeramuhw 330

Other Anatolian Proper Names In Greek Arbasiw 334 Armadapimiw 339 Armapia 331 Armapiaw 331 Arpigramow 353 Arteimianow 410 Arteimaw 356, 410 Arteimow 356, 410 Arteimhw 410 Artimaw 410 Artimhw 356, 410 GÊghw 334 Dada 13 Eida 334 Eidassala 334 Ermapiaw 331 Ida 334 ÖImbrasow 335 Imrougara 335 Kendebhw 373 Kendhbhw 373

Kendhbaw 373 Kouadapemiw 339 Kougaw 334 Ktibilaw 340 Mollisiw 341 Mousathw 336, 386 Moshta 336, 386 Moushta 336, 386 Moutaw 386 Janduberiw 222, 245, 255, 375, 419 Oliw 421 Oraw 338 Oualiw 421 Ouajamoaw 255, 336, 427 Ouajamvw 336, 427 Ouramoutaw 338 Panamuaw 336 Perpenduberiw 402 Pigramiw 337, 361, 397 Pigramow 337, 361, 397 Pigrassiw 337 Pijaw 399

indices

514 Pijedarow 399 Ponamoaw 405 Salaw 334 Sedeplemiw 338 Tabhnoi 9 Tarkumbiou (gen.) 339 Triendasiw 341 Trokoarbasiw 334

In cuneiform sources Àla- 334 Arma- 306, 331, 347 Ayami/aimi 343 ›u-da-ar-lá 406 ›u-du-ur-lá 406 ›u-u-tar-li 406 ›u-ut-ra-la-(a“) 406 ›u-ut-ra-li-i“ 406 Immaraziti 335 Lukka 342 Massanaura 338 Millawa(n)da 342 Mutamutassa 342 Muwatalli 336 Muwaziti 336, 386 Nattaura 338 Petassa 336 Pi¢irim 337 *Piyama- KAL 339 Piyamaradu 339, 385 Pitassa 336 Puna-A.A = *Punamuwa- 405 Runtiya- 333 Tar¢u- 331, 347, 356, 423 Tar¢unt- 239, 247, 259, 260, 347, 356, 423 Tarhundapiya 339 d

Tar¢untaradu 385 Ura 338 Urawalkui 338 Walawala 428 Walawali 428 Wallarima 240 In Hieroglyphlic Luwian Tarhu(n)t- (TONITRUS-hut-) 347 In Lycian Erbbina 177 Esedepl‘emi 338 Hrixttbili 340 Idazzala 334 Ijãna 369 Ipresidi 335 Katamla- 244 Mullijese/i- 341 Natr- 162, 332, 389 Natrbbij‘emi 238, 332, 339, 343, 347, 389 Punamuwe 405 SedeplMmi 338 Teleb(ehi) 177 Trij‘etezi- 341 Trqqñt- (nom. Trqqas) 239, 247, 259, 260, 331, 347, 356, 423 Urebillaha (dat.) 318 Xbide- 203, 243, 245, 255, 297, 298, 371 Zzala 334 In Milyan Kridesi 407 Trqqñt- (nom. Trqqiz) Xbadiz 261

260, 331, 334

Greek Proper Names In Greek ÉAy∞nai 237, 243, 259 ÉAyhna›ow 155, 203, 237, 296 ÉApollÒdotow 332, 339, 389 ÉAristokl∞w 164 ÖArtemiw 356 ÉArt°mvn 238, 357 ÉArx°laow 354 Bragx¤dai 20, 251, 285, 402 Brãgxow 290 ÑEkata›ow 236, 238, 288, 375, 378 *ÑEkatÒmnhstow 378 ÑEllhnikÒn 2 ÑErm∞w 331

ÑErm¤aw 135, 305, 307 ZeÊw 289, 375 ÉIdrieÊw 140, 255, 438 ÑIpposy°nhw 155, 203, 236, 296, 298,

316 KarikÒn 2 Kãttouza 9 Kaun¤oi 155, 203, 296, 297, 299, 360 K≈Ûoi 271 K«w 8 Lusikl∞w 155, 203, 236, 237, 243,

248, 296,

380 155, 203, 236, 237, 243, 248, 296, 380

Lusikrãthw

indices M¤lhtow 342 Nikokl∞w 155, 203, 236, 249, 296,

380, 388 OÈliãdhw 236, 245, 248, 428, 432 ÉOrsikl∞w 431 Perikl∞w 431 P¤ndarow 242, 396 SkÊlaj 164

515

TÊxh 308 ÑUbr°aw 432 Fãnhw 135, 305 Crusaor¤w 416

In Lycian Lusãñtrahñ (gen.) 304 Perikle 431

Egyptians Proper Names In Egyptian J‘˙(?)[ 47 J.r=w 369 Jr.t=w-r.r=w 370 J-Ór 353 Js.t 128 Jtm 32, 424 W3h-jb-r‘-nb-[ 38, 387 B3st.t 251, 398 P3j-Wsir 398 P3-whr 405 P3-n-jwjw 397 P3-n-Wsjr 398 P3-n-Nj.t 393 P3-sb3-¢‘j-m-njw.t 350 P3-dj-Jnp 404 P3-dj-Jtm 395 P3-dj-‘nq.t 404 P3-dj-B3st.t 245, 395 P3-dj-(p3)-nΔr 404 P3-dj-Njt 33, 198, 242, 243, 245, 266, 395 *P3-dj-nfr 404 P3-dj-Ór-sm3-t3wy 244, 250, 399 P3-dj-sm3-t3wy 244, 250, 399 P3-dj-st 39 *P3-dj-t3wy 404 PsmΔk 194, 242, 249, 250, 398, 403 PsmΔk-‘wj-Njt 38, 198, 403 Pt˙-ms 420 Nj.t 249 Nj.t-jqr 243, 248, 249, 389 Ny-k3w 244, 249, 388 Nfr-˙r 242, 388 Ns-˙r 369 Ó3py 41 Óp-mn 353 Ór 391 T3-dj(t)-wsir 39 T3-dj(.t)b3st.t 245, 423 Ô3j-jm=w, Ô3j-n.jm=w 251, 194, 195, 416, 424

Ô3j-Óp-jm=w 424 Ô3[ = *Ô3-n-n3-j˙w

194, 425

In Akkadian Ta¢ma““i 420 In Greek ÖAmasiw 293 ÑApimenhw 353 Avw 353 ÉEsour 369 ÉEsouriw 369 Yamvw 251, 424 ÉIyorvw 370 Nek«w, Nexvw 244, 249, 388 Nefervw 242, 388 Nitvkriw 243, 248, 249, 315, 389 Panitiw 393 Peteyumiw 395 Petenaiyiw 395 Petenhyiw 395 Petenht 395 Petenoupiw 404 Petepnouyiw 404 Petetumiw 395 Petyubestiow 395 Petobastiw 245, 395 Petoubastow 395 Petoubestiw 245, 395 Pieuw 397 Pihow 397 Pih# 397 Pisiriw 398 Potasimto 244, 250, 293, 399 Pouvriw 405 Povriw 405 Samauw 251, 425 Samw#w 251, 425 Tamvw 251, 424 Tetobastiw 245, 423 Cammhtixow Cam(m)atixow 293, 398,

403 Cousennhw

350

516

indices

Old Persian Proper Names In Old Persian Vi“tàspa- 370

In Greek ÑUstãsphw

370

2. Languages Carian glosses in Greek êla 8, 11 bãnda 8, 11 g°la 8, 11 g¤ssa 8 ko›on, kÒon 8 10 soËa(n) 8, 10, 415 tãba 9 toussÚloi 9 tumn¤a 9

Cuneiform Luwian (CLuw) à/àya- 327, 343 annara/i- 262, 333, 352, 387 ànnari- 333 ànna/i- 347, 259, 273, 364 apa- 359 *arada-,* aradu- 332, 333, 385 arpa- 333, 334 *a““att(i)-, a““atta““a/i- 334 aduna (Inf.) 299 -¢a 306 ¢ant- 372 ¢andawat(i)- 294 ¢àpa/i- 334 *¢apài- 334 ¢ù¢a- 334, 345 ¢utarlà- 248, 260, 406 im(ma)ra/i- 335, 346, 393, 422 im(ma)ralla/i- 335 im(ma)ra““a/i- 335 *im(ma)ra““iya- 335 kui- 243, 259, 320, 377 -mma/i- 339, 343, 347 mà““an(i)- 260, 307, 327, 332, 347 mà““ana““a/i- 352 ma“¢a¢it- 351 muwa- 260, 335 nana- 284, 321, 388 -ppa 302 parì 340 pi¢a- 337, 345, 397 piya- 282, 284, 304, 327, 339, 396 pùna- 259, 337 pùnata/i- 337 “arra 340 “arri 260, 261, 302, 340, 411, 416

tàta/i- 259, 273, 347, 421 upatit- 433 ura- 338, 430 u““a/i- 344 wallant- 338 walli( ya)- 339 -wanni- 257, 260, 346, 367, 369, 371 wayamman- 427 wà“u- 344 za- 259, 288, 346, 410 zar“iya- 411 Hieroglyphic Luwian (HLuw) ataman- 355 atra/i- 258, 392 hasu- 334 nimuwiza- 383 pa- 359 para/i 340 piya- 282, 284, 339 tata/i- 347 ura/i- 338 wa/iliya 339 -wani- 346 za- 259, 288, 346, 410 Hittite (Hitt.) anda 287 andan 254, 287, 363 anna- 259, 347 ak(k)- 350 ar¢a 304 ard- 333 atta- 347 ¢anna- 332 ¢ant- 372 ¢u¢¢a- 334 innarà- 333, 387 ka- 288, 346, 410 kàn(i) 259, 288 kappi- 352 katta 300, 351 kattan 300 gim(ma)ra- 335, 346 kui- 243, 259, 260, 320, 377 gurta- 407 mald- 323, 427

indices malai- 427 midà(i)- 382 muwa- 335, 386 nà(i)- 284, 321, 388 naru- 333 nu- 285, 390 pài-/piya- 282, 284, 304, 325, 339 peda- 304, 336 parà 259, 260, 340 piyannài- 359 pulla- 401 “ara 340 “èr 260, 340, 416 “iu(n)- 332 -talla- 428 ura/i- 338 walli- 339 *walli- 338 walliwalli- 260, 338, 339, 428 wiyài- 427 Lycian (Lyc.) a(i)- 299, 300, 301, 309, 321, 347, 349 arawa- 300, 363, 435 arMma 258, 347 atãnaze/i- 259 atra/etli- 204, 258, 297, 392 -be 302 ebe- 290, 320, 359 ebeli 365 ehbi 348 ehbi( je)- 300 ‘ene/i- 259, 273, 313, 347, 352, 364 epñn‘eni 352 erbbe- 333 eri- 304, 364 ese- 294 hri- 260, 261, 302, 340, 416 hrppi 302 ipre 335 kbatra- 258 maha(na)- 260, 307, 327, 332, 347, 352 mahanahe/i- 313, 352 maraza- 335 me 324 -me/i- 339, 343, 347 mere- 335, 422 mle- 307 Mmai- 304, 390 n‘eni 352 nere/i- 292 -ñni 204, 260, 346, 369, 371 ñte 254, 287, 319, 363 pdd‘en- 247, 304, 336, 396

517

pije- 282, 284, 304, 325, 327, 339, 396 -ppi 302 pri 40 prñnawa- 290 punãma- 259, 337 rMmazata 254 se 347, 411 s=eññe 309 s‘eñnait‘e 413 sije- 259, 412 tãtu (imperative) 349 tede/i- 245, 259, 260, 273, 346, 347, 421 ti 243, 259, 320, 377 tike 377 trMmili( je)- 270 tuwe-, tu-s- 325 ube- 201, 239, 245, 259, 282, 321, 327, 347, 432 uhe/i- 344 xahba 258, 261, 326, 334 xawa- 10 xbid‘eñne/i- 203 xñtawa- 294 xñtawat(i)- 10, 260, 294, 364 xuga- 260, 326, 334, 345 xupa- 290, 429 -za 294 -ze/zi- 270, 392 zeus- 288, 375 Milyan (Mil.) ddxug[ 362 erbbe/i- 334 erbbesi 334 esetesi 334 ki 243, 259, 320, 377 -kike 377 masa- 260, 261, 237, 307, 332, 347 muwa- 260, 335 sebe 201, 239, 245, 327, 347, 411 -wñni 204, 257, 260, 346, 371 xñtaba 373 xñtabasi 373 xruwasaz (nom.-acc. pl.) 261 xuga- 334 zri- 260, 261, 416 Lydian (Lyd.) armta- 347 artimu- 356 bi- 359 bil-l 396 civ 332

indices

518 ‘ena- 346, 364 i≤tube lm- 370 kãn- 406 sareta 411 serli-/selli- 261 taada- 260, 346, 347, 421 -wn 298 Sidetic artmon 357 ma≤ara (dat. pl.) 347

260, 332,

Pisidian oudoun

426

Proto-Anatolian (PA) *anna-s 259 *armà- 258, 260 */be:H/- 257 *dáda-s 259 *·emro- 262, 346 *Hàwo- 10 *HuHo- 260 *∞o-/∞à- 259, 410 *kwis 259, 266, 320, 377 *obó/i- 359 *pédon 336 prò/prò 259, 260 *TºH–t- 259

Latin orca 391 urceus 391 urna 391 Old Persian kºka- 1 haya/taya 320 Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *bhèh2 - 246, 257, 260, 337, 345, 361 *dyew- 332 *h2e/owo- 10 *h2ent- 260 *h2n¶r 387 *h2onsu- 261 *∞e 411 *∞ei- 259, 412 *∞o-/Keh – 288, 410 *kwe 182 *kwi- 202, 259, 266, 320, 377 neyH- 284, 321, 388 *–-mºto- 262 *nu- 285 *pedo- 247, 336 *terh2 - 331 *8elH- 339 *8elh1- 339 2

Akkadian *narû 333

Greek êggelow 11 êmbrotow 262 aÊtoÊw (acc. pl.) 392 •autÒn (acc.) 392 ¶doje (aor.) 426 eÈrg°taw (acc. pl.) 428, 429 yeÒw 11 kombow, kombion 352 p°lekuw 399 proj°nouw (acc. pl.) 382, 411 s∞ma 288, 415 Ïrxh 391

Egyptian ‘3 32 ‘n¢ 32, 41, 128 ym 33 wnwtj 278, 429 p3 w˙m 41, 355 p3 ˙m-nΔr n Jmn 400 n 47 nΔr 32, 389 s3 47 snb 32 dj 32, 41, 128, 399 Coptic eiom 33

PLATES

Map 1. Carian inscriptions in Caria.

521

522

Map 2. Carian inscriptions in Egypt.

plates

Plate 1

523

524

plates

Plate 2

plates

Plate 3

525

526

plates

Plate 4